Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Administrative abuse by User:David.Monniaux

David sez: This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating Wikipedia's policies, most notably WP:NOT: Wikipedia user pages, signatures, etc. should not be used for advocacy. He then blocked User:Rookiee indefinitely and deleted, and then protected Rookiee's user- and talkpage. The "other policies" alluded to here were not mentioned anywhere, and the indefinite block apparently followed Rookiee readding of a link once. He was not warned following this.

David's allegation of "signature advocacy" apparently stems from the devious subliminal message Rookiee uses in his signature, and, ironically, David also had a links his homepage on his userpage. JayW 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee was warned in the strongest possible terms that an indefinite block was coming unless he ceased using his user page to promote pedophilia. Fred Bauder 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You alone do not have the authority to make such a warning. JayW 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
?!? Not only does he have "the authority", it's part of every admin's job description to protect the project, which this clearly falls under. This is a particularly weird comment, given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom. Jkelly 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
..here's a scenerio. I'm an admin. I go TheLand's userpage and discover s/he enjoys the violin. And as it happens, a violin raped my father last week. So I burst in hir talk page and declare - without any community discussion - that, should "TheLand" not censor her page immediantly to suit my delicate sensibilities, I'll single-handedly block her - without even asking others or a "warning" block - forever. Per WP:NOT of course, nothing to do with my personal prejudices... (I might even throw in a vague death threat, just for good measure.)
..and all this is despite the fact that hundreds of other people are also violating "NOT," yet they're still free to edit.
Within my rights? Y/N?
Of course, in the real world, violins are not blamed for everything imaginable, so this analogy might be just a little off.
"given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom."
uh. It's unfortunate you don't know what the ArbCom is? JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
My suspicion is that the above is an attempt to entertain yourself. If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Jkelly 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee." The point was that the ArbCom doesn't have shit to do with anything here and if you believe it does, you clearly don't know what it is. JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
They would be the place for an indefinitely blocked user to appeal the block. Again, you can find out more information about how dispute resolution works at the above link. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly: ergo, your point is ridiculous and Fred still doesn't have the right to bypass the wiki community. And you're yet to explained why a ban is more appropriate than a simple page protection. JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at an "analogy" goes far beyond reductio ad absurdum and simply into the realm of the bizarre. A violin does not advocate for, bluntly, the legalization of child molestation. FCYTravis 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rookiee was blocked on the basis of WP:NOT? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Good call. We are not a platform for the promotion of 'boylove'. The Land 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you do to his userpage, but the indefinite block is disproportionate, unfair, and against our own blocking policy. There was basically zip for dispute resolution, here. JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that lengthy dispute resolution is required when a user is blatantly violating Wikipedia policy, in a manner that endangers the project, and refuses to stop after repeated warnings. -- SCZenz 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There was an extensive discussion between a number of people, including senior administrators, on his Talk page. That's all the dispute resolution needed. From the content of that conversation, the content of the deleted edits to his user page, and the nature of his blog I am clear that Fred and others acted correctly. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and particularly not one for pedophiles. The Land 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The action was necessary and proper to defend the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I wholeheartedly support it. FCYTravis 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like Rookiee's userpage, blank and protect it. A block is not appropriate and not excusable. We have already concluded, after losing multiple editors, that paedophiles shouldn't be blocked for their orientation; wanna discuss it again? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The real shocking thing here is not the block, but that he has been allowed to last this long as it is. He was indef blocked with his userpage deleted in March, and it was reversed. Whenever a disruptive user is saved by other admins, they almost always end up getting blocked again. We need to stop this. Disruptive users or those who pose a threat have no place here - to hell with "rehabilitation" and to hell with AGF. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many people fail to understand that WP:AGF does not require that we continue to assume good faith in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary. FCYTravis 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I 100% agree with you, good editors should be encouraged to work through problems and continue to be good editors (though often by the time it gets to a block, it's well beyond that). But yes WP:AGF is not "look the other way", and maybe we do need a WP:NOT a psychiatrist's couch, daycare centre, rehabilitation clinic etc. --pgk 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Apart from that, feel free to send this to ArbCom, and please do not edit my user page. David.Monniaux 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Ever bring a plastic knife to a gunfight before, David? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You should consider attending to your own behaviour at this point. If your interest in Wikipedia is amusing yourself by making quips or scoring points on an internet forum, please find another venue. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"making quips or scoring points on an internet forum" Your attack is irrelevant, seeing as the above post was simply a reply to David's implication. How the hell is that a "quip?" JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"Quip" would be overstating; "confused non sequitor" is more descriptive. --150.61.31.119 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JayW for incivility and trolling. 24 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I continue to advance the notion that pedophiles should be blocked on sight. El_C 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line? Fred Bauder 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the block of JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't. He is swearing a lot and debating very aggressively. However, he is not sdimply trolling, he is trying to argue quite a serious and difficult point, albeit not very calmly. However if we blocked people for swearing when we were angry we'd all be fucking screwed. The Land 09:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Land that JayW should not have been blocked for swearing. Dionyseus 09:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The block is only for 24 hours, so I would let it stand. I hope that it gets the point across that making personal attacks against users (a blockable offense) is a no-go on Wikipedia and if he wants to debate the indef block of Rookie, then he should do so without the name calling an insults. As for the swearing, we all done it, but it should be a good idea that in a debate like this, just refrain from doing them (don't block just because he swears, but if the swearing is getting too much, come back here). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Everyking was banned from this page because of his repeated assaults on the actions of administrators. There is precedent, JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

hay guyz I have an idea, how about we discuss Rookiee's block instead? I really don't care about how many people you've censored before; I'd just like someone to unblock Rookiee ASAP, per policy, human decensy and common sense. Thank you. JayW 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

per policy, human decensy and common sense. Except for each of those "per"s being wrong, wrong, and wrong, not a reason not to do it. Other than, of course, being a completely ridiculous idea, that is. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am talking with Rookiee and Jimbo regarding his page. I would rather finish that conversation first. I hope he can be persuaded to make his userpage less aggressive. Simply restoring it short circuits the conversation. There is also hope he might consider not using the signature "revolyob" {boylover spelled backwards.} I think there is consensus that he can edit, on the same terms as others. The issue is using Wikipedia for pedophilia advocacy. We need to make an agreement with him though, not with his defenders as if he has to be constantly policed, it is better if he is not here at all. Fred Bauder 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Unblocking Rookiee is not going to go over well in certain circles. Some people are of the opinion that it is impossible for a self-admitted pedophile to remain neutral when editing related articles. Rookiee's pro-pedophile activities outside of Wikipedia are well-documented; phrases like "harboring pedophiles" are starting to be mentioned in relation to Wikipedia. Is that what we want to happen? Powers T 14:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing happening so far. Unblocking him is just not completely ruled out. Fred Bauder 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I remain boggled as to why it's not completely ruled out. Powers T 13:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, generally, we let people edit if they follow our policies. Blocking someone because they use Wikipedia as a soapbox is fine. Blocking someone because we don't like the thoughts they express off-wiki is not something we should dabble in (even when the thoughts in question are as extreme as "pedophilia should be legal"). — Matt Crypto 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I used to think that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy suggested a sort of 'free speech' approach which allowed all viewpoints, however unpopular, to be expressed. The 'userbox wars' suggested that this was not the case where the existence of 'potentially inflammatory' userboxes in the template namespace might be taken to suggest Wikimedia backing of such... as opposed to the appearance of similar sentiments directly on the userpage where it was then ascribed only to the user. This incident now seems to suggest that even things which are clearly only the user's individual views are to be suppressed if they are heavily disliked. If we are going to have this as a practice we should do so formally to avoid understandable confusion as to why 'pro abortion' statements (equally hated by some) are allowed but 'pro pedophilia' statements are not. Both are completely legal in the United States, where the servers are hosted, so this is presumably not a 'legal concern', but an 'image concern'... we don't want Wikipedia to be in any way associated with ideas offensive to the vast majority of our users. Does Nazism make the cut? Homosexuality? Does it vary by language (homosexuality being much more unpopular in some cultures than others)? The last time this came up some people were suggesting that homosexuals should be similarly censored... and you take this concept to the Arabic Wikipedia and I think it very likely that will be the case. Should expressions of support for 'Falun Gong' be barred on the Chinese language Wikipedia? Are 'pro pedophilia' individuals allowed to be users if they don't state their views or attempt to bias articles, or should they be banned entirely whenever identified (even by off-wiki blogs and the like) as some have suggested? We should spell it out. If Wikipedia is going to have a censorship practice we should have a censorship policy. Otherwise this will inevitably look (to those impacted and strong supporters of free speech) like individual admins enforcing their own biases. This is clearly censorship and thus I think we need to have some sort of guidelines from Wikimedia on what should be censored and to what extent. --CBD 12:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for something as provocatively (and unjustifiably) named as a 'censorship policy' to explain David's actions here, since they can be quite simply covered by WP:NOT ('a webspace provider') and by Wikipedia:User page. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 13:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Provocative? Unjustifiable? C'mon. In what way is it not censorship? We are barring statements of support for a particular viewpoint. It couldn't be more obviously censorship than it already is. And I'm sorry, but WP:NOT and WP:USER don't cover it because there are thousands of user pages which violate 'not a web-host' every bit as much. We aren't removing material because it is 'unrelated to building an encyclopedia'... we are removing material because of what it says. Using 'not a web-host' would mean sanitizing everything of that nature. When you do so only for particular topics it is clearly a different animal... and identifying which topics are verbotten can only help everyone. --CBD 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not censorship for the same reason that it isn't censorship for us to delete articles on non-notable topics: they don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Personally I would be quite content for 'everything of that nature' -- everything that doesn't relate to building an encyclopaedia -- to be 'sanitized' from userspace (although again that is another unnecessarily emotive word), but I think it is fair for cases of abuse to be looked at on an individual basis. Rookiee was invited to stop using his userspace for advocacy totally unrelated to Wikipedia or its projects, chose not to, and has faced the according consequences. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To me this seems like hiding behind a fiction rather than being up front about the realities of the situation. 'We are removing non-encyclopedic userpage material' may sound nicer than 'we are censoring pro-pedophilia views on userpages', but it isn't accurate. It paints a false picture of how Wikipedia works and opens the door for further confusion and conflict on this issue down the road. If this is going to be Wikipedia practice then we should have the courage of our convictions and say so rather than hiding behind a pretext which only gets used in specific instances. We don't blank user pages and indefinitely block people for saying they support gay rights, various political positions, and a hundred other sorts of advocacy... and thus it is absolutely clear that this isn't about removing non-encyclopedic advocacy in general (which I agree would be preferable to doing so selectively), but rather about censoring a particular topic. If we don't have the integrity to say so openly then you can't very well blame people for not knowing or not believing individual users on this issue. --CBD 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't really understand what you're complaining about. Rookiee was advised that his userspace breached several Wikipedia policies and chose not to do anything about it. I now hope the same action will be taken in other extreme cases of Wikipedians who use their userpages for proselytising, public soapboxing and other advocacy unrelated to our project. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complaining so much as urging clarification. You express a "hope" that this "will" be part of a widespread effort to remove proselytising... whereas I am expressing an 'observation' that to date it has not been, but rather a targeted effort on a particular topic. If this IS activity against proselytising in general then by all means let's say so and treat everyone the same way (right down to the indefinite block if need be)... but if it is activity against pedophilia in particular (as seems to me the case based on statements of the involved parties) then we should say that too and make it official that we censor users on that topic. No complaints. Just a request that we be clear about where we stand and what we do. --CBD 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Promoting pedophilia is adovcating an illegal act, which is illegal. As abortion is legal, advocating abortion-choice is not illegal. Powers T 13:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Powers, I suggest you read the NAMBLA article as you are very much mistaken about the law as it relates to 'speech' about pedophilia being an illegal 'act' in the US. It is illegal in some countries and a case could be made for 'Wikipedia avoiding illegality in any country'... but then you might have to tell all the female users that they aren't allowed to show pictures of themself on their user pages unless they are wearing a burkha. Good luck. :] --CBD 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I misspoke slightly. From the NAMBLA article you referenced: "The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to defend NAMBLA as a free speech matter and won a dismissal based on the fact that NAMBLA is organized as an unincorporated association, not a corporation. John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA 'may extol conduct which is currently illegal', there was nothing on its website that 'advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape'." That implies that advocating or inciting the commission of illegal acts would have been grounds for continuation. Rookiee's user page advocated and incited the commission of illegal acts. Powers T 14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If, as you appear to be arguing, this is supposed to be a 'legal issue' rather than an 'image issue' then it (obviously) ought to be handled by the foundation's lawyer rather than individual users who have no legal background and/or are not legal representatives of Wikimedia. However, I don't believe that to be the case because there is really no legal issue here. Your claim that he "advocated and incited the commission of illegal acts" just does not appear to be true. There were no statements encouraging anyone to engage in any illegal activity. Rather there were statements of his beliefs that it should not be considered illegal / immoral... which are protected speech. The distinction may be difficult to see, but it is very real in terms of the legality of speech. It is legal to say, 'I think mass-murder of lawyers would be a good thing'... but not, 'I want you to kill that lawyer'. --CBD 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
See Imminent lawless action for the actual U.S. dividing line between 'free speech' and 'speech as an illegal act'. --CBD 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I may have overstated the case a bit. I personally interpreted some of the content on his user page, and on linked pages, to be inciting actual acts of pedophilia (in the common sense, not the medical sense), but I recognize it was not clear-cut to everyone. Regardless, I have no problem with blocking users who persistantly push a pro-pedophilia POV. Powers T 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Advocating the change of law is not illegal, obviously, and that's all Rookiee has done on his userpage or anywhere else. "Libel," on the other hand, is a crime virtually everywhere. Watch it. JayW 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Powers T 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont know why you would think that him pointing out a legal aspect, libal, would be a legal threat if you yourself pointed one out above, that I am sure you did not mean as a threat. I think everyone just needs to calm down a little bit. I have no sympathy for pedophiles, but advocating a change of law is not illegal and wikipedia should not be against someone stating their opinion, however their userpage should not solely consist of soapboxing for their purpose. Then again we have many Democrats on Wikipedia who's pages seem to be quite similar. I am sure there are many legalize marijuana users on wikipedia as well. --NuclearUmpf 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

=

[edit] User:Abu badali

I believe User:Abu badali is unfairly harrassing me! He continually is retagging my images and listing them for deletion. After a big discussion, the fair use images probably should (or will be, anyway) be deleted. But now, I think he is unfairly targeting the images that I upload just because I argued with him. And the new images I uploaded were created by me anyway, so he has no right to retag them as not being created by me. Please, I need some help in dealing with him. Thank You. - Ivan Kricancic 12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point to an image or two which were marked by this user but for which you provided all the necessary information? Or are you saying that he is marking images which are missing this information? If the latter, the way to stop this from happening would be to provide all the necessary information and this would not really be grounds for a complaint. --Yamla 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a continuation from an early incident in which Ivan asked for administrative assistance. Some people do not agree with Abu's tagging, while it seems it does follow policy. I would have hoped after the issue comnig to AN/I that Abu would have ceased interacting with Ivan as it was clear Ivan felt it was malicious, however during the AN/I discussion it seems Abu went ahead and kept filing for Ivan's image uploads to be deleted. It seems to be at the very least a bad judgement call and did no good in helping to difuse the situation or ease a fellow editors worries. If Abu is randomly going through the list of images that needs tagging and finding Ivan's I guess that is fine, however if he went through Ivan's contribs to find image uploads then that may be a different issue. --NuclearUmpf 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Abu Badali is asking legitimate questions about the gfd-self tags on images such as Image:Sfxycwncgm.jpg. He's doing so very politely, too, given the circumstances. [1] Ivan, if you would show a little cooperation and provide more information about these photographs — such as when they were taken and the reason that they have ink patterns similar to newspaper print — then we could all move on. Your talk page is the correct place for this discussion (outside of WP:PUI); please do not delete AB's posts there as "harassment" [2]. ×Meegs 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Abu badali is unfairly targeting me. Polite or not, it is still harrassment; if I politely asked a girl if I could touch her ass, it would still be harrassment. I want nothing more to do with Abu badali, as he just serves to irritate, frustrate and drive peopel away from contributing to Wikipedia. If i see his posts as harrassment, I will delete them. - Ivan Kricancic 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We got thousands of image upload each day. Many of these are copyright infringements. There is a small number of people who understand the copyright laws, wikipedia copyright policy, the tools we have to facilitate the dealings with the images. Some of them devoted most of their effort to the unthankful job of sorting the images. Sometimes they are named the image police. Sometimes they are rude, but we can not live without them. Please do not make their life more difficult by harassing them, just provide the necessary info and try to be nice and maybe they will be nice in return. Unfortunately the demand for Abu Badali to leave you along is similar to the demand to traffic policeman to leave you alone. It would never happen. abakharev 09:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Muhammadhani

User has been warned repeatedly about submitting copyrighted information, and continues to do after my personalized warning. -- Merope Talk 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More information: This user is persistently creating articles that are copyvios. He has four {{nothanks-sd}} warnings, two {{nothanks}} warnings, and one warning from me asking him to stop copying and pasting content. Since that warning from me, he has created one more copyvio article. He's also doing something extremely strange: he's copying existing Wikipedia articles (e.g., Hub Power Company) and creating new articles with the word "Limited" appended to it (Hub Power Company Limited) even if that's not the name of the company. I can't remember, but I don't think that Wikipedia policy uses "Limited" or "Inc" in the titles of articles, but even still, he should be creating redirects. (I mean, he clearly knows those articles exists, since he copied them, formatting and all.) Nearly all of his edits are copying and pasting material (either copyrighted or from other WP articles). Since repeated warnings have not worked, perhaps a 24 hour ban? -- Merope Talk 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

for requests like this please use WP:AIV: you'll get a faster response there. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding facts about admin conduct

A group of admins wants to hide facts about their conduct. They abuse privileges and then if someone reports these, they wanna delete the report. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of worries me and I think a policy needs to be made regarding gathering of information. As a previous debate raged here earlier I think you have to tag the page as the start of an RfC or something to the liking. I think users shouldnt keep "attack" pages but I think we need to draw a clear line eventually as to what constitutes one. Considering the information is sourced with dif's I dont think its really an attack page. --NuclearUmpf 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Also not kind of worried about the offsite communication as numerous voters are not MfD regulars yet have found themselves to that page to vote, all being admins listed on the page. Perhaps we just need a page where people can post stuff like this for review by the community or something. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue... on the one hand suppression of dissent and on the other possible aggravation caused by being included on such a list. As such, I'd suggest we encourage people to keep such lists privately 'off wiki' for future reference and express dissent in written form rather than as a list of disputed actions. Some sort of consistent response to these would be a good idea though since it comes up fairly often. --CBD 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The "aggravation" stems from the admins actions. Nobody is included there id he did not violate policies. If someone has killed someone, well you can decide to mark him on the forehead as former killer or not. You can also go and say, we keep it only in an archive, and don't mark the forehead. What I see here is a perpatuation of a two class WP society. The admins can leave there markers on other peoples forehead, whether valid or not. But regular editors can't even collect evidence about the admins. I lately was denied AWB access by User:Winhunter, who still did not point me to the corresponding policy as I did request. Furthermore admins are free to alter my comments and if I revert can come in and put officiall warnings on my talk and point me to 3RR. Yes they are three, I am one. So 3RR is very easy deal for them, right? This is mega corruptive. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Mega Corruptive" would be a great name for an industrial band. And as far as I can make out, AWB use is left to administrative discretion. --InShaneee 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gathering data is good. Disrupting is bad. If people complain why not move it offsite? At least temporarily? Willingness to play well with others says more than any analysis of the content. WAS 4.250 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how this data collection page is disrupting. Offsite? Hey, how shall this be done? I have the FF browser and the wikipedia server. That's it. Shall I move it to meta? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking Geocities would probably be a better idea. --InShaneee 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming "OMG ADMIN ABUSE" is disruption in and of itself, as is complaining "The MfD isn't going my way". --InShaneee 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is complaining about a MfD but about the proccess being undertaken to eliminate information from Wikipedia that normally would not be removed. People have half completed RfC's all over Wikipedia and I doubt any admins are specifically hunting them down. However since an admin who is on the list found this it got sent to MfD. I believe this came up earlier and was stated that pages like this needed to be tagged as RfC's in proccess or something similar. As for disruption I don't really see how its disrupting anythnig if someone would have never taken it to MfD in the first place and left it alone. Perhaps if he moves it and removes the wiki-linking of names that will help, then noone will stumble on it? --NuclearUmpf 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the MfD is proceeding, so this is not the place to complain about its validity. --InShaneee 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is actually the place to complain about admins abusing procedure, especially if its seen as being done to cover up their own issues of the past. Since this user is asking for admin assistance regarding an incident, I really do not see a better place. --NuclearUmpf 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
...Except that no administrative actions have occured here. Anyone could have nominated that page for deletion, and anyone still can vote. --InShaneee 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has copied the entire contents of the abuse page, word for word onto the MFD. I replaced it with a link (note it is already linked at the top) and he reverted. It is a complete duplication of the abuse page and a link would be better to include as there is no point posting the same information over and over again. I won't revert again since I'm obviously one of the abusive admins, but for the sake of clarity and readability and just plain common sense, can someone please remove the duplicate material and replace it with a link? pschemp | talk 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

the fact that I copied it to the MfD, is that the orig may be altered. I have an updated version on my user page now. So I really would like to know which of the facts are wrong on the original page. That's why I copied it. Annotations can also be made better if the stuff is copied. Please go and say what is not violation of policies. Golbez who brought this to MfD right now, has done so only after he abused again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, it isn't admin abuse to want a readable page without the same exact information as the page proposed for deletion pasted in there again. I'm writing this now because I fully expect someone to come along and tell me that removing duplicate information and repleacing it with a link to the exact same information is harassment. Which it isn't. The whole point here isn't whether it is true or not. No one is going to go through and annotate anything. This issue is whether its appropriate to be sitting around in an encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG wikiadmin conspiracyz!!!11one Danny Lilithborne 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not troll here, your comments are not helpful in difusing the current situation. --NuclearUmpf 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This situation is not helpful for Wikipedia, and my comment was no more harmful than much of the nonsense being passed around in this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not really sure what you mean by this situation. A user/editor believes they are being targetted by admins who are attempting to hide information ... this situation is indeed not helpful at all. The more thought out response would be to explore the allegations not make trollish comments. Attempting to debase the conversation really serves no purpose to easing the editors feelings or solving their complaint. --NuclearUmpf 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting an entire page that is up for MfD ON the MfD is just NOT our practice. Tobias has inserted it three times already, and it has been removed by three different discussion participants. I've warned him to be careful of 3rr. In my view he's in violation in spirit already. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they all admins, are they all people voting delete? I mean if they are you would see why according to this discussion he all see's them as one. If people who are on this list are removing it then ... well it kinda goes toward his point, not that I agree. I just think he should keep the page without the wiki-linking so noone can claim they stumbled on it or its distracting anyone, and he should tag it as a future RfC. --NuclearUmpf 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course it makes his point for him...but only for people willing to believe in the Secret Admin Cabal(tm). And opinions about the fate of the MfD belong on the MfD. --InShaneee 20:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to argue this point with you, but the information has already been immortalized in the MfD log now, so whatever was attempting to be accomplished is now really moot. The discussion here is about admins deleting pages that contain misdeeds. As for Secret Admin Cabals, if you do not believe any admin would work with another admin for a negative purpose then you probably do not believe in meat puppets either or two users working to circumvent 3RR. Same principle, not every admin has to be stewing over a bubbling cauldron plotting world domination for their to be an issue. --NuclearUmpf 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well now. As far as I can tell the mature response to the original request here was "fuck off, troll". Everything since has been nothing more than gratifying the troll's ego and providing more comfort for those who wish to see Wikipedia reduced to anarchy. Jaded? You betcha. Guy 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this responding to me? If not please refactor your comments. I am not sure who here has said "fuck off, troll" or anything else in your post. If you are in fact jaded then you may want to take a step back and lower your wiki stress levels for everyones benefit. --NuclearUmpf 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter who Guy was addressing the comments to. That is obviously egregious incivility and personal attack and serves only to promote "anarchy". Guy, if you are that stressed take a break from whatever it is that is causing you grief. It's a big wiki and there is always something else to do. --CBD 11:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Usually" != "Always" ... Tell you what, Tobias. As was suggested before, if you want to start an RfC, a mediation request, an RfAr, or any other of our normal dispute resolution mechanisms, where rules of fairness and civility apply, everyone that is involved can give their views, and if you're willing to abide by the results of that dispute resolution process... I'll undelete the page for you and put it in one of those places, Just decide which, and say when, and I will be happy to help. But if you want to maintain a biased screed with no chance for anyone else to reply or rebut, and maintain it indefinitely, well... maybe you will find it a bit harder to get someone to help you. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the page being poof'd and keeping it poof'd. The page served no legitimate purpose on the project. Take it to MySpace. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The page should not have been deleted out of proccess. That is my only complaint. Its funny that an admin would do that when the issue is brought up that they may be trying to hide information, then delete the page when its on MfD. --NuclearUmpf 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was deleted out of process. Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A collection of a persons own quotes are not a personal attack. Unless they were in fact personally attacking themselves. --NuclearUmpf 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone's own quotes can be used by another with the intention of painting them in a bad light, as was the intention here. Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You pointed me to NPA and it does not list this phenomenon, it actually implies this list was ok. It states that saying someone is acting like X is ok since you arent calling them an X. In this case that is not even being done. If I missed something no NPA please quote it here. I also want to point out that the page was not deleted per NPA and was not reported under WP:PAIN where it would have been then, still making it out of proccess, instead the MfD was simply closed.--NuclearUmpf 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem finding autoblock

I'm having problems finding an autoblock that is blocking User:Agr723. The block was initially placed on User:Js2Jo. This user is trying to edit from 205.188.116.137. I know how to find autoblocks, I'm just not turning anything up in this case. I certainly placed the block on Js2Jo but there does not seem to be any outstanding autoblocks. Nor on the IP address. If someone could find out what's going on and unblock Agr723, I'm sure he'd much appreciate it. --Yamla 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... AOL proxies. That's your problem. I believe the following is to be used: Js2Jo(Autoblocks • block log). Ryūlóng 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have one word for you, Yamal, "n00b" HP 50g 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hp 50, I'm going to have to point out to you that Wikipedia is not a game, please be civil.--Konstable 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If you were using the toolserver autoblock script then because of some downtime that wasn't being updated for quite a few hours, I've just restarted it. --pgk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'M GOING TO SUE USER JOSHUA 316!! (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

I don't think it's serious. I'm pretty sure it's just a guy in my neighborhood we call "Bobo" who's hassling me and my friends again. Could someone please tell him to stop being a jerk. Thanks.Joshua316 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems more of a username violation anyway. Recommend implementation of WP:USERNAME actions prescribed for these situations (in short, blocking?}. --physicq210 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, he/she/it is now indef blocked. --physicq210 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request granted HP 50g 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, an edit summery you made, "Go away, Bobo. You know my dad's a magistrate and would never let this suit get off the ground." is not appropiate. I kindly ask you two, to take your legal hassling somewhere else. HP 50g 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report username cases like this to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response there most likely. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon user 82.32.80.231

I'm posting this here as it doesn't seem urgent per the instructions at WP:AIV.

82.32.80.231 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

This IP address has been used to make a grand total of 16 edits, all in the last 2 months. Every edit appears to be related to "Jack Andrews" and appears to me to be vandalism. The user seems to have been adequately warned and appears to me to be someone who is just here to cause problems. --After Midnight 0001 02:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • With such a long time between edits, a block is unlikely to affect them. Please keep an eye on him so we can react immediately if they post again, or add the IP to User:MacGyverMagic/Watch (bottom of first list) and mention this discussion in your edit summary. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New account created by blocked user

I was perusing the user creation blog and noticed the following:

"03:01, 26 September 2006 Asdon (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Hicking"

Asdon's user page notes:

"This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia."

--A. B. 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

However, Asdon was never blocked. I don't know why the {{indefblocked}} template is there though. --physicq210 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Update:
  • User:Prolfain wuhhd... added the notice.
  • Check out User talk:Prolfain wuhhd... -- has had warnings
  • Prolfain wuhhd... is now blocked
--A. B. 03:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is our friend in North Carolina. He just dropped a note on my talk page [4] asking me to help. I think he is genuinely "trying" to give up the vandalism habit, but doesn't quite get it, i.e. is not taking full responsibility for his actions, and is failing to recognize the harm he's done. Since I'm disinclined to be his babysitter at the moment I'm ignoring him for the time being, but do as you please. By the way there are probably at least a hundred "sleeper" socks of his around such as the one you found, and the one that moved his own MFD page just now. Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Some other personas I found; some have been addressed by admins, others have not:
I’ve run out of time to do anymore digging on this one.--A. B. 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Out "friend" is not trying to reform, but to continue to vandalize and then get some sort of recognition for it. He does this all the time, this is not reform. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search engines catching protected pages

I have received a complaint from Josh Humphries that the deleted page "Josh humphries is clearly GAY" has apeared among the top Google results for his name. I don't think anything can be done about it now, but for the next time: when you protect a page with an offensive/attack title against re-creation by vandals, be careful to delete it after a few days before the search engines and/or Wikipedia forks catch it. - Mike Rosoft 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an interface to Google that allows removing individual pages from the cache. I don't have the link here, sry. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a broader issue, maybe we need a "temporarilly protected" template in addition to the longer-term {{deleted}}. The short term one could be deleted after 48 hours or so... just used to stop a vandal on a creation spree (which as I recall does happen quite a bit). Being vigilant is a good idea in the meantime though, but mistakes are always going to happen. --W.marsh 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I submitted the request, it my take a while to be actioned. Guy 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, it can be removed from the cache (which is really not the point because the cached version only contains the {{deletedpage}} notice) - but can it be removed from the Google results? - Mike Rosoft 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon user 141.213.210.108

This user, from his edits, is almost certainly a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user:LaGrange.--Brownlee 14:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 209.18.49.15 need to be blocked

the ip 209.18.49.15 is a high school computer network IP, the network has over 500 computer. there has been over 79+ and counting each day.... vandalism that i could count. Student (at least from the school) should NOT be able to edite. (or at least not without an account)

--209.18.49.15 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the policy on school IP, but I put the repeatvandal template on the atlk page. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, already there. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request block of 64.8.175.8

I would like to request the block of 64.8.175.8 for recent vandalism on the Calling shotgun page. Further, his/her contribution history makes it clear that this is a repeat offender that should possibly be banned. -- Drostie 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidents like this should be reported to WP:AIV, you'll get a faster response there. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are the vandalism rules being manipulated?

Take a look at this diff. The next diff on the article shows that in the same minute, the same user reverted his/her own edit. This isn't the first time I've seen this - maybe it's only coincidence, but perhaps it's getting more common.

Are users such as the one above aiming only to get their comments into the article histories, thereby avoiding vandalism warnings and possible banning, while knowing that their edit will remain pretty much unactioned forevermore, ever viewable in the history? --Crimsone 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could be just a user experimenting with Wikipedia; this sort of thing happens all the time. If the user or IP doesn't have a history of vandalism; best is to put a {{test-self}} on their userpage. I just did for the diff you mention.
It should be noted that the inappropriate comment left in this case (calling Chris Moyles an obscenity) probably is not a legal issue (you can't sue someone for libel just because they call you naughty words); plus, old article versions aren't indexed/followed by search engines (at least those which pay attention to robots.txt).
--EngineerScotty 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I've seen it, I've assumed it's someone seeing if wiki really works, and, when they find out it does, deciding they don't want their comment their after all. It still needs "test" warning. It seems to occur with new users. Tyrenius 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Another plausible theory (I don't know if it applies in this case) is that the edits are being made by two different users behind one router, such as in the case of a school's computer lab. One person taps the other on the shoulder and says "heh, heh, look what I did", and the second person reverts it. Neil916 (Talk) 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, for what it's worth, I haven't been doing as much RC Patrol as I used to, but in what I have done in the last week or so, I've issued an unusual amount of {{selftest}}s. Then again, if they are reverting it immediatly, I'd say it's less of a problem, if anything. --InShaneee 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam problem, a deletionist needed!

I was wondering whether or not to deal with this myself, but instead of spamming up CAT:CSD, decided to put it here instead.

Over 40 (possibly more by now) user/user_talk pages contain:

Wikipedia is great!
The best source of information. [http://www.matei.org Dr.Matei] And it really is!

All these pages that link to the spam site click me. So I'd suggest blocking all these users, and speedy deleting all the pages that contain the link as they are obsolete and useless.

Of course, all the users which have placed the link is of course their only contributions.

I'd also suggest blacklisting the website. - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

Good luck!--Andeh 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Whoever the spammer is; he/she isn't going to get the affect she likes. I believe that URLs on user and talk pages are not indexed by search engines--all outbound links have the nofollow attribute set. Also, note that the site has been added to the blacklist; I've nowikid the URL above.--EngineerScotty 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, clean up is now over and pages deleted and spammers blocked. Might be able to find more about the spam via the remaining pages that link to the page.--Andeh 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Damn edit conflict - I blocked all (almost) the users and deleted all the pages (someone else got to a few before me! :D), so it should be gone now. Cowman109Talk 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is apparantely part of some college class at Purdue: www.matei.org/currants/2006/09/26/the-controversal-world-of-wikipedia/ (blacklisted) Naconkantari 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The page belongs to one Dr. ScottSorin Matei at Purdue ([5]), perhaps an admin ought to contact the good professor and let him know that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate breaching experiments; and will treat them as vandalism in no short order. --EngineerScotty 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Given the choice between publishing his whois info and encouraging people to call, e-mail, or comment on his blog; versus ignoring him, I vote for the latter. (I expect there's nothing a blogger hates more than being ignored). Thatcher131 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 62.171.198.5

This user's talk page is full of vandalism complaints and threats to block. I've discovered another: to the Discussion page under Karst topography, which I have corrected (see history). Perhaps a check on this user's recent activity will reveal more vandalism to talk pages, which is more insidious than vandalism to articles. Ian mckenzie 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with at AIV. This is a school in the UK and the last edit was 7 hours ago, so the kiddies are probably asleep by now, so no action. In the future we can try longer anon-only blocks. Thatcher131 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Willis' Sockpuppet Theater

According to the Steve Willis article, created a few days ago, Steve Willis is a "radio presenter" in Wolverhampton, who "attended Dormston School in Sedgley", and "has sat in for Adrian Kennedy on Dublin's FM104 phoneshow" . He also "appearedd on the Late Late Show".

Some interesting edits happened during the last week. Here's the cast of characters in order of appearance :

  • 82.37.179.220 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) doesn't like the imperial system, he prefers the metric system. He started his life on wikipedia (on the 16th) editing out unit translation in the imperial system from an article related to radio broadcasting. The next day, he does the same in the article about Sedgley. So far so good. On the 18th, we first encounter edits about a Steve Willis, added to the notable alumni of the Dormston School article (diff) as well as the Angelus one (diff) where we even get the url of his website. On the 19th, this is the turn of the Sedgley article to feature Steve Willis (diffs 1, 2 & 3).
  • EmmaWaldren (talk • contribs) makes her appearance on the 20th. Her first edit is to Angelus (diff) where we learn a certain radio in Wolverhampton is broadcasting the Angelus each sunday just before ... the "Steve Willis programme". She also edits Sedgley (diff) to add the name of Steve Willis (the previous addition had been reverted). See a pattern yet ? Her next edits will be to Talk:Sedgley where a user who had reverted the edit again makes interesting observations (check the talk page).
  • Back to User:82.37.179.220 on the 21th with an edit on ... Talk:Sedgley (diff), he seems a little confused as to who he is. Coincidently, immediately comes User:EmmaWaldren who adds her sig to the reply written from the IP (diff). No more contribution from Emma to Wikipedia after that.
  • Paul-Johnson (talk • contribs). His first edit ever on the 22th is a new article : Steve Willis. He also uploads the picture of Steve Willis (with permission of Willis by email he claims [6]).
  • Roy Wedge (talk • contribs) (contribs) makes his appearance on the 24th. He adds information about Steve appearing on the Late Late Show to the Steve Willis page (diff), adds Steve to the Late Late Show page (diff), and corrects the url of Steve's webpage (diff). No more edits from him.
  • The Steve Willis article is sent to Afd on the 24th (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis). 'Keep' comments are added by various users : User:ClaireLMillington (contribs], User:SineadNiNeachtain (contribs), our anon User:82.37.179.220, and User:Beetroot1 (contribs). All but our anon only have edits related to the AfD and they want to keep the article. Claire's first edit was to erase the AfD entry (diff). User:Paul-Johnson also commented.
  • I ommited a couple edits from User:82.37.179.220 on the 24th, still obssessed by Steve Willis, whose name is added to the 1974 page (diff), and to the FM104 page (diff).

I think Steve's show deserves a round of applauses.

Anyway, we have someone here making a farce out of the editing process of Wikipedia, as well as the AfD process currently going on on this entry. I'm not sure what actions should be taken, I'll leave that up to the Wikipedians reviewing this. I'm also not completely sure AN/I is the right place for such a report, so please tell me where to post this if it's not. Equendil Talk 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some more fun:

I am a new user, and I have been reading this report. Out of noseyness, I found his website, and I saw a notice about it on the font page. I just thought you should all know. http://www.stevewillis.eu - D@taM@n 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What's really amazing about this comment is that it was made BEFORE the notice appeared on the frontpage of the website. Amazing stuff, eh? Must be magic - or maybe a magic SOCKPUPPET with a poor grasp on the order in which he should do things. --Charlesknight 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides yet another new puppet above, anon IP User:82.37.179.220 has vandalized User:Charlesknight's user page. Equendil Talk 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • September the 26th. A new anon User:82.47.100.243 makes his appearance on the AfD page, he wants the article to be kept, claiming he vaguely heard the name of Steve Willis in Dublin years ago (diff). His IP traces back to blueyonder in ... Wolverhampton, which of course also happens to be true of the other anon involved here (IP info [7] [8], whois [9] [10]). Blueyonder is also Steve's hosting company. Equendil Talk 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another thewolfstar sock

220.68.74.149 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) This diff says it all:[11]. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked, but I think in the future you shouldn't respond to his messages. Don't entertain him. —Khoikhoi 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And another: 211.192.251.157 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 03:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the IPInfo and Traceroute tools on the IP talk pages, it looks like Maggie's using Korean proxies. Maggie's obsession with disrupting Wikipedia is getting a little frightening. I really wish she had given up with WhiskeyRebellion. Captainktainer * Talk 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
She's been getting help and advice. After she got knocked off as Wolf Star, she was invited to go over to WR. That she's war dialing open proxies is not attributable to her genius. Geogre 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that I can use a resolution process to resolve my disputes? How am I supposed to do this without using proxies if you keep blocking my ip address? Also, Geogre, it would be nice if you didn't make personal attacks against me by saying things like "is not attributable to her genius". Okay. I'm asking for a mediation or an arbitration to resolve why I was indefinetley banned the first time for making a personal attack against RyanFreisling. If I had been (rightfully) blocked for a week or even a month, I would have learned my lesson, and I never would have made all these socks. The indef ban was wrong and I am asking for a resolution. Maggie
I don't know anything about why you were blocked originally, but your account Lingeron was headed for an indef block on it's own, aside from the fact that it was a sock. Even if you shouldn't have been banned the first time (which I doubt), your actions since that time more than deserve an indef block. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Users banned by the community can appeal their bans to the Arbitration Committee or (theoretically) to Jimbo. Such appeals should be by email. See WP:ARBCOM for a list of the people on the committee. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For those unfamiliar with Maggie/Thewolfstar's Wikipedia career

I issued the original indefinite ban in May of this year and here is the original ANI discussion of my proposal to do so. Maggie's the most abusive and unreasonable user I've ever encountered, for my part. She wasn't in any "disputes". Not unless you count it as a dispute that she would like to turn the encyclopedia into a political soapbox, and the community wouldn't let her. Each of her socks has been disruptive in and of itself; that, taken together with her rather narrow subject-matter, is how we recognize them. Here's an attack on Wikipedia posted on her site. Maggie, that you have a hatred of Wikipedia doesn't constitute a dispute, you know. How exactly do you see it being mediated? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

That malicious attack was ungrounded and unsourced, Bishonen, and doesn't speak well for you. I have a dispute, and that is that your indef ban on me was unwarrented. And since when do disputes get resolved on ANI? As for the accusation of how "abusive" I am, I find you the most abusive admin that I have ever encountered. The article I wrote was a direct result of repeated admin abuse to me, personally, and to others, and I delayed posting it on my site for a couple of months -- until it was obvious that nothing was going to change. The ANI smearfest speaks for itself.
I was never given the same opportunity through dispute resolution that any other user gets -- no rfc, no mediation, no arcom. Similarly, when I was banned, my page was protected so that I wasn't even allowed to defend myself there. And although I am ready to admit my part and my wrongs, I am also ready to dispute the indef ban, as opposed to a temp ban, and to show how it was done wrongly, out of process, and not a community ban at all.
Another important point, Bishonen, is that you told me that you were giving me another chance to edit, under another username, and promised me that you, yourself, wouldn't block me. And yet you have blocked me over and over again. What was your rationale, for instance, of blocking Buckyball-z your block Buckyball-z (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)? Or for the blocking of Laplander, or Leavesofgrass, or JesterBuster? Incidentally, four of these are not my socks. Maggie
Apologies to the community for feeding, this will be my last post on the subject, but that's a fine illustrative wolfstar "important point" for the readers of ANI. I didn't block those socks. FreplySpang blocked Buckyball-z and Laplander, Mackensen blocked Leavesofgrass, and Ral315 blocked JesterBuster. Block log entries here: [12], [13], [14], [15] Bishonen | talk 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
There was no reason for Whiskey Rebellion to get blocked either. Whiskey Rebellion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Maggie
I have blocked the IP abakharev 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User GreekWarrior

GreekWarrior (talk • contribs) was blocked for six months some time back (28 Jan per Tony Sidaway's comments on user's talk page). If the intention of the block was to produce a change in behaviour, it evidently didn't work. Today we have the editor trolling on Talk:Armenian Genocide (diff), attacking User:Adam Carr (diff), and trolling again (diff). Per this diff, the editor is editing anonymously as 86.140.42.192 (talk • contribs) and probably as 86.143.173.80 (talk • contribs). Some people never learn, and this appears to be one of them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well he admitted to be using sockpuppets and his language is already looking to foreshadow some disruption - I'd support indefinite blocking him and blocking those IPs if they appear to continue through his block again. Cowman109Talk 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I proposed a community permanent ban originally but this was rejected because it appeared that, at the time, he was interested in contributing and he was producing good work, albeit his anti-Muslim or anti-Turkish edits were beyond what can ever be accepted. Well if he has returned and started disrupting, I propose again that we ban him from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I also note that GW had the explicit opportunity to be unblocked if he promised to (and followed through with) avoid personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive behavior. Instead, he chose to wait out the block, possibly using sockpuppets. If he had any intention of reforming, he didn't have to wait 6 months to do so. Powers T 16:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I may have been waay off base here but nevertheless, we shall hopefully soon see Glen 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This was a second thread started below on same editor - combined for efficiency Glen 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GreekWarrior (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), who has a long history of blocks for politically motivated personal attacks and nationalist hate speech and was blocked for 6 months in January, is back to his old ways. He got a warning for this [16] attack on another contributor two days ago, and he is now trolling talkpages as an anonymous IP, 86.140.42.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). Self-identifying as GreekWarrior here: [17], further instance of hate speech here: [18]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I now see he's apparently also identical to 86.140.42.192 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), who already earned a 24-hour block on 22 September [19]. Self-id as GreekWarrior: [20]; abusive edits: [21], [22], [23], [24]. I suggest an indef community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: Also 86.137.172.220 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) and 86.143.173.80 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). Same story, back in August. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Update 3: Independently of me, someone filed a RCU, digging out some older IPs that take us back into May, showing that he was also evading his January block all the while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I endorse that. He has tested and stretched the communities' patience far enough with POV-pushing and personal attacks, as evident above. Daniel.Bryant 07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note that NickOfCyprus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is evidently the same user, judging from his editing profile, though seemingly showing more of the Dr Jekyll than the Mr Hyde side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This case brings back memories of Argyrosargyrou (talk • contribs) (RfArb). Could the two cases, GreekWarrior and Argyrosargyrou, be linked? Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 10:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh happy memories... ;-) Okay, no, that was actually before my time. But I've heard of the guy. He was around after his ban as Thrax (talk • contribs) and got himself quickly in trouble too, but I actually think he's different from GreekWarrior. His style is all monumental stupidity and blustering; GreekWarrior is a tad more intelligent when it comes to actual content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, using VoA's comparison tool for GreekWarrior and his most active sock with this guy showed: Done: edit comparison between Argyrosargyrou (973 scanned) (5 block(s)) and 86.138.0.221 (463 scanned) (2 block(s)) finished. (no matches) Glen 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Per latest checkuser findings I have now indefinitely blocked GreekWarrior (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Socks are fairly obvious now knowing the pattern and spoken to CU clerks a bit more. I will keep my eyes open. Thanks all! Glen 23:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming for DRV

User:Kappa has been doing a great deal of internal spamming / votestacking related to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22#Finger Lakes Christian School as seen here [25] and here [26]. --After Midnight 0001 03:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Moly, that's alot of messages in a short amount of time. I'm dropping a message. Yanksox 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have stopped for now. I will make a note if he starts up again. JoshuaZ 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I rolled them back: Aside from the spam of it, he accidentally put all of these talk pages in a category, and half of the users haven't edited for months. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did Kappa only post to a specific type of contributor to influence the result or did he inform everyone who was previously involved in it some way. As long as such a mass mailing has a fair chance at backfiring because he also contacted interested deletionists, I wouldn't oppose it. - Mgm|(talk) 08:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • He only contacted inclusionists and did so specifically using the category in question. He says so in the message. He also refused to consider contacting anyone but inclusionists. See his talk page. JoshuaZ 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • All I know is I "voted" to delete in the AfD, and no one was coming to my talk page to let me know about the DRV. At any rate, as far as I know we've never come close to establishing that "vote spamming" or what have you by itself is actually anything blockable... not really sure what intervention is required here from admins. --W.marsh 13:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That DRV needs to be closed and rerun without the spam. And Kappa needs to be trout-slapped. Guy 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take "Reasons DRV needs to move to a consensus-based model" for $400, Alex. DRV's the only place that vote-stacking would theoretically work, being the only pure straight-vote process on WP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Or we could just, you know, suppress vote-stacking. Oh wait, WE ALREADY DO THAT. I'll take "Process wanking" for $100, Alex. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No, this is a bit worse than vote stacking, as this is a long, long, long time problem with articles pertaining to only one subject. It's a ridiculous monomania. It's not Kappa's first foray into the darker side of astroturf for a high school. Geogre 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
George, that's a strong accusation. Do you have any relevant difs? JoshuaZ 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is rather extreme; he's just going past a long list alphabetically, and judging by his contribs he's about halfway there. Since the disruption is obvious, I'd be in favor of blocking him until the DRV is over. >Radiant< 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is too much lobbying going on with deletions. Articles for deletion are listed on wiki projects to get people to vote protectively, or worse this. Schools in particular have historically been the subject of much lobbying (Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch) for instance. I don't even bother anymore, it won't stop until every school in the U.S. and mispelled variations are stubs on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 17:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Trans25

Is this someone's sockpuppet? I rolled back their first two edits ever here. An attempt to sabotage an RfA like this is very odd. I just left a blatant vandal warning. Grandmasterka 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead blocked indef after the user removed my warning. This is too strange. Comments? Grandmasterka 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried checking further back. Are you 100% sure they didn't revert some blanking without mentioning it in their edit summary? If not, that block is fine. Posting comments using someone else's signature is something I have an absolute zero-tolerance for. - Mgm|(talk) 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a clear case of vandalism - compare the date when the adminship nomination started with the dates of the comments. Obviously, the user has copied them from another user's RfA. - Mike Rosoft 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I even recognized which RfA they were copied from. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TruthbringerToronto. Grandmasterka 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.D. Salinger requesting semi-protection

The J.D. Salinger (history) article has been the subject of repeated petty vandalism by anon IPs since the begining of August but especially since the start of September. Some of the vandalism has been more serious including on particluar unsourced claim about Salinger's sex life entered in a (poorly written) article style (i.e not just the usual chants of "He's XXXX"). Because of WP:BLP these sorts of unsourced claims must be removed. But the constant petty vandalism makes it hardeer to stay on top of. The last time this particular claim was made it stayed in for 5 days before being caught.

Could we get the article semi-protected for a while? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gwernol 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please use WP:RFP for future protection requests instead of here. Cowman109Talk 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political org editing

Please take a look at the edits by 65.118.45.2 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). This IP has been making very politically stilted edits to several articles including ones related to the Viriginia Senate election and labor laws. This wouldn't normally peak my radar except that the IP is owned by "National Right to Work" (http://www.nrtw.org), which is a political action group. Does this make it to or cross the border of inappropriate editing? --StuffOfInterest 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits appear to have been reverted, I gave them NPOV0 on their talk page. Nwwaew 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User TDC Violating Content Revert Parole

Please investigate TDC for violating his content revert parole. This user is limited to one content revert per article per day due to past infractions [27]. TDC is reverting material he disagrees with from the Sandinista National Liberation Front article. Three times yesterday [28] [29] [30], twice today [31] [32]. Abe Froman 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohh please! The additions to the article, like comparing the research of a respected historian to the movie Red Dawn, is childish vandalism, and all of this was spelled out on the talk page. The above user continues to insert this ridiculous material, including the bad faith use of tags, also a defined form of vandalism, as an attempt to goad me into a block. If an admin does look at this, please take this into account. These were not content reverts, it was reverting vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the dispute here, but this is certainly a content revert by TDC.--csloat 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see you join in on the pile Sloat, but I am allowed one content revert per article per day and I justified it on the talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to argue on this board. TDC is limited to one content revert, per article, per day. This user had two today, and three yesterday. Abe Froman 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
We will most certainly have this conversation here if you are trying to get me rail roaded, and I self reverted myself to remove any sense of impropriety. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
TDC continues today to violate his revert parole of one revert per article, per day. [33] [34] This is the third consecutive day of violations. Please investigate this user. Abe Froman 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he is removing a lot of nonsense if you ask me...I say good work TDC.--MONGO 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School Ip *MUST* be blocked

The following ip: 209.18.49.15 is the ip address of Parkland High School

Please take a look at his Contributions, there must be over 500 vandalisms that I can count for! every single edit is a vandalism or spam!

All of the edits including the one from today have been vandalism.

Please Act! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.18.49.15 (talk • contribs) 27 September 2006.

Has been blocked for six months Glen 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel good about this. I would be unhappy if I was blocked from my school with thousands of other attending students and faculty FOR 6 months. Isn't that a little bit too harsh?--Edtalk c E 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as account creation is enabled, I see no problem with blocking this continuing vandal IP address. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
But even if someone has an account, won't he or she still be blocked because he or she is using the said school IP? WhisperToMe 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
True...can we verify that subscribed users are not affected?--Edtalk c E 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ipblocklist says the current setting of the block are: "* 01:00, 27 September 2006, Pilotguy (Talk) blocked 209.18.49.15 (contribs) (expires 01:00, 27 March 2007, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Please have an authorised represenative from your school contact me to have this block lifted)" --WinHunter (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As for those of us who wish to contact the school: Its telephone number is 610-351-5600 [35]; e-mail the Parkland School District at parklandweb@ParklandSD.org WhisperToMe 02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No contact needed, unless the school has a student policy regarding logging on to an online community server. (Believe it or not, but Wikipedia would normally be included in Computer Use Policies)--Edtalk c E 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Most school districts have those policies, so I would call them anyway. WhisperToMe 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Quibble: Let's suppose that this was a computer class having "fun." If so, the block should be for three months, not six, as semesters end and kids get shuffled. My feeling is that they'll hit the block, get dissuaded, and won't try again. Therefore, a 6 month block is definite overkill, and 3 months is possible overkill. Of course, folks can continue to use Wikipedia while blocked, but not edit it. Geogre 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoo. I've shortened the block to 3 months, allowing account creation and blocking only anonymous users. I've also included a link to my E-mail should any legit user want to give me a ring. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathannoblet

Could I ask some admins to review the edits of Nathannoblet (talk • contribs) thanks? I've been dealing with this editor for nearly two months now and am beginning to wonder if they're either a highly inexperienced user, a very young user, or a troll looking for a reaction. I've asked a few other admins to take a look but not received a reply as yet, so brought it here for community review. -- Longhair 01:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sound and Fury aka User:Triumph's Hour aka User:WasistDas? aka User:67.42.218.153

This user, believed to be banned user Triumph's Hour (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), was pleased to note that the last checkuser request against him/her was declined, and since then Sound and Fury (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has continued his vandalizing and abusive conduct, admitting his vandal sockpuppet WasistDas? (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). And for a less-than-hilarious AIDS joke, check out the user's post to the AIDS talk page, also posted to his user page. Not sure what else the user has to do to demonstrate ill-intent. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez...I indef blocked Sound and Fury and WasistDas? and gave the IP a month block. It would be nice if a simple explanation could be given when checkuser is declined, instead of just to say "declined".--MONGO 08:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Website removes my link

Greetings: Another Website removes my link UOForums.com removes my link uoplayers.com from the Ultima Online External Links. I posted our link earlier today and tonight in it's place is UOforums.com My link is gone.

This is what was there earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online


External links UO.com - Electronic Art's Ultima Online site. UO Stratics - Fan site with news, information, and history. Town.UO.com - Ultima Online sites and fan sites. UO Players - Ad-Free All UO Site & Forum With News, Updates, Info & History.

I will attempt to ad my link once more. In the meantime can you please look in to this?

Thank you in advance

Umm, links are a bit of a sensitve manner, people may address links as spam even if they aren't - please don't be offended -- Tawker 02:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians had the good idea to link to a "site of sites", http://town.uo.com/links.html, as the only external "fan" link, you can get your forums listed there and everyone will be happy. Equendil Talk 03:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
User has been sending private emails to admins in order to get help. Look my reply:
The reason is because the "external links" sections are not used as a web directory: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL added, it means also that usually

fan sites aren't added and they're considered spam, when such attempts to include them are very persisten, they get blocked to stop the behaviour.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT for more information, specially the sections Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links and the sections about promotion and advertising.
So the whole "a mean competitor" points to a advertisement/promotion from both sides, and thus they should both be removed

-- Drini 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias Conradi

Please block this user for the insults he has just made towards me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYogyakarta_%28special_region%29&diff=78052219&oldid=78050736

In addition this user has been moving half a dozen pages without first consulting anyone who has been involved in the Indonesian related wikipedia articles, thereby breaking hundreds of links to these pages.

(MichaelJLowe 05:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Tobias did go over the line by insulting the "processing power" of your brain, but is this enough to warrant banning him? You did provoke him by accussing him of knowing "nothing about Indonesia." Please be kind to each other and nicely form a consensus on the naming of these articles. You might try explaining why you like your preferred title for the article and then politely asking him what he thinks is better about his preferred article title. Good luck. --Jecowa 06:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at the history of this guy. He has a history of this stuff and has been blocked many times before. There are alot of people in the Indonesia wikipedia community who are tired of him moving pages around (using just he move button) and we have asked him to stop. He is continuing on his merry way, and the only thing we can do to get the pages moved back is for every single page to go though the long and painful "request move" process. We're becoming tired of his antics and he needs to be stopped. (MichaelJLowe 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC))
I support Michael in requesting someone "in authority" tap him on the shoulder about his unilateral actions and work more collaboratively. --Merbabu 06:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a third party needs to alert him to the fact that the comment linked to above is not accepted, but considering the apparent provocation, I personally think a block is too harsh. Daniel.Bryant 06:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How then can we get him to stop making unilateral moves of articles? (MichaelJLowe 06:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC))
Yes, i think that is the main concern really, rather than a block. Although i am also sympathetic to Michael's frustration that resulted in a perceived "provocation". He's been adding value to numerous Indonesian articles almost daily and knows his stuff. Then this guy comes along like a charging bull. --Merbabu 06:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Not the first time. You may wish to research Tobias' history. He's had ArbCom filing(s) against him iirc. The feeling has always been that it's up to him whether he wishes to remain with Wikipedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, insulting another editor and then bleating to the sysops when he kicks back is not exactly demonstrative of good harmonious editing practice. Guy 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Looks like you're sniping at each other. Knock it off, please. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we have now had five people comment on the alleged bickering. But, what about Tobias' insistence on moving articles around unilaterally without waiting for consensus or procedure? This is the real issue. He has been busy at it since we first mentioned here: [36] He has specifically said he will do what he wants in this regard [37] --Merbabu 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can a neutral admin look into this please? If Tobias is moving pages without consensus, this behaviour needs to stop, so do the fair thing and warn both parties that their behaviour is unacceptable, rather than ignoring it. I can't do this since I'm a previously listed abusive admin by Tobias, but bickering or not, if people are behaving badly and disrupting pages, they *ALL* need to told to cut it out, not just MichaelJLowe. pschemp | talk 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
CBD is trying to defuse the entire situation. If I remember right, CBD was the admin who protested the treatment of Tobias the last time there was a blow-up, and asked to be given a chance to handle the situation more gently next time. Well, it's now "next time", and he's giving it a try. IMHO he should be given a chance. - TexasAndroid 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
CBD counts as person looking into the situation. I just want to make sure someone is, and so far, there is no note here that someone is. pschemp | talk 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you people. I don't have anything against Tobias but I would like to see a more collaborative approach (although Michael was (justifiably?) annoyed yesterday, he is a reasonable person from my experience and is likely to share my sentiments on reflection). I will also be extra careful do what i can to avoid or diffuse any more "spats". I know people have better things than to be referees, but i think working together on important changes it is important - particularly given the high volume of articles affected. Thanks again. --Merbabu 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GreekWarrior

Moving up ^^ there to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User GreekWarrior :) Glen 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Clerk's Edit in Arbitration Page

A request was made in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Invention_of_radio_and_some_pages_that_it_links_to for a clerk to reogarnize the statements. The clerk did so, and User User:Anthony Appleyard reverted his changes, a violation of procedures (and not helping his case). Sparkhead 11:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't make a big deal out of it–the request will no doubt be rejected anyway. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw that User:Anthony Appleyard changed it back. I ignored it because fixing it would cause more disruption than it is worth for now. An arbitrator can deal with it if needed. --FloNight 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate MfDs

While on new page patrol, I noticed two inappropriate MfDs started by two new, redlink users (User:Mrl2 and User:Pswrsw respectively). They are: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mrl2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pswrsw. I don't know if this is a case of ignorance or trolling, but either way, these should be deleted. Srose (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info deleting vandal

Justif (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is insisting on removing neutrally-phrased, well sourced information from Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox and will not discuss edits. David | Talk 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. I'm baffled as to why mentioning Cox's campaigning against slavery should be considered libellous. --ajn (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FA Cup 2006-07

  • User 82.47.137.35 has recently added low level vandalism to this article. As he has just started doing this I think this is a first-level "heads up" on possible vandalism in the future. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And I've just spotted him vandalising Hebburn Town F.C.. A look at his contribs suggest this is a user to watch. 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TristanMiller (JarlaxleArtemis sock)

TristanMiller (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a probable sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), being used for vandalism. Please block. —Psychonaut 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Grandmasterka 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator Review - comment requested

I've proposed a new page for complaints by users about admin actions. As it is directly relevant to the traffic here on AN/I, I'd like to briefly spamvertise the proposal and seek feedback. Please see this entry on Village Pump for more information. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC works, we just need to make sure that people understand that this isn't RFC. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JarlaxleArtemis socks/dopplegangers

The following confirmed socks/dopplegangers of the permanently banned user JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) need to be blocked:

—Psychonaut 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

All done. JoshuaZ 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Also note for futrure reference that all these were legal sockpuppets per WP:SOCK made a while ago to prevent impersonation. They are therefore banned not per WP:SOCK but as legitimate accounts of a community banned user. This is relevant in case we ever consider unbanning. JoshuaZ 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring other user's comments

User:Italian boy, alias User:Gaúcho, keeps reverting article A.S. Roma to his version, ignoring other user's (mine) comments - he simply reverts. What I am asking is to compel him/her to discuss his/her position, since no consensus to his/her version has been achieved. Thanks.--BaldClarke 19:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it for now. Get together with Italian Boy and see if you can come to a consensus on the problem. --Kbdank71 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried, as you can see here, but he simply reverted without further comments (see article history).--BaldClarke 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User TDC, Third Consecutive Day of Revert Parole Violation

The article Sandinista National Liberation Front is becoming hard to edit because a revert parole user is harassing it. User TDC is limited to one content revert per article, per day. [38] Abe Froman 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is now protected, so hash out the differences on the talk page. I'll look over TDC's reverts, but I see mostly more of an attempt to reorganize than much removal/addition of content.--MONGO 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As MONGO and Torturous Devastating Cudgel have relationships from previous articles, I ask that a fresh admin look at Torturous Devastating Cudgel's reverts. Each removed cited content. Abe Froman 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it appears you are using a prior ruling against TDC to be able to circumvent his editing and this allows you to force your edits over his...that's simply wrong and the reason I protected the article...so hash it out on the talk page. If a resolution cannot be achieved, draw up an article Rfc.--MONGO 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The prior ruling exists because the user in question harasses pages. One content revert, per article, per day is this user's limit. This limit has been broken three days in a row. Abe Froman 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As stated before Abe, many of your edits were childish vandalism, pure and simple. Secondly, I am well aware with what a content revert is and go through great lengths to avoid them at all costs. Lastly, there is an RfC, so I think we should allow the community to decide this one. If you will swear off editing this article until a consensus has been reached, so too will I , and it can be unprotected so others can continue to work on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This issue is being confused by the dispute in the article. Keep that in the article. That is not the purpose for this posting to the Incident Board. Torturous Devastating Cudgel is on day three of violating his content revert parole. An admin should know what to do. Abe Froman 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Your WP:Vandalism is not a content issue. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why haven't I been reported for vandalism? That's a BS attack meant to cover a clear revert parole violation. All I ask is an admin without prior editing kinship with Torturous Devastating Cudgel review his reverts. Abe Froman 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I try not to use a dministrative sanctions and wiki-lawyering tactics on others as a way to force my edits down their throats. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Abe, if this isn't evidence that you are trying to use a prior ruling on TDC to supercede his right to edit the page, I don't know what it is. This is why I have protected the page...so work if out there, not here...solve content disputes on article talk pages. You'll notice I protected the page on your last edit.--MONGO 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[[User:TDC|TDC[] is allowed one content revert, per article, per day. If an administrator is unable to apply the rules because of a special relationship with a particular user, they should step aside and let an unbiased administrator look at the situation. Abe Froman 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, they aren’t going to gain you many fans here. Just because MONGO and I have edited the same articles from time to time, means very little in the grand scheme of things. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking these over, I see the first one was an article change and the second one was a reoranization of material and an addition of something else.--MONGO 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In this set, I see one edit, another unrelated edit where he removed unsouced POV "Mitrokhin's allegations are not supported by independent corroboration, despite the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and subsequent opening of archives. Indeed, Mitrokhin's allegations conform closely to the plot of the 1980's cold-war movie Red Dawn." and a third where he made a wording adjustment.--MONGO 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As stated above Abe, comparing the work of a well know historian to the fictional movie Red Dawn and then fighting like hell to keep this joke in the article, is vandalism, plain and simple, and removal of it is not a content revert. Condensing lengthy quotes and adding sources is also not a content revert. I would also add, then I even went so far as to self revert yesterday when questioning my own actions just to remove any perceived impropriety on my part. Any admin reading this would do well to take Abe’s vandalism and the talk page of the article in question into account before acting on this. Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fresh, unbiased admin here. I've looked over the edits and I'm inclined to agree with MONGO's assessment of the situation. --Kbdank71 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with TDC and MONGO, I do not think the comparisons to the movie should be noted unless its being done by a historian or something else. I think the basic failure here is WP:NOR. --NuclearUmpf 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Me three -- although I'm not so concerned about mentioning a mediocre, fear-mongering movie from the 1980s as I am over the fact both parties are editting so fast that the grammar of their contributions is clearly suffering -- time to slow down & think a little more about how you want to say something. For this alone, I support MONGO's page protect: one or both parties needs to get away from the computer & decompress. -- llywrch 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny6777 (talk • contribs)

Troll account for sharing anti-semetic comments. "Was ted bundy's father a jew?" could conceivably be a good faith question, but three previous contrib's and final warning would suggest not. Marskell 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being threatened

A number of users including Inshaneee, Wikipediatrix, and Antaeus Feldspar are continually attacking me, leaving threatening messages on my user page, and making false accusations saying that I am inserting "unsourced" and "POV" material when I am not doing so.

I am tired to being threatened. They are going well beyond any bounds of civility in this matter. Blainetologist 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of openness, I have just blocked this user for 24 hours for continued incivil behavior, such as blind reversion with the summary "rv POV warrior". As he's indicated, this comes on the heels of AMPLE warning. --InShaneee 20:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think both of these users need to cool off and realize reverting shouldnt be used as a blanket swipe. Antaeus Feldspar has reverted cited information from articles Blainetologist has edited, yet alot of what Blainetologist added to the Scientology article in particular is personal opinion and should have been removed. So I think both are at fault, Blainetologist needs to read up on WP:OR and Antaeus Feldspar should be careful of removing cited content. I hope since blind reversions are the issue you have issued blocks to both, as for Wikipediatrix I did not see any edit warring with you or the other user, I think that issue isr elegated to the warnings. --NuclearUmpf 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Guys, Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Thanks. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins who don't edit articles

Available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

  • Ryulong, reverting right away is a bit extreme, don't you think? At least leave a genuine precis so that folks will know to click on the link -- something like: "A policy idea regarding whether people who do not add content should be allowed to be administrators at Wikipedia." It's not an AN/I issue, granted (though it might fit at AN), but just blowing it out of the page is at least slightly hostile. Geogre 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, the proposal is here [53]. Geogre 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I just reverted the linking from WP:VPP back to the full name; that didn't seem to serve much of a purpose. Ryūlóng 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If I got it wrong, I certainly apologize. I got a note on my talk page inviting my input, and then I saw nothing here. It looked like someone had been peremptory, and I misread the history. Again, my apologies if I was hasty/confused. Geogre 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A year or two from now when you have substantial administrative responsibilities and no time to edit you will have a different viewpoint, assuming you become productive. Fred Bauder 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Fred, can you possibly be speaking to Geogre, who has been an admin for several years and is a massive contributor of top quality content? He writes an article a day and has created some of our best Featured articles. If I were one tenth as productive as Geogre is, I'd be proud. If you were a hundredth part as productive as Geogre is, you'd be... not sure how to finish that sentence, except you'd be better placed for criticizing him than you are. Did you post in the wrong thread or something? Bishonen | talk 13:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC).
No, although I was not aware of his editing. All I know is my own story, which is that if I start doing a lot of editing (or anything else) I soon fall behind on arbitration work. So if I were as "productive" as Georgre, there would be a mess and I could hardly call myself productive at all. Fred Bauder 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the discussion there, Fred. You could offer valuable evidence. It's true that outside work can eat up all one's time, and each of us has to make choices, but I feel a bit irresponsible if I go too long editing and don't do the mopping up that I do have time for (mainly CSD, in my case, as it rarely entails long arguments, but sometimes DRV and less often AfD), and I can assure you that, if I were to be in a more involving duty, I'd feel creepy if I went too long without doing some editing. I, personally, find that disrespect is the real subtext here, and that disrespect comes from either ill will or ignorance. We can't stop the one, but we must stop the other. Geogre 14:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not knowing what CSD or DRV is, I feel like a just wondered onto a strange MUD and got ambushed by a "killing cloud" just outside the Village Church. I think if someone volunteers 30 hours a week and does good work, they should not be under pressure to do more, whether I know who Giano is or not (I did not, nor had I ever noticed you before). Fred Bauder 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't that tell you that you ought to investigate? Wouldn't that be particularly true if you were having to assess the validity of the comments? I won't comment on the logical weakness of insisting that 30 hr a week spent any way is the same as 30 hr a week spent a productive way. If you don't know the players, you could at least take a look at the program. Also, if someone were to be arbitrated for "tagging for CSD ianppropriately," wouldn't you want to know that that's "candidates for speedy deletion?" Geogre 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Fred, I want to say this with all due respect to your 30 yours of volunteer work reviewing and adjudicating the "worst and most intractable" disputes. It's a nasty job but somebody has to do it. I understand the argument that admin hours and editing hours are mutually exclusive. Some admins do little editing and some editors have no desire to do admin work. Some people do both and there is a continuing debate whether admins should also be good editors and do substantial editing work.
But, here's what boggles my mind, how can you be an arbitrator and not know what criteria for speedy deletion and deletion review are? These are fundamental concepts of the deletion process which is a core Wikipedia process. Perhaps the acronyms didn't ring a bell so you didn't remember. Or, perhaps you feel that because you are an arbitrator, you need to stay out of AFD and DRV discussions to maintain objectivity?
--Richard 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't know the jargon. No apologies for that. Please don't use it so much. I'm not the only one who gets lost in the alphabet soup. Fred Bauder 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC) See Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Fred Bauder 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I think the "editors who don't contribute content should not be allowed to be admins" is a terrible policy idea although failure to show substantial experience in editing is a sine qua non for granting adminship in the first place. I would prefer either fixed terms (not necessarily term limits) or admin recall instead.
--Richard 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance and diversity and respect and a better Wikipedia are all tied together. No one should be insisting any volunteer spend their time by doing good thing A instead of good thing B. Some suggest useful new articles or other good ideas on talk pages. Some start articles as stubs. Some catagorize articles. Some wikify. Some add content to articles. Some source existing content. Some delete questionable content. Some fight the vandals. Some mediate. And so forth. Don't insist liver cells be heart cells too. WAS 4.250 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder was admittedly "not aware" of User:Geogre's substantial contributions but chose to denigrate George nonetheless and taunt him as non-productive without bothering to look at who he was lambasting. Upon User:Bishonen pointing out that Geogre indeed has a corpus of work here that puts most of us to shame, Mr. Bauder never apologised and then continued to belittle us all in his next comments. Fred Bauder and James Forrester have acted horribly in this debate and their dismissive and snide attitude illustrate this fundamental "disconnect" between the article editors and the non-editing Admins. --Pewlosels 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I don't much care if Fred personally has heard of me or what I do, but I do think it's essential for anyone in any judicial portion to have as an utmost quality curiosity about the site. I don't want to indict him, even if I think he's made some terrible decisions, because terrible decisions go with insightful ones. People are people. However, I do think that people need to investigate, need to be curious, need to value the side they don't do as highly as the side they do. Geogre 16:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
My lack of awareness is very simply explained. If I spend hours poring over the edits involved in arbitration cases the users I become familiar with are the users involved in those cases. I don't learn about the users who are busily editing and administering without being involved in the disputed matters that become arbitration cases. If I don't spend my time on the arbitration cases, I don't do a very good job, there is a big backlog and a feeling arises that the only way to solve a dispute is by main force. There is a very good reason I never heard of Geogre. He hasn't been making a lot of trouble, up to now anyway. I do edit some anyway and certainly don't hang out or IRC. I really don't think I'm a very good example of the problem Where I fall down is not doing anywhere near a normal share of administrative duties, or checkuser. I just don't have the time, unless I happen to be caught up, which is very rare. Fred Bauder 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I heard of Geogre due to the references to Geogre's Law (now I think Geogre's First Law) which was, if I recall aright, that any article on a person where the title is incorrectly capitalised is likely to be delete-worthy. It's a pretty good rule of thumb :-) (oh, are smileys banned as well?). Love the alphabet soup link, by the way. Guy 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh... maybe what we need is some sort of 'job rotation' program. Admins (or users in general) temporarily 'assigned' to work at various tasks to get a better idea of the 'regular players' in that arena and the difficulties involved. --CBD 11:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As had been stated here up above, I'm just not sure that's a good idea. As admins, we really are completely in control of what we want to do. It's a given fact that as you get more and more into admin stuff, you literally have less time to do anything else. My story is that I got too involved in admin stuff...it was effecting my personal life...so I backed off and started doing more "real" editing. But you know what? That's my choice. People like Fred have jobs on here that are much more complex than mine. He made a choice at some point that he wanted to do stuff like the arbcom. That's fine and that's his choice.
One of the main problems I have with this "rotation" idea (and the idea that admins should be stripped of their powers a couple of months a year) is that admins are here for a reason. As Fred said, if he gets too involved in editing, then he falls behind in arbcom stuff and people complain and then he's really doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Let's say we do this rotation idea or the idea that admins lose their power every 2 months. That would mean that about 1/6th of the admins (if not more) would be unavailable for a long period of time. Does anyone patrol any of our "backwater" admin pages? Can you imagine if we lost that many admins at once? I'm talking about requests for page protection, requested moves, personal intervention noticeboard and the like. It'd be chaos. We already have one hell of a time keeping up on those pages. I don't want to think of how bad it'd get with more admins.
And the other major problem with these ideas is that forcing admins into roles like it is being proposed is going to be unworkable. It's almost impossible to "police" anything like that on here. Admins will find a way around it.
So do I have an answer? No. :) I do agree that more admins need to edit. I just don't think that these are the answers. And btw, before anyone asks me, about 80% of my edits are non admin related. But again, that's my choice. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Woohookitty. Actually I wasn't really thinking of a 'forced' sort of thing and creating gaps in admin coverage and all that. More like admins voluntarily being moved around to cover each other's tasks for a short while... if 'Admin X' handles alot of speedy deletion requests and 'Admin Y' is currently creating stubs for every species of bat in existence (which I keep meaning to get back to) and they both 'signed up' to do rotations they might end up taking over for each other for a couple of weeks. Obviously it would have to be something the person can do (which would limit non-admin users to certain tasks) and in all probability they wouldn't be as good at it as the person who does so regularly, but while a bit odd it could serve as a way of breaking down barriers and getting people familiar with things they might never have looked into otherwise. They might even find they like some of them. Obviously 'ArbCom duties' wouldn't fit into this, but maybe someone could be assigned to do clerk work for a week or two while the arbitor was doing cleanup on WP:WP and thereby finding out what CSD, BLP, DRV, RfPP, PAIN, and the rest of the 'alphabet soup' were all about. :] --CBD 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. With all the grief we've had over admins who use their administrative powers in content disputes, maybe no one should both edit and adminstrate. At least not in the same article. --John Nagle 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as I can remember, Admins are at the least strongly discouraged from using their Admin powers in a conflict over an article. I think it has been proposed formally at least once as a guideline or rule, but it has never gained any serious support. And it doesn't take much thought to see that when an Admin protects the version she/he favors during an edit war, it merely wins a battle at the risk of losing the war. However, it might be interesting to see what happens if an Admin protects the version she/he doesn't favor. -- llywrch 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is and has been policy for a long time that admins "must not" protect pages that they are involved in disputes over. See WP:PPol. --CBD 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain vs England

Several dynamic IPs are making POV pushing edits (changing Britain to England) on several biographies of British celebrities including Keeley Hazell and The Stone Roses and many others (see history for both). Any suggestions to stop the vandalism?--Bonafide.hustla 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've come across this in articles about people who aren't even English at all. In some places England is used as a synonym for Great Britain or the UK. I'd try informing them about the difference first. - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This AMERICAN user is "POV pushing" himself constantly & isn't too hot on Geography either. Britain is an island, made up of 3 countries - England, Scotland & Wales. This user is a vandal aswell, who keeps posting pornographic images on articles. Mgm - check those 2 articles out, "Bonafide Hustler" is compromising the quality of the articles purely because he doesn't understand the terminology and is too arrogant to face facts. He seems to be under the illusion Manchester isn't in England (it definitely is), nor is London (again, it definitely is). TJFillow 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If this was one of those tedious things where someone was insisting on changing United Kingdom to England, Scotland or whereever, I'd be on Bonafide.hustla's side. But as the anon points out in one of the edit summaries, Britain is not a country. It's occasionally used as sloppy shorthand for the UK (a state which includes areas which aren't in Great Britain). England is a country, it's not (currently) a state. "Britain" is neither. --ajn (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While it may be pedantic to change the UK to England, Scotland or Wales - it is actually more accurate and conveys more information to the reader and it is even more pedantic to revert such a change back to the UK, especially when the person reverting it back doesn't understand the terminology themselves. I would put money on the fact that "Bonafide Hustler" wouldn't change "Glasgow, Scotland" to "Glasgow, United Kingdom", or state in an article that Dundee is in "Britain" and not Scotland. TJFillow 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In some circumstances it's more accurate, in some circumstances it's not, and in some circumstances it's not worth bothering about. Why stop at separating Scots, Welsh and English when you could categorise by county, town or street? Why are the Stone Roses from England rather than from Manchester or the UK? They are from all three, of course, but why is the stateless country more important than the state or the home town? --ajn (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, new user vs. established editor. Troll, anyone? – Chacor 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TJFillow hasn't made any edits except posting on this discussion on AN/I. It's pretty obvious that he's a troll and shouldn't be taken seriously. His accusations are groundless and unjustified. The problem here is that some unregistered editors (supposedly Scottish, Welsh, or Irish nationalists) tried to separate themselves from the "United Kingdom" by changing the location information of biographies to England, Scotland, etc. Thus, creating a false interpretation that England, Scotland, Wales are separate nations. TJFillow's comment in this case, seems to be nothing but bootless wikilawyering.--Bonafide.hustla 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales are separate nations (see this, for example, or UK government websites which routinely describe England, Scotland and Wales as nations). They are part of the same state. As per your talk page, I'd advise you to stop trying to make changes in this area. Irish nationalists have been fairly successful in separating themselves from the UK, by the way. --ajn (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying the fact that Manchester and London are in England; however, they are all part of the United Kingdom (which control Great Britain and Northern Ireland). In addition, I did not upload any pornographic contents to the site and note that wikipedia is NOT censored. Please understand the policy here before making unjust accusations. Comment on content not contributors.--Bonafide.hustla 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user KrishnaVindaloo

The user KrishnaVindaloo (talk • contribs) isn't playing real nice at the vitalism page. anyone want to check his patterns? and take action, if necessary. I don't consider his editing as a contribution the health and spirit of wikipedia. --RealDefender 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cursory examination doesn't reveal anything untoward in this user's edits. Care to be more specific? - brenneman {L} 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This [54] is clearly unacceptable, adding the dominant scientific point of view into an article by reference to a Nobel laureate. Shouldn't be allowed. Guy 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a very good edit, no, but the big picture looks a bit different to me, Guy. KrishnaVindaloo is perhaps expressing understandable frustration with the argumentative POV which I notice holds this article hostage. A frustration which I see he has properly explained on the talkpage, only to have it rudely dismissed. RealDefender, you seem strikingly knowledgeable about the nooks and crannies and jargon of Wikipedia, for somebody making his seventh edit ever.[55] (Click on that, dear reader, the edit summaries are interesting in themselves.) Please remember the basic rule of the encyclopedia, RealDefender: Wikipedia:consensus doesn't trump WP:NPOV. I think I'll put Vitalism on my watchlist, and I hope a few others here do the same. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
Sadly, I'm not sure you see things as they really are. I'm hardly and expert on Vitalism (and hence don't edit the article itself), but I do note that KV's rewording of cited information tends to distort, change, alter, misrepresent (you pick a word) the information, and that he does in fact have a specific POV that he tendentiously pushes. I would suggest that you look at the corpus of his work, including the Pseudoscience article (especially his dogged determination to insert chiropractic anywhere and everywhere (yet another subject I have no real opinion about) before wading into the fray. I doubt that some of the other editors there (i.e., not those currently involved in vitalism) can be accused of having a POV.
The alternative of course, is that all of us who have found KV's edits to be tendentious and POV are wrong. Is it possible? I suppose. Is it likely? No.
Finally, if you're going to put Vitalism on your watchlist (which would be a wise decision), I'd suggest that you do so with an eye toward mediation. Thanks. •Jim62sch• 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm slightly (hah!) at loss about the attrition warfare holding Pseudoscience and Vitalism in its grip. I asked at Talk:Vitalism#I'm_lost but didn't get much enlightment out of the answers. My beta hypothesis is, that both sides aren't helpfull now, as they are lost in their dispute. --Pjacobi 10:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Its pretty simple really. Chiropractors don't want the majority view shown on the pseudoscience article (chiropractic theory is pseudoscientific). They made a big deal about it and called me a pathalogical liar on the PS page. When I suggested RfC they backed off. I calmed things down by not presenting the majority view on chiropractic theory on the PS article. I went to the vitalism article to put it straight. Gleng turned up and added defensive OR about chiropractors no longer believing in pseudoscientific vitalistic ideas. I added nothing about chiropractic, just corrected his OR. Gleng (with the abusive support of other chiropractic supporters) added lots of testimonial-like and OR stuff about vitalims coming back into fashion. I have been trying to put it all into majority-minority-fringe proportion. Any help from impartial outsiders is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 11:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Odd take on events, KV. Odd, too that you're the only one who sees it that way. Whatever. •Jim62sch• 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't dismiss KV's version out of hand. But can't all that chiropractor nonsense be handled at chiropractor, to avoid stalemating Pseudoscience and Vitalism for this dispue? Outside of the US, there's nobody really interested in chiropractors anyway. --Pjacobi 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Pjacobi. Good suggestion. I just implemented it. With the abusive chiropractors off our backs we will have a better chance of improving the vitalism article and keeping the OR away. KrishnaVindaloo 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No comment on the actual dispute,I haven't looked into it, but at least in Belgium, people are also interested in chiropractors (see e.g. the 12,800 Google hits for "chiropractor" from Belgian sites[56]. Fram 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not just chiropractic. Many schools are practicing holism and vitalism. They are concepts that many professions have been using since the beginning of medicine. The trends show that it is only expected to grow, and eventually penetrate every aspect of medical model in the next era. --RealDefender 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


The heat about chiropractic arose from KVs insistence in declaring that chiropractic was pseudoscientific because it was used to cure homosexuality. That was met with utter bemusement, expressed buy one chiro as "Why would anybody want to cure homosexuality" and was just a bridge of denigration too far. The storm was only broken when an editor actually wrote to the author of the cited article to find out what he actually said, and printed the author's bemused (outraged) response. KV then declared he really meant to cite another paper, which turns out to be in a Society newsletter written by a private sex counsellor (though nobody actually seems to have seen the original either except KV as the issue is missing from the Society archive).

KV also tried to make the argument (on pseudoscience) that chiropractic involved a vitalist principle, vitalism was pseudoscience, therefore chiro was pseudoscience. It doidn't wash for many reasons, one of which was that the vitalism neither mentioned chiro nor did it declare that vitalism was pseudoscience, and no V RS could be found.

KV tried then to export his views on chiropractic and pseudoscience to the vitalism page. Here I got involved, because reading the vitalism article I recognised that it had virtually no sources and fom what I knew was almost entirely wrong (regardless of chiro/PS). My edits there were interpreted by KV as POV pushing. His I didn't interpret as anything very much because it turned into repeated efforts to a) track down his references b) read them c) display on the Talk page that they didn;'t say what KV had claimed they said (in some cases they said the opposite).

What is not funny is the way that throughout, KV has attacked the motives of every editor who disagrees with his edits, labelling them (not their edits, them personally) as biased, motivated by POV, not legitimate, in a conspiracy, pseudoscientific..... this is not funny, and I will not stay on WP if WP cannot stop this type of personal attack on editors integrity.

KV will certainly and rightly note that I have attacked dishonest editing, and expressed outrage in particular at the issue related to his miscitation of Ford; I found it, simply, saddening.Gleng 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And why in the hell is this a matter for WP:ANI?!? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

Gleng. I have made no personal attacks on anyone on any article. I have been on the receiving end of personal attacks (pathalogical liar[57]) incivility[58], racist slur (mahatma)[59], and other such censorship motivated attacks. Chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality. I have presented reliable peer reviewed articles that show this very clearly. I did confuse the authors and corrected myself. Then, despite my clear explanations, you and other chiropractic pushers repeatedly called me a liar. In order to appease the more convicted chiropractors, I did not place the supported fact in the PS article. I apologised for confusing the authors, Ford and Christianson. No apology was forthcoming from those chiropractic supporters who attacked me with accusations of "pathalogical liar". None! I calmed things down further by applying for a wikiquet alert and outside comment. I then went to the vitalism article to remove OR about PS notions of vitalism being scientific. You then followed me there and started placing OR about chiropractic[60] (I never added anything about chiropractic there at all). When I corrected your OR (about chiros not believing in vitalistic innate any more) I got more abuse from you and the other chiropractic supporters. Your edits have been weighted extremely in favour of your promotion towards chiropractic. Your promotion of fringe has been extreme. Literature supported corrections on your OR have induced you towards abuse. You have encouraged it from other followers. Consensus does not trump NPOV. KrishnaVindaloo 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Evidence: Here is the reference that shows that I am telling the truth. It states clearly that chiropractic is used for reparative therapy (treating homosexuality). A Re-emergence of Reparative Therapy. By: Christianson, Alice. Contemporary Sexuality, Oct2005, Vol. 39 Issue 10, p8-17, 10p; (AN 18639497). That is a pseudoscientific application of chiropractic, which has only minor sci support for the treatment of some back conditions. No messing around with google searches. Academic premier database has Contemporary Sexuality listed as a peer reviewed journal publication, and the sub-title reads "a peer reviewed publication for contemporary sexuality readers". It mentions Ford, (The Pseudoscience of Reparative Therapy). It fits NPOV policy on reliability and verifiability. However, in verifying the fact that my edits were truthful, Gleng will also be also be verifying that chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality. So Gleng's accusations of dishonesty continue. KrishnaVindaloo 04:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) adding uncivil warning to user pages

I apologize. I listed this on the wrong board As a member of the Good Articles project, I left a notice on several current articles of a change in the good article criteria regarding the mandatory use of in-line citations and enhance attention to WP:V. A copy of what this notice is can be found here. Being the Good Article project, we obviously want articles to stay as GA and as such the notice was meant to make the editors aware of this change and possible improve the article prior to a reviewer coming and de-listing it. The User ScienceApologist has responded to this notice in a rather uncivil way, including adding a warning to my talk page about "hurting wikipedia". My first suspicion was that he simply misinterpreted the notice of a pending review as a review in itself and I sought to clarify that it wasn't. I even requested that he voluntarily remove the "warning" he placed on my page, however at this moment he hasn't. At this point, I am choosing to walk away from dealing with this user rather then contribute to the fair and possible become uncivil myself. I would, however, like an admin to consider this matter and remove the warning from my talk page and possibly give ScienceApologist a warning for being uncivil. His actions are rather counterproductive in building a quality encyclopedia. Thank you for your timeAgne 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Update. SA has removed the warning but I still would like some admin eyes on the matter, particularly if I acted inappropriatly-please let me know. Agne 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This arises from you disputing Good Article's status, right? Your's is an objection no one seems to agree with looking at that page. You seem to being taking discussion there personally; don't. I don't see the issue here. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What's happened is that the Good Article criteria has changed recently, so users like Agne have been going around warning articles which don't comply with the new criteria, namely that in addition to being well-referenced, an article must have inline citations. So for instance, if you had an article which listed 25 books at the bottom and had no inline citations, its good article status would be forfeit, how is anybody supposed to know the article actually used those books as references or just pasted them on to make it look more authoritative? But anyway, Agne seems to of been warning a few articles which SA patrols, and SA seems to think Agne is just randomly complaining about articles or something, and it turned into an argument. Homestarmy 18:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Putting an uncivil (and frankly unfounded) warning on a users page is personal. As I explained to him, my role was a messenger in giving a notice of recent changes and a pending review. His accusations of being "vague" seemed to insinuate that he was interpreting the notice as being a review. Despite my attempts at clarifying this, he continues to accuse me of doing damage to the Wikipedia project with imprecise criticisms. The notice above linked to what the Good Article criteria was, where the change in criteria was discussed and more importantly pointed to expectations of WP:V and WP:CITE that the article will be held to for GA consideration. That was not vague and because I did not go through each and every article to give a full review prior to giving notice of an upcoming full review, does not mean I deserve such uncivil treatment from another editor. I took good faith that it was just a misunderstanding at first on his part but unfortunately, while grateful that he took down the warning, he is being persistant in my "damaging vagueness". Agne 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the idea about the necessity of in-line cites (even for textbook science, that's the point) is just plain stupid. Being attacked as a messenger can be prevented by not acting as messenger for stupid ideas.
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Physics#Another_reason, why Wikipedia sucks, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#When not to cite.
Pjacobi 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That is faulty logic that goes against WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you disagree with the content/messenge then you are free to discuss the merit of said content. However, it is never appropriate to "attack the messenger". That is the line that I believe SA crossed. Agne 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know which article this is about, but Agne stirred up a reaction in Mathematics too. While some of us are happy to improve the article, one week is a ridiculously short time to meet the changed guidelines. We have taken months just to get the first paragraph right, and the subject is deep and wide ranging, involving many editors. Our aim is to reach FA status, but a year is a more realistic timetable. So perhaps the message to take back to the GA people is that giving more notice would be more productive. Stephen B Streater 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Then take it back yourself, and be civil about it. There is no excuse for anyone to be attacking Agne here. --InShaneee 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But Agne has been tagging articles that have inline citations! For example, Hubble's law has inline citations. Metric expansion of space has inline citations. So I fail to see what criteria Agne is using for tagging the articles. I think it's one she made up. --ScienceApologist 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first example only has 2 inline citations in the entire body. That is kind of lacking, perhaps in that case its meant to encourage more inline citations. Most major pieces of information should be cited. --NuclearUmpf 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
2 inline citations is more than zero and the criterion doesn't state anything about a minimum number. Nevertheless it was stated as unequivocal fact in the post that the article would be delisted according to criterion 2b even though that clearly would be debatable. Inline referencing to common knowledge facts in science articles is actually not the best editorial practice according to most science editors here (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics). I find counting the number of references in an article and making blanket statements about article quality to be not only small-minded but nearly insulting to editors who may have thought very hard about what facts should be inline referenced. There is no discusion of what facts the editors want to reference, only a blanket statement that "2 is not enough". I, for one, think that kind of rhetoric is very unhelpful to the Wikipedia project. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request regarding this issue here. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't people focus on reviewing the backlog of articles that are waiting? Surely this would be more productive.

Look, I'm sorry but instead of removing decent articles from the GA list, people should be working on evaluating the ones that are already waiting. There is a huge backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. It would make much more sense to get that done and then go back and nitpick about how many citations an older article needs and if 2+2=4 needs a citation. The whole delisting movement has its priorties backwards and has come under the influence of the insane citation police. It is much more damaging to leave decent articles languishing than to have a fight about citing basic laws of mathematics. pschemp | talk 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? We have backlogs??? ;) Glen 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Citations=good. Harrassment over citations !=good. I generally agree with pschemp, and further suggest that if an article has been "good" for months, it didn't suddenly become "ungood" overnight. Take it easy, please. Thatcher131 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that many of the articles being delisted don't have to do with just the inline citations requirement, many of them are just plain not well-referenced, and many of the older ones especially are really quite bad articles overall. Homestarmy 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what GA review is for. Warning people that articles may or may not be "not well-referenced" is a subjective discussion that is best left to the actual review process. The warning seems to function more like a harrassment over someone's opinion about what constitutes a "well-referenced article" rather than any sort of straightforward evaluation. You alone, Homestarmy, are not supposed to unilaterally declare an article "quite bad overall" without proper review. --ScienceApologist 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Homey, note that I didn't say don't review articles. What I'm suggesting is that we deal with the current nominations, under the current rules first, then go back and review. That is a much more productive use of people's time. pschemp | talk 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This has now left the scope of WP:ANI and is quickly degenerating into lame harping. Cut it out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment over citations !=good. Notification of citation requirements !=Harrassment. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The two examples given above are are to poorly cited articles, that should not be GAs - it should be abundantly clear that two inline citations are not adequate for either. Yes, an article can be GA today, and not tomorrow, because the GA process is flawed. Anyone can promote an article to GA, so it means little, particularly if GA can't be removed as easily as it is bestowed. Bludgeoning an editor who calls for better inline citations does not bode well for building a better encyclopedia. Sandy 03:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like SA has removed the material that caused offence. Shouldn't that be the end of it? I know he can be blunt, perhaps overly blunt at times, but by removing the warning he showed he is big enough to admit he was wrong to say what he did, regardless of different views about the actual merits of the articles. All the rest of this discussion is about how the GA project should work, which is not appropriate for discussion here. I don't see anything for admins to do at this point. Metamagician3000 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Advice

I am almost on the verge on an edit war with another user over Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, he has added information about a person named Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani and stated his reason for doing so is because the US government probably arrested the first person because they thought he was the second. I asked for a source and his reply was that Arab names are hard to illiterate and so they probably made a mistake. I kept removing the information asking for a second source, if he just made up this connection or if anyone has made this link before. He has yet to provide one and instead simpyl reverts. The article itself is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhamad_Naji_Subhi_Al_Juhani on the basis that it lacks information and it seems this is an attempt to add fluff to the article, if you read the article the link isnt even asserted, there is just a splatter of information on the second person inserted into the middle of the article, no explanation no link at all. Is this vandalism? is this against "Wikipedia: No original research"? Am I wrong to keep removing it? This user is adamant that this information is to stay. What option do I have other then reverting? --NuclearUmpf 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I came across this comment from NuclearUmpf, when another user said he "changed his vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, after NuclearUmpf left this message on his talk page. I've got several problems with this. The most important are:
  1. NuclearUmpf is mischaracterizing what I said, both in User Talk:Kappa and here.
  2. NuclearUmpf doesn't appear to be really reading what I actually write. He hasn't been responding to the points I bring up while attempting to discuss the issue with him in a civil fashion.
  3. NuclearUmpf points out that the article has been nominated for deletion. But he doesn't acknowledge that he is the one who nominated it.
I think that NuclearUmpf should try harder to have a civil discussion of his concerns back on Talk:Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, or reasonable equivalent.
I have urged NuclearUmpf to assume good faith, and be more collegial. And, I think if I was a third party, that would be my advice here. -- Geo Swan 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[61] "I don't think you understand. It doesn't matter whether they are the same person. I didn't assert they are the same person" If you arent asserting they are, and noone else is, why is it in the article? --NuclearUmpf 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I am going to repeat myself, NuclearUmpf. I think that your concerns would be more appropriately discussed on Talk:Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, or reasonable equivalent. -- Geo Swan 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source supporting these two people are the same? Can I get some admin intervention as you can see Geo Swan refuses to comply with WP:NOR he is putting FBI terrorist photo's on the page of a man that has not been found guilty of any crime. He is drawing his own link in violation of our policies here, its almost disturbing. I am starting to wonder if Geo Swan thinks he is allowed to go out and do his own research. --NuclearUmpf 10:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is beyond the scope of the talk page as you are unwilling to budge on what you are doing, breaking WP:NOR. I am asking for admin intervention before this becomes an edit war. You have stated these people are unrelated and have not shown that anyone was confused over who they are. Its almost a stereotype that you would assume that people with the same last name and name Muhammed that are arabic in decent would be confused with eachother ... You have not shown anyone citing confusion over these people, anyone alleging they are the same person, just your own research that says Saudi's went to Guantanamo before (no proof) Arab names are hard to illiterate (dont see connection as the names are far different) So the Saudi's must obviously be confused on who he is (where is the connection here). YOu have shown no sources yet still edit war. --NuclearUmpf 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DENY

Suggesting this is probably going to get me flamed into the next century, but why exactly do we have this template, and why wouldn't we delete the latter half of the pages mentioned on it since they don't have any meaningful content? >Radiant< 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, I was eventually planning to change Template:Oldafdfull to admit several discussion put in one template; as articles age, there is no reason to have 4+ templates to old AfDs at the top of a talk page. —Centrx→talk • 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Creating a new template isn't necessary; see {{multidel}}. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get that, but in specific, take a look at this template and see where it's used. >Radiant< 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that template going... it seems to just glorify that Wikipedia has been trolled. If nothing else, it encourages the periodic sockpuppet AfD of the article in question, and so on. --W.marsh 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The template makes it blindingly obvious that anyone who attempts to create #18 for the fourth time will be insta-troutwhacked. Though I'd be in favor of deleting 17, 16, ..., any that are basically empty, since 18 has already been deleted a few times. --Interiot 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose {{multidel}} would work well enough...I really don't see any harm in glorifying the most AFD'd page in WIkipedia history. And GNAA makes me laugh. I liek this proposal the most: Wikipedia talk:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 Hbdragon88 05:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Attilios changing era styles

User:Attilios is changing era styles from BC/AD to BCE/CE. This is against rules (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk). The changes ([62], [63], [64], [65], [66]) interrupted after a discussion (User_talk:Attilios#BCEs and User_talk:Panarjedde#Eras), but he does not want to revert his changes, and I can't do it myself, otherwise it would be a breaking of the same rule. What is to be done?--Panarjedde 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If he has stopped, great; crisis over, we can all get on with our wiki-lives. Personally, I think the whole BCE/CE thing is a bunch of politically correct mumbo-jumbo that most other civilizations don't bother with in their own, endogenous date systems, and I absolutely refuse to use it in any new articles that I create, but once it's done, it's done. Undoing the changes would essentially be revert-warring over dates, which the Arbitration Committee said was harmful and shouldn't be done. If he does it again then a revert and a warning is in order. If he doesn't do it again, great; discussion and consensus have won the day. Captainktainer * Talk 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand. He actually did something he should not have done, and now it is impossible to undo his edits? So, to make an example, I start changing "colour" into "color" until someone tell me to stop, and my edits can't be reverted?--Panarjedde 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, what is the harm in allowing them to stay the way they are? He violated one of Wikipedia's arcane rules (there are several hundred by now, hence the saying "process is evil"), and now he won't do it again. There are other things far more important than date changes, which is what the Arbitration Committee appeared to have been trying to communicate with their ruling. Also, "colour/color" is a different case - there are fairly clear standards for when one or the other applies, depending on the predominant style of the region most associated with the article's topic, or, failing that, according to the majority style of the article. Seriously, that ruling was made to end an issue. I'd recommend just letting it go. Captainktainer * Talk 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No harm, of course, but why his edits are allowed even if are against rules, while other edits of the same kind are promptly reverted (and the user blocked, sometimes)? And the Arbitration Committee did not say "there are other things far more important than date changes", but rather "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Optional_styles). What I do not understand it is if I am allowed to do inappropriate things or not, and if inappropriate things can be reverted or not.--Panarjedde 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This may not be the best approach here. The user in question has changed articles from one style to the other before, and has been informed that this isn't a good idea as recently as August 18. The fact that nobody reverted his changes in this particular case doesn't really excuse them. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
...otherwise it would be a breaking of the same rule. I don't see how returning something to the status quo would be breaking the rules about maintaining the status quo, so I don't see the rules stopping you from reverting the changes (other than doing so multiply, of course). I'm also not sure why it matters either way. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't revert changes as a method of punishment. We make changes to improve encyclopedic content. If someone is making changes that are neutral in their effect on encyclopedic content, we can block them if it is causing ongoing annoyance and disruption (though I've never understood why people actually get annoyed about these petty things); however, we don't cause further disruption to the encyclopedia by reversing changes when doing so won't actually improve the article in question. There's an exception when a banned user makes changes, but that's a pretty special case. Metamagician3000 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a punishment. If a consensus was achieved that such changes were not allowed, we revert to show respect for the consensus.--Panarjedde 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The best thing to do if you want to change the era style is to first simply ask on the Talk page if anyone cares. If no one objects within a reasonable amount of time (say 5-7 days), go ahead & change the style BC/AD -> BCE/CE or BCE/CE -> BC/AD. Whichever you prefer. If someone objects, then the person pushing for the change ought to discuss the matter. This is a contentious issue, & many Wikipedians are aware that opinions run hot on both sides of the issue, so simple courtesy & respect for each other dictate that people ask before making this change. But mankind hasn't figured out a way to effectively legislate courtesy & respect, sadly. -- llywrch 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a small but not insignficant difference between "not allowed" and "not helpful". -- nae'blis 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti request, again

Jack went on another one his tears, railing against his many enemies and trying to "out" anyone who displeases him, succh as myself. Would some admin mind going in and deleting some recent edits where he tries this stunt, namely removing his attempts to identify me, such as [67], [68], [69], and [70] -- though you could probably also lose [71] and [72], too, just on general principle. This is a standard request, and I'd like some response instead of having my original request ignored and shoved off to the archives after a few days. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Jayjg fixed it. By the way, could someone post the trick for deleting a few edits froma long history without having to manually check every box? Thatcher131 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda explained on my talk page. Thanks! Thatcher131 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal blustering and obnoxious user

The water fuel cell is a device that was proven to be a scam: its "inventor" was found guilty of gross and egregious fraud for deceiving people into investing in the idea. Over the past couple of days, a mild edit war has been raging on the article, as someone keeps adding nonsense to it, and reverting changes which portray the device in a less than flattering light. Even though the 3RR rule has been broken many times over, no-one has bothered going through the red tape to report it. However, twice now (I reverted the first one), this user has placed a ridiculous set of paragraphs at the top of the article, which ends in the statement that "Spreading malicious lies about patent protected technology which in under license is illegal, and opens the Wikimedia Foundation to libel suits and a host of other nasty legal proceedings" [73]. Someone with power to block the IP and user concerned might want to take a look. Byrgenwulf 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The user's details are:
Kentforbes (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
131.216.163.27 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
131.216.163.30 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
131.216.163.110 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
In case this helps. Byrgenwulf 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
3RR has been broken with extravagant splendour, in the time since Byrgenwulf posted the above. Diffs: [74] (04:20), [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] (04:44). All of these are the same individual inserting the same nonsense/legal threat. Anville 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Article is now semiprotected.[80] --physicq210 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I only blocked the currently vandalising one (131.216.163.22 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)) since it was clearly a dynamic IP. Kentforbes (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is already indef-blocked. Semi-protect should keep the next one away. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft vandalism, IP hating, & Hildanknight

Some of you who deal with vandalism may be aware of someone who's been hitting the microsoft-related articles, often replacing S with $ and c with ¢. example using shared singapore IPs. (Also this) Or of an account that seemed to revert anonymous users for no good reason. See AN discussion on User:No_more_anonymous_editing for that one. There's also a user I've suspected for awhile to have something to do with it, Hildanknight, who gotten into a conflicts reguarding restricting anonymous editing. Well, my suspicions were confirmed recently. Jayig's use of checkuser ties all these together as one. Hildanknight is vandalising in his spare time to try to influence negative opinions on anonymous editing by vandalising himself. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hildanknight for checkuser evidence. Could an administrator please deal with Hildanknight at this point? He's caused large amounts of semi-automated vandalism in his attempts to somehow get anonymous editing banned from wikipedia. While its not a difficulty to quickly mass revert his vandalism, it needs to end. Thanks. --Kevin_b_er 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban on the basis of long-term deception, bad faith, and disrupting to make a point (and of course the vandalism). I'm a little too green to do it myself, though. Thatcher131 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a community ban as well - the user has blatantly violated WP:POINT and is clearly too radical in his attempts to get IPs banned from Wikipedia, eternally holding a grudge against all IP addresses (he's gotten into many conflicts with valid IP users in the past). For the record, however, I'm told that the IP he uses is just about the only IP in singapore, so blocking it would impact many other users, so caution should be taken in that respect. Cowman109Talk 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If what you say is true, the block will trigger an autoblock, which will be rapidly lifted, meaning he can still disrupt to make a point as an anon or a new username (until we figure it out again). Essentially, then, banning him is an official expression that he is no longer welcome here. Thatcher131 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Support an indef block. If it sticks it's then a community ban. Agree with Thatcher131 that we may as well not bother blocking the IP given how things are in S'pore. addresswise... ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:24.127.195.111

This anon user has been systematically vandalizing a number of articles over the past week or so despite repeated requests to stop on the users talk page. In particular in the article Blond. Two warnings were given on the users talk page, plus the user has a history of similar vandalism's and warnings on other articles, such as at dreadlocks. If you need any more information let me know. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks Ill try that. -- Stbalbach 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked the guy for 24h. Next time please use WP:AIV abakharev 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks, next time I will go through AIV procedures. thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:80.237.173.67

IP 80.237.173.67 vandalizing Israel's unilateral disengagement plan and the talk page of AuburnPilot after final warning. InvictaHOG 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, meant to post at AIV InvictaHOG 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User adding link spam / potential link spam

A1794 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) also acting as 68.208.8.10 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) seems to be adding link spam to some pages. I noticed this because a user with account named A1794 added copies of some wikipedia pages (Burglar, Burglar alarm, and Primerica) to Mozilla's wiki (since deleted from there), so I was suspicious of link spam. In particular, the links to Bulldog Security Services : Atlanta Home Security, although there could be others. I don't understand what the benefit of copying Primerica to Mozilla's wiki was, but I'm suspicious that there could be link spam there as well. --David Baron 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Talk:193.171.151.129

This is the first time I've ever recommended a block, but User:193.171.151.129 has ignored several warnings. contribs -newkai t-c 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess this goes to WP:AIV. I followed a wikilink from Wikipedia:Blocking Policy here. -newkai t-c 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

The following was posted on User:JzG's page because he's experienced in AfD.

I need a second opinion on an admin ruling, and I wonder if you would be willing to help me out. I know that you are an extremely reasonable man. The admin above removed my speedy delete A3 tag on List of insular languages, saying that the AfD should run its course. I think that's a waste of admin time and editor time. I've seen him do this before, and it's extremely frustrating. I've never seen another admin do this. I've found that it's customary to tag things at AfD with a speedy delete tag if they qualify. I'm going to put up the tag again, and maybe you could delete it. Thank you. If you would like me to contact another admin on the matter, I will. This is an unacceptable situation, as the article is clearly crap and speedily deletable. Billy Blythe 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect to prevail, because it seems that editors are second class citizens. I'm really pissed off about this, because it's a waste of time, and it's following process for the sake of following process. WP:IAR and WP:SNOW applies here. Billy Blythe 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not Guy, but I was stopping by to check on something else. Speedying something already up for AfD is certainly unorthodox; once it's up for community discussion the common way to indicate that you think it should vanish immediately is through a comment on the AfD with "Speedy Delete" in bold. If you look through the AfD logs, you'll see them come up. But I think Future Perfect at Sunrise was correct to take it to AfD rather than speedy, as the prod was contested. Speedy deletion is only for when it's obvious junk. User Fg2 felt it wasn't obvious, so the AfD looks appropriate. William Pietri 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think its an obvious speedy but as William stated above it was put up for AfD and once that happens it should be allowed to follow proccess. Unfortunatly I think it is a waste, but how much resources are really wasted if it results in WP:SNOW? So while I agree with you, I am more concerned with people sticking to proccess. --NuclearUmpf 13:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm widely rumored to be a deletionist, and yet I always feel that, once something is up at AfD, we might as well let it run its course, unless it is an obvious candidate for speedy deletion or causes harm in some manner. Merely taking our time is not, to me, an argument, as, if it's an obvious delete and SNOWball, then it's going to be deleted anyway. The only reason to avoid that process, in my view, is if one believes that there is going to be a big astroturfing campaign. I doubt this will happen here. If it does, that's a separate matter and a separate complaint. Geogre 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just see I've come to be honoured with a rogue-admin complaint on ANI when I'm not even an admin! :-) Just to give my version of the story, I first attempted to do a PROD, that was contested, so I put it on AfD, and I removed that speedy notice out of a sense of due process because like JzG I actually don't think CSD A3 applies. Nothing else happened, no reasons for getting upset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I did respond to this at my tazlk, but as far as I can see it's not an unambiguous speedy - it may be that an experienced linguist will ocme along and tell us that actually it's a valid term. Given that it's already at AfD I see no pressing reason why we should not let that run, there being no harm done by this article that I can see. Guy 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cgordonbell

I note that we still have no answer from the user as to whether they are actually Gordon Bell, three weeks after the question was first raised on their talk page and here on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I also note that most or all of their edits have been reverted.

I suspect it's time to block the user as an inappopriate username. If it really is C. Gordon Bell, I'm sure he'll be able to figure out how to ask for unblocking. Heck, as one of his former employees from better days, he can E-mail me and I'll happily explain it! ;-)

Atlant 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A User:KraMuc anonsock vandalized my page of notes

In this edit, 84.154.83.159 (talk • contribs • block log) (the dip.t-dialin anon, known to be used by permabanned user KraMuc (talk • contribs • block log), has vandalized by user subpage of notes on the KraMuc case, User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc, which I believe violates the policy expressed in ArbCom finding. Please help me monitor and promptly revert for this kind of vandalism, and please consider blocking KraMuc anons on sight. ---CH 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen L. Nelson

First this editor added an article on himself (as a business writer, he probably merits an article) and then he added links to his various websites. I have deleted the links twice but he has simply re-added them. Since a note on the talk page is probably irrelevant (I suspect he is the only one who would see it), can someone else chime in here and explain WP:EL if you agree that a link to his commercial website does not further the purpose of the article? -- DS1953 talk 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He actually seems to be right. WP:EL 2, says "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." So at least his official page should stay. Linking to 3 "official sites" is debatable, but I'd give it to him as well, it's not as if he has 20.
What's more, since the article says: "He also publishes a small business accounting web site with several thousand pages of small business tax, computer and accounting information including free pdf versions of half a dozen of his books, an LLC formation web site that provides do-it-yourself limited liability company formation kits for all fifty states, and an S corporation setup web site that provides do-it-yourself S corporation setup kits for all fifty states." - writing that without giving the actual links seems kind of perverse. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beageal

This user is just a here to vandalize. See his contributions. He is new, so I'm not sure what procedure should be used to handle him.--Esprit15d 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely, like this one. Grandmasterka 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probable sockpuppet of Robertjkoenig

user:Robertjkoenig and his multiple sockpuppets have been banned for abuse of Wikipedia. He frequently posts on the entrly for USAA or on other very loosely related pages; his posts usually refer to litigation regarding USAA, as well as the fact that it is unincorporated. He believes for some strange reason that the CEO of USAA is out to steal billions of dollars from the association and that anyone who disagrees with this outlandish unsupported accusation must be employed by USAA or is somehow otherwise compensated. He and/or his sockpuppets will begin to attack anyone who disagrees. Lately, he has tried to use the reciprocal inter-insurance exchange page to continue his non factually based crusade against USAA; he also edited my user page. Lately, one of his socks user:Llm1017 has started to post exclusively on the reciprocal inter-insurance exchange page in a manner extraordinarily consistent with Robert J Koenig's writing. Most telling is his contention that I am an Attorney for USAA; if you read his blog at [81] he makes similar accusations about myself and others. Please do what you can to block yet another one of his sockpuppets.

Swizzlez 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Dear Sirs,

I got a message for my wikapedia that they thought i was vandalizing. However it was an experiment and i further read after i recieved your message. Our professor dropped a groups presentation grade because of citing wikepedia because the site can be changed. I was experimenting with the nonsense page on feces to see how long the content was aloud to stay. As i read on it was only aloud to stay to view for 5 minutes. I do not know much more other than your comments on stating it cannot be guaranteed for it content. I myself use it to look up words and appriciate it. When i asked the teacher again today he said he does use it but tries to use it as a spring board and then research on for reputable sites. Sorry for the inconvienience this may have caused you. As a college student i know i should have read first but i am extremely busy. Thanks and sorry again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.21.185 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems the administrators are right on this one.

                    TedDay 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Google Web Accelerator

Hi everyone, I'm starting to see more and more unblock requests coming in for autoblocks from IP addresses in the 64.233.172.0/24 range as it seems like a few vandals have started abusing Google Web Accelerator as an open proxy. However, there are also innocent users using it as well. A block of the vandal Xdrakemanx led to 5 autoblocks and innocent person being suspected as a sockpuppet as well. So does anyone think we should treat Google Web Accelerator as an open-proxy and block it down for good? I can foresee a lot of future pain dealing with puppeteers who'll abuse it too. -- Netsnipe ► 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I thought we were allowing access from proxies that support X-Forwarded-For? --FOo 07:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If we know that the XFF information is reliable. --Carnildo 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that we had XFF support up and running -- hence the whole AOL blocking farce we have these days. -- Netsnipe ► 08:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Do AOL proxies really support X-Forwarded-For? From the data I have, it looks like they only include a Via header, but not XFF. But I haven't looked at this exhaustively; I'm just pulling AOL-ish lines from my logs, like 207.200.116.14 or 64.12.116.139. William Pietri 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
AOL is one of the cases where XFF information isn't reliable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just gives the proxy. --Carnildo 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ick. How reliable is XFF for Google Web Accelerator? --FOo 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If somebody can give me the IP range for Google Web Accelerator, I'd be glad to check the info I have. In another context I've been dealing with open proxy abusers and so have about 30m hits with various proxy-related headers recorded. William Pietri 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I use GWA (though have disabled it for Wikipedia and other sensitive accounts) and encourage affected users to see the talkpage Wikipedia talk:Autoblock. Perhaps a Google Web Accelerator specific message could be added to the autoblock template? It's not a terribly big deal to disable it for Wikipedia, especially as after the first loading it's rather image-light. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we rangeblock all known IP addresses used by Google Web Accelerator because it is in effect, an open proxy. There's been a noticeable increase of unblock requests over the last week coming from people who've been autoblocked for vandalism by accounts using the accelerator. I've started a page at Wikipedia:Advice to Google Web Accelerator users (WP:GWA) which I hope to add screenshots and instructions detailing how users can exclude wikipedia.org from their accelerator settings soon. Perhaps we can use a link to this webpage as the block message? -- Netsnipe ► 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) cross-post: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Google_Web_Accelerator.

The thing is it isnt an open proxy. In fact many sites seem to disregards use completely and show the users real IP. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/aboutyou.ch for example, when using GWA, shows Googles IP in the first section thus registers GWA as being in use, but states my real IP under real IP, with my real country and says no open proxy used. What are they doing that we arent? Glen 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just checked that page using GWA and the XFF info is correct: It shows my normal home IP addy. It'd be preferable to use GWA's XFF ip when selecting the ip-edited-from for a user. GWA, while annoying at times, isn't a simple open proxy, nor does it perform anonymizing services: It's designed to accelerate your internet connection. I imagine the best solutions would be either 1) allow passing of Google's XFF to Wikipedia (the devs would have to handle this) or 2) block all GWA IP ranges, preferably with very large and obvious note explaining why, pointing out the security vulnerabilities, and explaining how to disable GWA for Wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Another vandal account on Google Web Accelerator Michael0 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) today got 8 users on 72.14.192.48 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) autoblocked today. And I think the collateral damage got so bad that NawlinWiki had to relift his indefinite block on Michael0. -- Netsnipe ► 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecological economics external link

First, I'd like to say that this post wasn't my idea (blame Nicolas Mimsy Porpington Nichola Mimsy Propington some guy), but I'm doing it anyways. [Oh, just call him Nearly Headless Nick. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)]

Swedenborg (talk • contribs), who has spent the last year trying to promote a non-notable (and possibly non-existent) NGO calling itself the Global Resource Bank (three AFDs so far, though I'd swear there were more) has been persistently inserting a link to its website into Ecological economics, despite it failing WP:External links.

So others can judge for themselves the reliability/non-notability of this thing:

As far as I'm concerned, this is linkspam, and a) should be removed and b) be treated as simple vandalism (per WP:3RR: In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam [emphasis mine]), the three-revert rule does not apply.).

So, am I off-base/off-track/beyond the Pale/<insert idiom of choice for wrong-headness here> to continually remove it? And yes, I left a note at WP:RFC three days ago, but no real response. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time he linkspams - post appropriate warnings on his talk page and if it still continues report it on WP:AIV — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous reversions/NPOV

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#NPOV violations

The user in question, after what was already reported, has continued to revert the page. The user requested a "mediation;" after aforesaid "mediation" and my enumerating exactly what was wrong with his/her edits and the exact reasons for my reverting each of the NPOV edits, and editing two of the comments and inserting them into the article myself, the user again reverted the page, again ignoring other article improvements made by other users, calling my reversion in the edit summary "inflammatory." -Shannernanner 08:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After aforesaid incident (diff), the character section was forked by another user to a separate article (it was rather large); subsequently, I reverted this article to the previous version and then instead added in the user's text which had been edited to NPOV, as had been agreed upon on the talk page (diff). Harlequin212121 then reverted the page again, again ignoring previous edits, including the agreed-upon compromises (diff). -Shannernanner 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
After I posted on the talk page the exact reasons for reverting the page, as I detailed above, the user again reverted the article, which was subsequently reverted by another user. An administrator, a mediator, and I have all tried to explain to this user why his or her edits do not constitute NPOV, but it does not seem to be effective. -Shannernanner 07:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Jayg Inappropriate ban of User:Tit for tat

Jayjg is EXTREMELY out of line with this block - first it must be proven that this user is a sockpuppet as Jayjg claims. Furthermore he must actually harass User:Jakew before he can be blocked for that. This is an EXTREMELY inappropriate action by Jayjg and very improprietous as Admins Jayjg and Avraham were already suspected to be "in the pocket" (ie biased) of Jakew. forgot my signature Lordkazan 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tit for tat is an editor who has appeared here solely for the purpose of harassing User:Jakew, by placing spurious WP:SPA tags on User:Jakew's Talk: page comments. In User:Tit for tat's most recent previous incarnation he egregiously insulted and harassed User:Jakew, was blocked for doing so, and then evaded his block. User:Lordkazan himself has been insulting User:Jakew (e.g. [82]), which might help explain his reaction to this. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jayjg is a checkuser, and therefore has more information to help idenitfy sockpuppetry than most of us do. The contribs of User:Tit for tat don't inspire a lot of confidence that the user is here purely as an encyclopedia hobbyist. Jkelly 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And blocking him indefinantly without warning of evidence doesn't give him the chance. Generally you take a user aside before accusing them of being a sockpuppet, without presenting evidence, and telling them to behave.
Sure i've gotten in heated arguments with Jakew before - that's because he's gaming wikipedia rules to censor information he doesn't like. which is something I already have another admin looking into Lordkazan 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In this thread alone, you've already accused two admins of being "in someone's pocket" as well as accusing someone else of "gaming the system"...not very civil yourself. --InShaneee 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
who ever said the truth is civil? from everything i've seen of them it's absolutely true that Jakew is gaming the system, he's even been warned by ArbCom before for pov-pushing edits. Avraham jumps to Jakew's defense in a moments notice, often half cocked - including improperly accusing me of putting those SPAs (see my talk page). Jayjg always walked the line of suspicion in my mind until today when he unilaterally and arbitrarily came down on tit for tat without sufficient justification. In my expirience what I said about them is true - and in my book the truth comes before being civil. Lordkazan 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's book, you're required to do both, and if you can't, you don't belong here. --InShaneee 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Lordkazan, if something is, in his view, "true", then it cannot be a personal attack. [83] The WP:NPA policy, of course, does not agree. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
that is a straw man. The correct statement would be "According to kazan, something that is true, and that he can backup by citing evidence such as wikipedia diffs, cannot be a personal attack.". The Truth is not an attack, it is the truth. Lordkazan 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore the diff you cite is about my opinion of an ACTION.. ACTION. I recommend you consult WP:NPA yourself. Opinions of an ACTION are not personal attacks. It is an opinion about an action. I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to use wikipedia to enforce their personal viewpoint and abusing the rules to do so. My purpose here is to improve articles and keep them nonbiased. I express my opinions on the talk pages, I only put non-biased information into articles (to the best of my ability). Current Jakew is, by intimidation mostly, driving off editors and frustrating the persistent ones who would undo the bias of articles like Circumcision which is completely ignoring many of the significant health and physical effects that Jakew doesn't like to talk about because they challenge his position - i have no problem having my position challanged, and i have no problem presenting the other sides argument. I want controversial articles to represent all viewpoints, and ones related to medical issues should CONTAIN ALL MEDICAL INFORMATION, not just the medical information that favors one side of the argument. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was "Truth cannot be libel". Anything can be a personal attack.--Kbdank71 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
President Bush is a warmonger. That's the truth, but it's also an attack. What's key here is that there's both no need to say it on Wikipedia, and if the need arose, there's more tactful ways to address the subject (it has been a staple of Bush's precidency to use military action more than has been seen in recent american history). I'd suggest you learn to do one or the other, and quickly. --InShaneee 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Semantics. I could say "Administrators Jayjg and Avraham, have in my expirience, shown a significant amount of bias in Jakew's favor in all my interactions with the three of them. In all my interactions with Jakew and my research of his past interactions with other editors I find there to be a consistent theme of him intimidating other editors (by improper citation of the rules) into not adding well-cited information to articles that challenges his position and that he has been warned by ArbCom in the past for this.". You would prefer it that way, I prefer to be terse. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally you take a user aside ... and telling them to behave I guess it all depends on what the user is/has been doing. If you come into my living room and start flinging poo, I'm not going to ask you to behave, I'm going to throw you out on your head. --Kbdank71 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And even with an indef block, there are recourses if they claim they want to reform. --InShaneee 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence of the user in question "flinging poo" - if it was a 24 hour ban i wouldn't have said a thing, but a permaban is way out of line. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In your opinion. However, there is such a thing as 'discretion', and as you'll notice, there's not a single admin here who thinks there was any wrongdoing on the blocking admin's part. --InShaneee 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And we can agree to disagree - it has been my expirience that Jayjg seems biased in Jakew's behalf mildly, and that Avraham is blatantly so (see his jumping on my case presuming i'm the one who put the SPAs without bothering to look at the diffs!). Lordkazan 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
At last. I was beginning to think I had to do it myself. And thank you also for your comment. 87.78.157.236 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user.
Apologies. My bullets weren't sufficient. I meant that I had blocked User:Tat for tit. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You were banned because you created an account for the purpose of harassing another editor, which is what you were doing as an IP address as well. That sums it up. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have no right to continue this discussion if you are going to remove content from it from the person you are suppose to be discussing things with. Quite an abuse. --NuclearUmpf 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Jayjg is enforcing a ban. That's not an abuse. Your interpretation of policy bans is, not surprisingly, less complete than that of an arbcom member. Settle down. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Try to be more civil when talking to your fellow editors, can you please describe what you see coming of a discussion if noone can argue their point because Jay says they cant since they were banned? ITs kinda pointless, he is having a discussion with himself. Maybe you should go settle down and relax and be more courteous. --NuclearUmpf 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Banned editors are not allowed to edit, and abetting those banned editors is, in fact, an abuse of your own editing privileges. I am not "supposed to be having a discussion" with a banned editor, and certainly not here. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Then do not continue the commentary if they cannot comment back, you are also not suppose to bait them? I believe you were the one who posted that on my talk page. Continuing the debate after removing their comments is surely not ending the discussion with people you cannot talk to. --NuclearUmpf 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
He, as someone who ISN'T indefinatly blocked, has every right to respond. --InShaneee 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
According to policy you are not suppose to bait banned users. --NuclearUmpf 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Let it go. All you are doing is making things worse and nothing is going to be resolved by your repeated interference. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is quite the same situation isnt it. If you want the last word then just say so, if you are not gonig to address the point and instead just threaten, what is the point of saying anything? This idea of posting a threat and not expecting a response is quite silly. The fact taht you threaten action to prevent the other person from responding is exactly why many users feel AN/I is ran by watch-my-back-ill-watch-yours admins. Makes you wonder if they are truely paranoid, I will wait for the Rogue admin link now. My participation here is done, because some admins cannot argue a point, even when there own policy says otherwise from their actions, so they just threaten. --NuclearUmpf 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
An odd sentiment coming from someone who's been here a month, yet has half of their edits to AN:I. --InShaneee 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your intelligent response. There is a topic, its appreciated if you stick to it. --NuclearUmpf 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
NuclearUmpf, you've made 103 edits to articles and yet you're expending considerable energy trying to tell several experienced admins and an ArbCom member that you know better than them. Banned users aren't allowed to post. That's the end of the matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was reciting what they posted on my talk page and the page on ban. Try to be more civil, its called a discussion. --NuclearUmpf 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This has no place on ANI. ANI is for important matters requiring the attention of administrators, not dispute resolution. — Werdna talk criticism 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack, possible sockpuppetry etc.

Great mess at Talk:Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest. I was called to mediate there but people were more interested in hurling insults, accusing one another of bad faith. One of the editors has provided evidence of another being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Basically there's loads of wikiviolations going on and I don't have the power nor the time to wade through it. Dev920 (Tory?) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to leave a request that someone take a look at what is happening there. Looks like Dev920 beat me to it. If someone can tell me how to confirm or deny that GST2006 (talk • contribs) is the same as banned user WikiWoo (talk • contribs), that would be a great way to start cleaning up the mess. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I was originally going to say that this didn't look like WikiWoo's work, having followed that discussion substantially, but after reviewing some of GST2006's earlier contributions, it does seem to be at least in his geographic sphere of interest and some of the early articles do discuss procurement, which was his big soapbox through most of his career. However, the tone of this editor and the method of argument looks to me like it's somewhat different, and the sudden shift of topic seems illogical - if WikiWoo was going to dig into the sock drawer and get right back to work, one would have suspected he would go back to the articles he targeted originally, and not jump over to a school board dispute. I'm not sure if there's enough for a checkuser case here or not, but that might be the way to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we can't do a checkuser if one of the users hasn't logged in since a while back? I'm biased, but the identity seems fairly obvious to me, and he didn't exactly react innocently to my direct question as to whether he is WikiWoo. (Should have asked if he was WikiWoo, my bad. And yes, I do know it is no proof either way.) Also note how the editor seems to be falling into a WikiWoo cycle of first losing it ("neo-nazis", the board being uninterested in educating students) and then regaining composure and asking to work together. This happened earlier, when he said he was satisfied with my wording (back when the article spoke of only one issue with the board...) only to "add content to expand Wiki" (cough) the next day. Your call. --Qviri (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to make a point here: I'm not an admin, so I'm just offering thoughts. I just find the sudden change of personality and target as somewhat out of his character. It sounds like you folks have enough to do an RFCU, and WikiWoo's last edits are likely not old enough to be a problem for a checkuser. That'd be the right way to go here if you seriously feel like he's a sock. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. --Qviri (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should also take a close look at the license for all the penis pictures that are on WP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nudewoman.jpg

Per the descision to delete the publicgirluk photos, I think this should be deleted too. It is a new user saying she took a picture of herself nude and released the Image under the public domain, just like Publicgirluk. Any thoughts? — Moe Epsilon 21:04 September 27 '06

Well, I've deleted it. Feel free to overturn it. --HappyCamper 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There's also Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png which I deleted too. But I think that's all I'll do today. --HappyCamper 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No consensus was formed about what to do in regard to the PGUK photos and from my discussions with Jimbo it does not seem that deletion is mandated by him. Therefore, what basis are these deletions occuring under? JoshuaZ 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, have either of you two gentlemen bothered to contact the uploader? Moe, I noticed you posted to HappyCamper's talk page, but based on a review of your latest user talk contributions, no sign that you contacted the uploader. That strikes me as a very uncollegial means of dealing with the problem, if a problem exists. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has been mocked mercilessly over the last half week or so over the handling of the Publicgirluk situation... turns out that they probably were good-faith uploads after all. Oops. Captainktainer * Talk 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Replying to both JoshuaZ and Ck: No consensus was formed what to due with the publicgirluk photos, but were they restored? I don't believe they were. The reason they were deleted in the first place was because it was possibly a hoax. If they were good-faith, I'll be the first in line to ask for the undeletion of the photos. But it's sort of risky to assume good faith that a user whose first edits are uploads of "themselves" nude, and then they never edit again. Ck, I didn't bother to contact the uploader, true, but the two uploaders User:Nnixon and User:Cp79 have left Wikipedia or they aren't bothering to come back. Nnixon only made two edits, the upload and adding the pic to an article. Likewise with Cp79, who also engaged in some talk page discussion, but left the following day. Why leave a message to a user telling them of thier Image deletion if they are apparently not coming back? If someone gets in contact with the users' and it is 100% certain that they are the models in they photos, we can readd them, but it's too risky otherwise. — Moe Epsilon 23:31 September 27 '06
I've seen a number of users who start out by making a few edits, don't edit for a while (even a month at a time), and then start editing regularly again. I've got several on my watchlist at the moment, actually. A couple of them started off by making rather controversial edits. It was also around the time of the users' creation that a Wikitruth article on the topic went up, and a number of Wikipedians read Wikitruth. Anyway, it's worth it to at least make an attempt. If it has to be after the fact because of potential legal problems, then it has to be after the fact, but in the meantime not bothering to inform the original uploader strikes me as very problematic. Captainktainer * Talk 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore I find it laughable that anyone respectable would mock wikipedia for removing a nude picture that was uploaded by a person who outright refuses to provide any sort of evidence that they are really who they say they are. It seems obvious that the entire ordeal was either a hoax or someone either making a point or trying to get wikipedia in trouble, and the people who defended the user mainly seemed to be doing it out of excitement of the possibility of having contact with a intelligent and beautiful woman who likes to post sexual pictures of herself. I should clarify that I don't have any problems with the pictures themselves, but the fact that the user was possibly not who they said they were really made me worry about the possibility of legal issues.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a good time to point people towards Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses, which is a draft of a policy to address this and similar issues. Dragons flight 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a good title because unusual image licenses could mean things like CeCILL which we don't see much.Geni 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've undeleted both of these. The publicgirluk situation is by no means a precedent we ought to automatically repeat. If anyone wants them deleted, they should at least take it to an WP:IFD debate, give the community a chance to comment on it.. and at LEAST contact the uploaders and double check. I'm going to contact them myself. Mangojuicetalk 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd also raise Image:Bride-two.jpg, a not-very-useful image of a woman in her underwear doing something silly. On the more general point: I don't think we need to be too keen to have images taken from life to represent various sexual topics, and nor do we need to represent 'ordinary' topics in a sexualised manner. Nudity has the balance right but woudl probably benefit from more naked photos of old ugly people. The Land 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We are also discussing this in a proposed guideline (for the sexology and sexuality project, not all of Wikipedia) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines.

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here
Wikipedia:Private photos of identifiable models is relevent to this issue as well, developed in response to the publicgirluk debate. Hbdragon88 04:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publicgirluk

The woman in the photos is porn model, Anna, aka "Linda Lust". You can see photos on http://galleries.anna19.com/lollyanna/n/1022766 and (large download) http://www.babeindex.se/showthread.php?p=1661#post1661. The latter site includes the photos submitted to wiki.

Both Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth have made much of the Publicgirluk incident to mock Wikipedia in general and Jimbo Wales in particular. Interestingly Wikitruth claims, "We contacted her and got her permission to put up these photos", so either they're not so truthful after all, or else they knew the source and still went ahead to castigate Wikipedia, which is also not very truthful, but worth recording in Wikitruth. No doubt both these sites will be withdrawing their remarks and offering an apology.

Anna is stated to be Swedish, and Publicgirluk claimed to be English, so one of them's telling porkies, and, in the likely event that the model did not upload them, they are a copyvio. It all points to the need for strict verification of authenticity.

PS Linda Lust on Swedish Wiki.

PPS Wikitruth state in their article talk page that it is indeed Linda Lust, whom they had asked permission from and that they were "pirvate (sic) photos taken by her boyfriend".

Tyrenius 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (back to wikibreak)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Tyrenius. It would be nice if those editors who yelled loud and long about how people who felt these pictures were likely not suitable for use were probably just sex-hating fascists would take note of this. Maybe next time they could extend a little more good faith to us, instead of just to the trolls. Nandesuka 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, there are 345 photos in that session. That also suggests that this was a professional shoot, and not "a couple of snaps taken by my boyfriend." Nandesuka 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tyrenius. This has clearly been a learning experience for all of us. That said, I'm not sure given the evidence we had at the time that it made sense to act as we did to the user in question. JoshuaZ 04:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good detective work. This justifies being careful when evaluating claims of copyright release. —Quarl (talk) 2006-09-29 06:10Z

I agree with JoshuaZ, Nandesuka you miss the point, see my comments here. grendelsmother 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research Tyrenius. Thank you. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed - all of us 'Puritans' who, out of sexual panic, wanted to 'bite the newcomers' are very glad to see that their copyright concerns regarding these images were valid. Seriously though, I am relieved that this is indeed (as suspected) a copyvio, and not a case of 'boyfriend's revenge', the darker possibility. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out here, there was nothing in the edit history that I could find that was definitive as to the user's bad intentions. Furthermore, we still have no definite proof that it was not the model who uploaded them. Wikitruth claim they have contacted the model and gained permission for the photos' use (and also that this particular set were "out of hours" pics by the boyfriend, though that is not necessarily of any import). They managed to discover the model's identity, so maybe they do know something. Some students work as escorts and also make porn. She wouldn't be the first porn actress to contribute to wiki. I don't know for sure whether Linda Lust is Swedish as nationalities are easily fictionalised. Publicgirluk said she didn't have a website (but then she doesn't as PGUK). Per the current discussion on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, we need to exercise restraint on what we do say here. If someone cares to contact her, then that would be definitive. There is also a discussion on http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Wikipedia_tells_naked_girl_to_get_lost
For our purposes, all of that is irrelevant anyway. I wouldn't like the new information to (re)create divisiveness. Users on both "sides" were genuine and had serious concerns. Let us respect each others' motivations, and find a place to meet in the middle in order to work together to resolve such situations harmoniously. This involves both better and earlier dialogue with such uploaders directly, as well as the need for verification of origin before such images are used.
Tyrenius 14:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (still trying to take a wikibreak)

[edit] Possible block evasion

I believe that User:Zandvoort is a block evasion sock of User:Burneville who is currently on a 48h for 3RR violation at Jim Clark. The reverts are identical as each others as well as prior socks (User:Pflanzgarten & various anons). Please consider block of the sock and extension of block on Burneville (or whatever you feel is appropriate). --After Midnight 0001 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind - This was also posted by another userr on 3RR and I missed it the first time I looked over there. Oh well. I'm off to RFCU now.... --After Midnight 0001 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Pflanzgarten is back - with the identical revert. He's still blocked as User:Burneville and User:Zandvoort. -- Ian Dalziel 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef block on Frogsprog (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

I have indef blocked Frogsprog (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). His talk page is filled with warnings and he has been blocked repeatedly. His replacement of a vandal edit on the talk page of the George W Bush article was the last straw. Comments welcome of course.--MONGO 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this guy ever since he created a userbox congratulating Osama on a job well done. Just a complete troublemaker, support block. Grandmasterka 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Same here, ever since I speedy deleted his offensive praise-of-9/11-attacks userbox. In fact I was debating slapping an indef block on him just before MONGO did. He has a long and colorful history of vandalism, trolling, and disruption. Fully support block. Antandrus (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have protected Frogsprog's talk page, as this indef blocked user is leaving personal attacks [84] there. --Aude (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New spambot

Perhaps there are a few open proxies in this bunch? Ryūlóng 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That achieved them an entry on the spam blacklist - possibly not what they had in mind :-) Guy 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Was also:

Among no doubt many others... /wangi 23:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted. And made a feature request. MaxSem 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 2

Don't know if this is the right place, but someone wiped out all the events of June 2 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2 Thanks - --Broux 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; it's already been fixed. In the future, feel free to revert such blatant vandalism yourself. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks --Broux 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption from User:ClairSamoht

Hi, I'm unsure what to do. Recently there has been a lot of controversy on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates about the appropriate way to provide references for certain articles which are standard textbook material. I have been trying, without much success, to mediate an informal compromise.

User:ClairSamoht seems to have gotten a bee in his or her bonnet about this. First the user is adding noncompliant tags to (featured!) articles like big bang with edit summaries of "vandalism" [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] (and more). This is clearly in violation of WP:POINT. Moreover, ClairSamoht is encouraging seasoned users to leave Wikipedia for disagreeing [92] which seems to violate basic standards of civility (not to mention that Wikipedia already seems to be having a problem with experts getting frustrated and leaving). Look, there is a genuine disagreement here, and peoples hackles are getting raised, but this is unacceptable in my book. Can someone have a look at ClairSamoht's contribs and comment? Thanks. –Joke 00:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that Good Articles are being delisted by the user [93], [94] without a review. –Joke 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked ClairSamoht why he/she tagged "Creationism" with an "unverifiable" template, as the article has copious references and footnotes, and he/she responded that there were certain sections which he/she thought should have references but didn't. IMO this is a clear mis-use of the tags, and is in the end not helpful — if an editor has specific complaints, there are ways to indicate the area of problem with far more specificity, and in any case blanket tagging without taking the time to explain the complaints is lazy and ineffectual. It does not help the project to indiscriminantly tag articles without real explanation, and I don't think posting a generic and inspecific template to a talk page counts as explanation. --Fastfission 00:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


The Verifiability policy says that "any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Yes, I have placed tags on several articles I've run across recently, for the reasons that the tag was created:
  1. the tag warns readers that the articles do not meet Wikipedia quality standards, and the articles may have untrustworthy content
  2. the tag recruits editors to work on the articles, and bring them up to Wikipedia quality standards
  3. the tag asks readers not to form a bad opinion of Wikipedia on the basis of the deficient article.
The verifiability policy allows any editor to challenge or remove unsourced content. In some of the articles I've tagged, there have been stretches of paragraph after paragraph without a single source being given. I have not disrupted Wikipedia by removing that unsourced content, but instead challenged the content with a Template:unsourced or Template:noncompliance tag, as official policy states I may do.
In the Creationism article, for instance, there aren't "copious" citations. Most paragraphs have NO citations at all. Adding one tag that applies to the whole article is substantially less disruptive than applying a hundred {{citationneeded}} tags.
In a number of cases, others have removed the dispute tags, in violation of WP:VAND, and I've reverted the removal with a note that removing dispute tags is vandalism. In more than one case, my posts to talk pages pointing out the requirements of WP:V have been deleted by others, leading users such as Joke to think that nothing had been posted on the talk page.
When others have argued that they should be allowed to write whatever comes into their mind, and ignore the policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, that they probably would be happier writing pages at GeoCities, where they could do that, or that they avail themselves of the WikiMedia software, and start their own site. When others have argued that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to write complete articles, and they should have a bunch of external links to make up for that deficiency, I have pointed out that Dmoz does that, and they're always looking for editors.
The problem with "experts" getting frustrated and leaving is that "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" When Encarta hires someone, they vet that person's background and credentials, and if they get caught diddling the data, they not only lose the Encarta job, but they can find themselves unemployable. What are the consequences for misfeasance or malfeasance as a Wikipedia editor? There are none. Rufus923 can sign up again, ten minutes later as Jasper911, and the editor doesn't miss any mortgage payments, doesn't even have to blush, because nobody need know he's actually a border collie living in Boise Idaho.
Articles that do not meet Good Article standards are supposed to be delisted. The ones I've delisted haven't even been borderline; they have serious deficiencies. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This looks like a good topic to bring up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check talk page, maybe get some activity going in those moribund pages. Everyone knows there is room for improvement in the good and featured articles—is this the best way to accomplish it? delisting them?EricR 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you dispute any of the actual claims? That's what WP:V is about. If you dispute a claim, add the {{fact}} tag to that claim. What you're doing right now is disruptive and not helpful. --W.marsh 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Every page needs references, but not every page needs prominent boxes warning readers that the content is problematic. In the absence of an actual dispute over content, the warning boxes should go. Further, templated messages saying that an article needs more references is not a helpful addition to a talk page. Every contributor can see whether or not the article has appropriate citations without the need for blanket reminders. If you have something specific to add to the discussion, or particular facts that you dispute, then talk about them. Better yet, go look up some sources and add more citations. But just adding unnecessary warning boxes and templatized reminders is disruptive and not helpful. Dragons flight 02:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason I put those tags on the articles is because there IS a dispute with content. It's untrustworthy. If I used google to research a topic, I could at least "consider the source", but with these articles, I can't tell whether the authors lined their hats with aluminum foil. And WP:V says that any reader MUST be able to check whether the material has already been published by a reliable source.
Isn't WP:V considered official policy any more? Shouldn't someone be editing that page to say Write anything you damned well please. Think of us as GeoCities, only easier to use.
Also, I suggest you delete the {{noncompliant}} and {{unsourced}} templates so that other users will know that articles should be peppered with scores of little tags instead of one big one, because they are less disruptive. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Every page has a community of people who care about it (especially prominent ones like Big Bang and Creationism). Those people generally work to ensure that content is accurate and trustworthy. If you have a problem with what they have written talk it over with them. Wikipedia is still a work in progress. Yes, WP:V is policy, and yes some of those pages could benefit for more citations, but we don't add warning boxes to pages unless the content is likely to be inaccurate or misleading. You've provided no evidence that there is anything actually inaccurate with the content, and merely stating the truism that more citations would make the pages better doesn't help anyone. Dragons flight 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dragons flight. {{unsourced}} is intended for articles like Antacid that don't have references, not articles you feel are insufficiently referenced. {{Noncompliant}} seems to be intended for articles violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT; if you are really asserting this, you better put a detailed explanation on the talk page showing just how the article violates each of these. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added some references to Big Bang, mostly by going to the daughter articles which are themselves well referenced and using copy and paste. I suppose that improves the article somewhat, but if I had, say, wanted the correct references for oscillatory universe, I might have just clicked the link. (WP:SS seems to agree that this is OK – not that I'm claiming that all the daughter articles are thoroughly referenced.)

The real point I want to make is this. A bunch of science editors are trying to get a clear picture of what an appropriate standard for referencing is, particularly on uncontroversial topics. We certainly think that a page like Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is both excessive and unrealistic, as is the failure to reference anything in recent article I wrote (not yet finished) structure formation. Some things people did earlier in the week got a few people, myself included, riled up. But User:ClairSamoht is doing this to make a point – it is obviously to make a point, because otherwise he/she wouldn't be selecting only articles User:ScienceApologist edits – is counterproductive and likely to prevent a consensus from being established on this particular issue. Now, I realize that as far as he/she is concerned we can all fuck off to GeoCities, but I don't think the rest of the Wikipedia community agrees. Please stop this little crusade. –Joke 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having encountered ClairSamoht recently, I have the impression that he or she means well, but that all would benefit if ClairSamoht worked with a gentler touch and demonstrated more respect for fellow editors' feelings. William Pietri 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here. I reverted one of him/her (noncompliant boilerplate)s that had been added to Creationism with NO reason being given on the talk page, putting in my edit summary that the addition of such warnings should be discussed on the talk page first. It got reverted with an edit summary of "reverting vandalism". I'd like user ClairSamoht to understand that editors may differ in opinion, but that discussion should be used as a prime resolver of disputes, and that plates such as those that she liberally sprinkles on Wikipedia should only be added AFTER they are discussed. Finally, I'd like this user to understand that good articles really shouldn't be delisted without a review.--Ramdrake 12:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Gardner

I think I deleted the first part of an article on Alexander Gardner (the Soldier) while adding my own brilliant thoughts.......have no idea how to deal with this <e-mail address removed> sorry

No problem; it's been fixed. Wikipedia:Revert can show you how to restore old versions of pages; you can copy and paste your changes to that next time. Let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate usernames

Hey, can someone please block DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE ANY FUCKING MILK????? (talk • contribs) and Antidisestablishmentarianizeyourass (talk • contribs)? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 06:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! While we're on the username topic, what are we doing about userpages and user talk pages of names like this? Can we delete them if they've no encyclopedic content? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Best thing, in most cases. Guy 10:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, your signature is whacked. I'm removing the crazy CSS from it. [ælfəks] 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Faust (talk • contribs)

This user — who has received numerous warnings about his struggle with maintaining civility — has been repeatedly blanking his user_talk page (which consists of little but warnings). Would somebody mind peeking in on him and seeing if his actions are on the up and up? Many thanks. – ClockworkSoul 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Users are permitted to blank their talk pages, its just not preffered. The preffered action would be for them to archive their talk page. Is there a template that can be left advising this? I don't want to elave a message that understates the importance or overstates the preffered method. --NuclearUmpf 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that one should not delete warning messages, but I'm uncertain if there is an offical policy regarding this. If anybody knows, would you please point me to the page? Whatever the rules are, it looks like DMacks has taken care of it nicely. Thanks, D! – ClockworkSoul 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There are templates exactly for this: {{wr0}}, {{wr1}}, {{wr2}}, {{wr3}} and {{wr4}}. --Abu Badali 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe those are linked to outdated procedure. I normalyl go by Talk page etiquette

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

Is there some other method, my udnerstanding is this is a constantly fluctuating(sp?) topic. --NuclearUmpf 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It is, very much so. Traditionally, users control their talk pages and If a user blanks a warning it is OK to assume they've seen it and you are justified in going to the next level if there is further difficulty. But if it's a different admin that comes along, not knowing, they may give the first level warning again, confusing the issue. In the cases where I leave warnings for particularly obstreperous editors, and it's already not the first time I say "and if you remove this warning right away I'll block you for it" which may not be exactly right, but it's what I do, because while I recognise the tradition of a user controlling their page (within limits, this is a wiki and no one owns their pages) I think it's more important that other admins not have their time wasted. It's a trade off... busy admin vs. troublesome user... I come down on the side of making the admin's life easier. Myself, with a user I've not been working with before, I try to remember to look at the history of their talk page looking for warnings. Which is why admins ought to use good edit summaries like "3rd warning for incivility at mumbletopic" so you can spot them quickly. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, perhaps a time limit is needed, like "warnings should not be removed within 24hours of them being issued", something that will allow particularly disruptive users to not skate away with multiple first warnings, yet still retain some basic idea of control over their userpage. This isnt really the place I guess for that discussion however, but I again thank you for clarifying that. --NuclearUmpf 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It would also help to use verbose edit summaries when leaving warnings. Thatcher131 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Veronica678

Veronica678 appears to be a single purpose account [95], focusing on Almeda University (a diploma mill) and Life Experience Degrees. Her contributions to the latter read like a prospectus for people who are considering getting shady degrees "in 5 to 20 business days" (probably the whole thing is a copyvio), while her edits to the former have settled down into simple whitewashing after language about accredited school nepotism was removed. User has refused to heed several warnings. A.J.A. 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Belginusanl

The purpose of this account seems to be to upload pictures of identifiable minors and put them into Wikipedia articles. I've deleted one instance of such a picture that I found and blocked the account indefinitely, pending review. I urge restraint and caution in reversing either of these actions. This is a very, very sensitive subject for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed this users contribs on Commons, an indef on both makes sense. Commons:Little girl at one point contained over 100 images of a similar nature to the one Tony deleted. I've blocked the user from Commons in conjunction with the en. block.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Given the suspicious and similar behavoir here from a user who was already blocked from commons, in the case, I'd endorse the "block and review" concept. I suppose that a single IfD for the whole lot of images seems like a good idea here.Voice-of-All 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unblock

Template:Unblock is broken. JBKramer 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How? Seems fine to me. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


I believe it's eating anything with markup. Not to cast a lot of attention but - [96]. I probably bobbled something.JBKramer 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Wyatt

If a admin has a moment could they pop over to Ron Wyatt where someone is intended on adding all sorts of ranty nonsense about evil wikipedia. I'd rather not get blocked for 3RR. --Charlesknight 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska

Alaska's received a fair bit of vandalism lately. Keep an eye on it. DRK 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edit as of this writing: 23:32, 28 September 2006 by User:W.marsh, removing uncited statements. Appears this is under control now. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spambot attack on talk archives

My talk page archives had been the target of a spambot attack for quite some time now. The latest wave includes this and this. I am posting this here for future referance primarily. --Cat out 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The links are now on the m:Spam blacklist. Naconkantari 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
More links have appeared. See [97]. Reverting is pointless since the bot will repost the links, I believe it is only targeting my talk archives... --Cat out 06:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think it would be prudent to delete the spam from histories... --Cat out 07:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:A.J.A. Launching Unprovoked Attacks Against Almeda University

User:A.J.A. Has launched an unprovoked attack against a legal entity that operates within the law, presents all proper disclosures on its website and maintains a very high customer satisfaction record. S/he refuses to allow both sides to the argument of Life Experience Degrees claiming that simply the word "Life Experience" implies diploma mill. Whatever personal issues and concerns User:A.J.A. has with Almeda should not be presented in this forum. User:A.J.A. has searched the Internet seeking out anything s/he can find that is nagative about Almeda and uses it as "ammunition" refusing to post any of the valid praises that so widely abound. User:A.J.A. lists news stories that cannot be corroborated as evidence of facts. I am not writing a prospectus. I am defending Almeda from false and damaging commentary by User:A.J.A. Veronica678 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He's got verifiable sources, which are needed. You're removing them, which is vandalism. --InShaneee 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, this is not a forum, this is an encyclopedia. (of sorts) Homestarmy 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, not "of sorts". This is an encyclopedia. I'm curious: What would make it "of sorts"? -- Tenebrae 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
We aren't as good as we want to be. We are becoming a great encyclopedia (release 1.0). We are currently useable but not vandalism free (release 0.5). "of sorts" reflects our aspirations. The fact is that no encyclopedia is perfect and no source of information should be accepted without question. WAS 4.250 00:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
We're also probably the only really good encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so i'd say we're not entirely a normal encyclopedia heh. Homestarmy 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The only unprovoked attacks are against AJA. Stop removing cited claims. Arbusto 08:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hacked account?

I moved this from WP:RFP as it seems to be complicated - Cowman109Talk 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Account was hacked, so i had to create a new one. i wish to request protection, just how my old account was protected. I'm not sure if this is the place, but can that old account and its sub-pages be destroyed/banned to prevent it from being misued, and thought of as me? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

One of these users should probably be indefinitely blocked, though there would need to be evidence that one account really has been hacked and that one is not the real person, so I bring this issue here as I'm not sure what to do with it. Cowman109Talk 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't want to end up being thought of as a sock-puppet or backup account, and banned if the person who hijacked my account starts causing trouble. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have proof of being repeatedly attacked on wikipedia, if it helps:

Vandalism History: User:Raccoon_Fox

User_talk:Raccoon_Fox

The reason i'm asking to have my old account (User:Raccoon_Fox) banned and its page and subpages rendered unusable is so that if someone (the hijacker) ends up using it to harm others or disturb wikipedia, i fear that the other contributors may think it's me, or that i'm a sockpuppet or backup account of the hacker. I simply wish to avoid these scenarios. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection requested

Could some kind soul unprotect my user page, please? I'd like to tidy it up as it is (obviously) out of date. --Pete 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Requests for protection instead. Cowman109Talk 00:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, on second thought - it's not October 26. I'm a tad confused here. Cowman109Talk 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
My block expired 27 minutes ago. The fact that I'm able to edit this page is proof enough of that. Pete 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This may be an example of the blocking code failing - I don't think you were supposed to be unblocked until October 26. It seems a bit futile to reblock you at this point since the message is already clearly done, but that just seems a tad odd. It's probably best for this to get cleared up through arbcom, though. Personally I don't think you should be reblocked. Cowman109Talk 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a failure of the code. I discussed early unblocking offline recently with Jimbo. I suggest anyone thinking of reblocking me get in contact with him. Pete 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on Jimbo's talk page requesting clarification. Cowman109Talk 00:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an earlier block was never undone before resetting the year, so the earlier block overrode the later one. Dmcdevit has reblocked. Thatcher131 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Man I love blocked users who name drop. :) But yes, sometimes a new block will not overwrite an old block. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highways poll concluded

The WP:SRNC poll has concluded (with the exception of one state, and this minor dispute has nothing to do with article name). Therefore, mass page moves pursuant to WP:USSH will be taking place. Please do not block any of these users, as these moves are not controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user Daniel Brandt back yet again

68.89.136.174 (talk • contribs) claims to be him. *Dan T.* 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be, but in any case that IP has been blocked and the edit reverted. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 03:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fethullah Gulen page

Hi, I am trying to contribute to Gulen page. The page is reverted back to an ancient version by a user barouqque. S/he is reverting back to his long discussed and corrected version as documented at this link. All corrections and discussions are getting lost for about a year.

The people doing this are using a tactic to keep others away from the article. They blame others being a puppet. Unfortunately some admins are not checking the histroy page carefully and being part of this game.

I would like to raise the issue to the attention of community. Please help to keep a version of the article long discussed, corrected and neutralized.

Thanks. 128.101.254.126 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My presumption is that this is a sock of indefinitely blocked user rgulerdem. Watch out for the tar baby. Nandesuka 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.104.164.160

Someone needs to block 81.104.164.160. This user has a history of random vandalism and has been warned repeatedly, but for some reason no one has blocked him. DRK 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism in recent history. Can you show me some? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats and WP:OFFICE violations

I blocked Eleemosynary (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for a week for this legal threat [108] and for reinstating material removed by Danny from Mindy Kaling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Feel free to review, increase, decrease. Guy 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate username

User:*****SENIOR EXECUTIVE EDITOR IN CHIEF: WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM***** has just made some edit to the sandbox...--Asteriontalk 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I already blocked him. Thanks anyway, though. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

Hello I believe that this user New York from Flavor of Love may be this indefinatly blocked user Cute 1 4 u. Check this dif [109] and talk page Leroyencyclopediabrown for the possible proof. If I'm wrong on this I appolize in advance but Cute 1 4 u does have a history of sock puppet and ban evasion. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition I once I commented on that user being suspicious the comments that were made by New York from Flavor of Love were removed. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this looks somewhat similar (Cute 1 4 u did once create an account impersonating Raven Symone). I'd file a RFCU. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought about it, thanks I will should I post the findings here or will not not be needed? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Any findings in the RFCU should probably be posted here unless it comes back positive and she's indef-blocked right then and there. But it looks somewhat definitive, looking at the user's edit history. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Coredesat. I caught one of hers last week and the writing style is VERY similar to here other socks. I will post the finding once they come in. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The account *could* be blocked per WP:USERNAME I think... "New York" was in fact the nickname given to a real contestant on the first season of Flavor of Love (generally only the nicknames were used on the show) and thus this name more-or-less falls afoul of the "Names of well-known living people" clause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the userpage and what BoG said, I decided to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it absurd how much people-power is being thrown at stopping an alleged 11 year old female sockpuppeteer from "abusing" Wikipedia as a social network? -- Netsnipe ► 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it from your use of quotation marks that you disagree with the characterization of social networking as an abuse of Wikipedia? Choess 06:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, based on this diff and the message the most current IP placed on Leroy's talk page, it's definitely her. She thinks she can hide stuff by deleting it. Ryūlóng 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just call me Ed.=) I apologize to everyone who has been trying to contact me overnight. I (obviously) was sleeping. Anyway, I think that Cute 1 4 u should be given one more chance. Two reasons for this. First of all, she doesn't have to keep making new accounts just to prove her point. Second, it removes the hassle of blocking EVERY SINGLE account she makes. We all know she's going to make more and more accounts.--Edtalk c E 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, she was blocked for Sockpuppet abuse, impersation, Vandalism and the 11 year old part was just added ammo to the case. And the Check user came up possitive. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New York from Flavor of Love and 75.34.176.105 have both been blocked indef as sockpuppets, although I thought that IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Was there an exception made? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You know that she's going to make a new account anyway! What's the point for all of this hassle? This is a complete waste of our time! If we just give her a second chance on Wikipedia, less time for us working on her case, and one more volunteer Wikipedian.--Edtalk c E 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Cute 1 4 u welcomed Starcare, who is likely a puppet of Publicola, who is likely a puppet of Pepsidrinka. Hard punt. Lots of socks involved here.--Scribner 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You see? The situation's getting worse. The only solution is to back off or get more admin power.--Edtalk c E 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Scribner obviously has something against Pepsidrinka, so I'm taking his comments with more than a pinch of salt. – Chacor 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's way too much of a stretch. Ed, sorry, but Cute 1 4 u has just done too much. Yeah, she'll keep coming back, and she'll continue to contact you, and we'll continue to deal with her. If she realizes that she's not helping, then we'll stop blocking, but as long as she continues to contact you and admit that she's who she is, then we have to block her. Ryūlóng 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ryulong, I'm not the only one she might want to contact. Do you even realize that she could be lurking around Wikipedia right this moment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed (talk • contribs).

75.34.12.156 is another one. Posted on my talk page Æon Insanity Now!EA! 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this IP you found, but I think we should wait until she does something else before we take action against this IP.--Edtalk c E 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It was blocked it was her (The post admited it) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How long is the block? --Edtalk c E 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Possible one Prple space mnky@hotmail.com edited with the summary Got to keep it real on edit summary (Dif [110]) a phrase that she used many many times as her qoute. Caught this one while monitoring recent changes Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Cute 1 4 u. If I had any socks, I'd admit them. I already told you all of them. But Ed is right, I'm trying to prove my point. --75.33.230.133 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Prple space mnky@hotmail.com , User:Starcare, or User:Publicola. I swear, I don't even know them. However, to prove my point, all i can say is that i have a new account and I am much nicer on that account. Ed is right. --75.33.230.133 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have found another sock and I requested a check user (Came up again on Recent changes, edits article that were created by other socks with teh same grammer an such) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More or less confrimed the sockpuppet. Autoblock got it (See TV Lover) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Cute 1 4 u (or whatever) is going to get me a headache. I tried asking her why she's doing this on her talk page, but she said she's "going to commit 'suiside' ," or something. I don't know... I know this may sound stupid, but can't we block her IP address, so she stops creating these annoying sockpuppets? Cheers! The RSJ - SPEAK 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She's on a dynamic IP, SBC, I believe (according to the WHOIS reports). There's not much we can do but keep blocking her new accounts. She's not committing suiside any time soon. Ryūlóng 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you please clarify your statement? "Committing suicide"? Is it literal or figurative? --physicq210 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Prob Figurative she is 11 years old and has a history of being overly dramatic. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
She'll be back tomorrow, probably recreating that article of hers. Ryūlóng 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any way to protect the page from being created, say, creating a blank article then fully protecting it? Shadow1 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the article she keeps creating? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This situation is getting nowhere. In fact, it's getting worse. She will keep making new accounts, and you know that. We must find a permanent solution to this.--Edtalk c E 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The soulition is simple keep blocking her. We can't block her IP with out cuasing other issues. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted SBC about this user? Letting them know that the misbehavior of one 11-year-old kid might lead to Wikipedia blocking their entire DHCP range could be an incentive for them to listen. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I must tell you something. I live in the same area as Cute 1 4 u (not the same suburban area, we don't live close together or anything, we both in Metropolitan Chicago, which is in the United States). Anyway, SBC changed to AT&T in Chicago. AT&T bought SBC, so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.--Edtalk c E 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me get my facts straight. Take a look at SBC Communications, which says that SBC was the one who bought AT&T. They then changed their name. --Edtalk c E 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm am not misbehaving. I had stress but it has gone away. Not creating any more accounts. If I have to come back when I'm 13, I guess i'll create another account then. Say what you want. Don't contact me llywrch, I don't know you. --75.34.176.207 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With that begin said I may have found yet one more sockpuppet of Her. I have requested another check user. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another day, another sockpuppet, eh? What's the newest sockpuppet called now? Cheers! The RSJ - SPEAKThe RSJ at the RS Wiki 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
But Crystal (that's her real name, so everyone would know) already said she's not creating any socks.--Edtalk c E 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And I don't beleive her. Check my talk page for the latest. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I'm not. That other sock was before i made my earlier statement. --75.33.249.5 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
on Aeon's page I met to say I wouldn't make anoter sock p. --75.34.185.51 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked Cute 1 4 u's block log, and I am very surprised that we banned a user for being a certain age. Either I'm misreading the block reason, or we have just banned an account because she was 11 yrs. old. I don't think this is right. If Cute 1 4 u was blocked because of many other reasons such as vandalism, then that should appear on the block log.

In addition, I'm beginning to question her block reasons. The sockpuppettering is already proven. (with all of the accounts that came up here on ANI. But vandalism??? Where's the vandalism here??? I think we should recover the supposed vandalism in question.--Edtalk c E 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is enough to get her unblocked? If you think about it, the sockpuppeteering started just because she was blocked for being a certain age, the link to her block log is above. And there really wasn't any proof she was going to vandalise Wikipedia—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed (talk • contribs).
Well, the admission to being part of S-man's "vandalism project" on top of all of the other things that she did (sockpuppetry, MySpace treatment, personal attacks, civility, etc.) all led to her block. If she just sits it out and/or stops making evident that she is who she is, then we won't have to bother her about it. But the fact that its now starting to bother you and other users is beyond anything. Ryūlóng 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Actally I just stopped that. And Ed's right. Why am I blocked for being 11? I can't change my age untill years past. He did the vandalism. I though about and said yeah but after that i was gonna sasy no but I was blocked. Now you think about it. Are you really being fair? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs).
Then why does the edit summary state her age as the main problem? I suggest that the blocking admin unblock her and provide a better block summary. And in addition, where's the proof that she was vandalising with S-man? I don't see any proof anywhere.--Edtalk c E 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I meant block summary. =) --Edtalk c E 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
She has made some descent edits. I think we should re-enable her account if nothing else after a short break period of maybe a month or so. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. --Mattwj2002 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think so, too. What I'm thinking is that we get her account unblocked and put her on a monthlong probation. During the probation period, we will be watching all of her contribs and things like that. If she does something questionable, we block her with no questions asked.--Edtalk c E 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I initially believed that this user deserved another chance. The behaviour since the block was placed between this user and the numerous sockpuppets, some of which were created after the block, has shown to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this user has no intention of becoming a good editor and has no compunction against blatantly flaunting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. While this is clearly an opinion, I am firmly against unblocking this user's account. If the user cannot even be trusted to behave while a block is in effect, what possible reason do we have for believing the user will act properly if unblocked? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me fifty times and I'm a moron. --Yamla 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Please rephrase your last 3 sentences. They don't make sense. =) Anyway, why do you think that Cute 1 4 u has been sockpuppeteering? Maybe the block would have affected it. Even then, putting her on probation shoud do the trick.--Edtalk c E 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

She was being a sockpuppeteer long before her indefinite block. User:Raven Symone, User:Skittles Lover, and others that have been proven at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u, one of which was long before the block was imposed. I would not feel it wrong if Yamla decided to change the block summary to something else; something that just doesn't show that she was blocked on the reason of her age, but that along with the many other reasons I have mentioned above. Ryūlóng 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is becoming corrupt:

  • Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being a certain age, as stated in her block summary. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is in the block summary is the basis of her block.
  • She wasn't going to vandalise Wikipedia. She planned to vandalise the sister projects, but not Wikipedia. There's a difference. The admins at the appropriate sister projects should have been notified.
  • We're making wild assumtions that Cute 1 4 u keeps making sockpuppets. I know that she admitted to some of the socks, but what if the accounts were controlled by her siblings or relatives or something? At her original userpage, Cute 1 4 u established that she had siblings (I think).--Edtalk c E 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • She said she wasn't going to vandalise wikipedia. She's already shown a willingness to ignore our rules by creating socks. There are no wild assumptions when she's admitted to some of the sockpuppets. If one of those accounts really was a family member, that is unfortunate, but really too bad. Sometimes someone does something that ruins it for everyone. If the family is really that bent out of shape over it, they'll have to take it up with her. Maybe she'll learn something.--Crossmr 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • All I'm just saying is that we're just coming to conclusions about these sockpuppets. We're blocking accounts for sharing the same IP with a banned user. For instance, what if she's using a school IP? There are multiple users that might be coming from the same school. And what about the wifi connections that people use now? Wouldn't multiple users be using the same wifi connection?--Edtalk c E 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Family members getting blocked because of one bad apple? What a ridiculous notion! --Ryūlóng 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, we're not blocking new accounts for sharing the same IP. We're blocking new accounts because Cute 1 4 u comes out and says she's evaded her block, again, on some ridiculously named new account or one of us finds out through seeing suspicious edits and she hasn't admitted to it yet, and that pushes us to add an nth RFCU request on her. Ryūlóng 07:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
i'm back. User:Shakim67 is not my family member and my family is not out of shape or whatever you wanna say. My point of createing sockpuppets is to show you my good edits. And i admit, I can be one evil bitch [111] (if that's what ya wanna say), but I can also be a best friends and very nice.i don;t care what you need to say to me. Any way, i was planning to vandalize other wiki products, but decided not. I was gonna tell S-man i changed my mind but I was then already blocked. so thats my side of the story. --75.34.188.39 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe we should try and view your side of the story and review this situation in an unbiased manner!!!--Edtalk c E 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Creating sockpuppets to show your good edits is calling disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is bad, mkay? Ryūlóng 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
SORRY, MY KEYBOARD'S GETTING STUCK ON THE CAPS LOCK KEY. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.--Edtalk c E 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm rescinding that last comment, as you appear to be lying a bit. Ryūlóng 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
i didn't say shakim was my sockpuppet. He's a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs) .
That's not what your sockpuppetry comes from. It's from User:Christy06, User:New York from Flavor of Love, and whoever else you made. Those sockpuppets were used to solely evade your block and continue editting, and now, you just edit anonymously, bring attention to yourself, and impose another block on your IP for the day. Ryūlóng 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you've hit the mark, Ryūlóng... she wants attention! •The RSJ• (Main Hub - Rants) 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not want attention. I just wanna go back to wikipedia. (The 1st block) I wanna know why am i blocked for being 11? --75.31.247.39 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Your continued blatant abuse of Wikipedia (continuing to bypass blocks and continuing to create abusive sockpuppets) shows quite clearly why you should be blocked. At this point, I'm in favour of instantly banning any sockpuppets on site and providing long-term blocks of any IP address used by this user. Continuing to edit the Wikipedia while blocked is abusive behaviour. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, we should consider additional steps to prevent the continued abuse from this user. I'm not sure what else can be done, though. Perhaps a block of the entire IP range, though that has a high possibility of hitting innocent third parties (in which case, it is clearly inappropriate). Perhaps contacting the ISP and having them terminate the abusive user (though I'm not sure if this is kosher). --Yamla 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Range blocking this user will result in a DoS of what may be all SBC customers in the Chicago area, and taking legal actions against an 11 year old doesn't sound too easy. Ryūlóng 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Placing a range block hinders the editing of numerous editors from Chicago. WE NEED ANOTHER SOLUTION.--Edtalk c E 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you're all in luck guys. There was a tornado warning in effect yesterday in the Chicago area. No, there was no major damage to Chicago (I think), but the Internet connections have been cut off. In fact, I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia until right now until my Internet came back. (I live in the Chicago suburbs). So...just sit back, and relax. --Edtalk c E 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) To get through to you, a bit, Ed, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS CONVERSATION, AMIRITE? We are trying to figure out a way to deal with Cute 1 4 u, which may just end up getting her (and by proxy her parents') internet subscription cancelled for a period of time, and this would force her parents to input parental controls so that she cannot utilize Wikipedia, but this would have to be done at some point through legal actions, and I don't think Brad or any of the other Wikimedia legal reps wants to have to sue an 11 year old girl. Ryūlóng 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, although I believe Cute 1 4 u's abuse has gone way out of hand, I don't think it is realistic to seriously consider suing her. There's virtually no potential upside as far as I can see, and substantial downsides. Plus WP:LEGAL. Also, blocking all of Chicago isn't a good plan because it would affect editors like Ed, though if we could find a way to do so without affecting other users, I would strongly advise that action. I wonder how difficult it would be to contact the ISP and report the long-term deliberate abuse, and whether it would result in any change. Apart from that, the only other option I see is permanent bans on the sockpuppets and long-term blocks on any IP address used by this long-term vandal. Perhaps IP blocks of a month at a time, until and unless we block a legitimate editor accidentally (not just another abusive sockpuppet). --Yamla 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, legal suit was just the only thing I could think of (I'm a marine biologist/chemist/geologist/anthropologist, not a lawyer :P). The best we can do is just what Yamla has suggested. Indefblock registered users that are proven after either edits, an RFCU, or an autoblock, and long-term block IP addresses that she claims to use, which may sadly end up blocking the Chicago area's SBC users. Ryūlóng 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting, with edit conflict)Blocking Cute 1 4 u's IP range will affect all SBC users. In addition, SBC has better things to worry about than our problems with one of their clients. For example, almost all of their Chicago customers are cut off from the internet because of the tornado last night. With that in mind, SBC would consider Wikipedia one of their least problems--Edtalk c E 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the time passes, we will have to send an abuse complaint to SBC concerning Cute 1 4 u's actions in the various Wikimedia projects. Rangeblocking is certainly out of the question, for now, but IP blocks will help (even though it appears that a new IP edits every day). Ryūlóng 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I placed the banned user template on Cute 1 4 userpage, legal action for this is silly in my opinion. Jaranda wat's sup 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    So now we just treat any edits as revertable, even if they pop-up here? Ryūlóng 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, revert and block Jaranda wat's sup 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, then. Looks like I'm going to have to frequent AIV more. Ryūlóng 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Are we going to notify SBC or deal with the situation ourselves.?--Edtalk c E 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Cute 1 4 u will be making more socks. In fact, she might have a sockpuppet going around Wikipedia right now! Do we have a category page where we can just put all of her socks? That way, we can look through all of them and try to predict what her next sockpuppet would be.--Edtalk c E 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any socks at the present time. I would have made a new account. But i'm interested in real life. :P Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs).

I think an indefinite block was a little much. I think if you give this user another chance she will be more careful in her actions on Wikipedia. Jecowa 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this based on? Her continuing stream of abusive edits since the initial block? The large number of abusive socks she continues creating? An editor who continues blatantly and deliberately abusing the Wikipedia and lying about her actions while a block is in place is not, in my opinion, someone proving themselves likely to "be more careful in her actions" in the future. --Yamla 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're not being optimistic here. First of all, haven't you ever considered the fact that Cute 1 4 u made many USEFUL edits? In addition, she may have become angry, stressed, and upset after learning that she was being banned for a certain age. Even if her block reason was changed, she might have thought she was being blocked for being 11. In fact, review User talk:Cute 1 4 u and see the original reasons for blocking her.--Edtalk c E 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have found yet one more (User:Sweet Pinkette) and I fully support an indef ban Æon Insanity Now!EA! 13:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I checked the dialogue you 2 had, and you didn't provide a link to Cute 1 4 u's userpage. So how did she know anything about that? On the other hand, she as been editing since June 24, a date before Cute 1 4 u established socks.--Edtalk c E 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple.--Bonafide.hustla 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's Fred Bauder?--Edtalk c E 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder is an admin and arbitrator.--Bonafide.hustla 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anymore. I already revealed them all. Just, I don't know, block me. This will probably be my last comment here. I already said my sorry but someone deleted it. If I do come back, it probably be when I'm 13, maybe... --Cute 1 4 u —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.34.0.106 (talk • contribs).

Well that's just depressing.--Edtalk c E 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this comment is enough to warrant an unblock. She has apologized already. Go back to those days when you were in Kindergarten. Didn't the teacher always forgive you if you say sorry? Same situation here. In Wikipedia, Cute 1 4 u is a fairly young editor who doesn't know any better. She is at an age when they like to be licentious.--Edtalk c E 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This too-forgiving attitude is a reason why there are so many irresponsible idiots around despite forced universal education. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's better than the unmerciful nuns who would slap your hands with a ruler--Edtalk c E 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Everyone is biased in this situation now. Ed, Crystal has attached herself to you and you are starting to feel sorry for her, even when she broke way too many of Wikipedia's rules, and she has now become banned. We all have to get on with our lives now. Ryūlóng 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to point out that Crystal is not even allow to edit here with her IP on the ground that she is indefinitely banned. The only place she is allow to communicate is her personal talkpage. Editing with her IP in order to gain sympathy and support is another violation of her indef. block. Another issue is that we have no way of knowing her real age, I remembered a thread from Fred Bauder back in early August saying Crystal claimed to be 15 on myspace and 13 on blackplanet. Age is irrevelevant in this issue. I highly doubt her "contributions" to the project will be missed.--Bonafide.hustla 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like she should have the right to defend herself in this discussion concerning her. Also she cannot edit her personal talk page because it has been protected. She apologizes many times. She is interested in continuing as a wikipedian here. A vandal would have just forget the discussion and make new accounts to vandalize with. She really wants to be here. She has already served a month of "ban" for her policy violations. Could you please let her come back? --Jecowa 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what a vandal would do and that's what she has done, over and over and over again. If she had served one month without vandalising, I'd be willing to support her coming back. But how many sockpuppets has she created in that time? How many edits has she performed? These numbers are so far above zero that I'm not sure it is fair to categorise the past month as "served". --Yamla 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As a side note, I have unprotected the banned user's talk page. It was protected by another admin and was done so because the banned user was blatantly vandalising the talk page itself. I'm hoping that Cute 1 4 u has learned enough to refrain from vandalising that page any further, though given the large amount of abuse over the past month, my hopes aren't that high. --Yamla 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I happen to agree with User:Bonafide.hustla:
"I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple."
As it says here, there is no way to prove that Cute 1 4 u is eleven! For all we know, she might be the world's oldest woman (or man, but let's not go there)! And if we do unblock Cute 1 4 u, other people will do the exact same thing! This is apparently the downside of having Wikipedia articles so popular on search engine lists on the top of search engine; random, WikiDestructive people that want to take advantage of Wikipedia join, and then vandalize just because they think it's cool that they can change a web site article that many people will see! And excuse me, Cute 1 4 u, if you really do want attention, you're getting it. •The RSJ• (Main Hub - Rants) 02:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I will be merging all of Cute 1 4 u's sockpuppet talk pages and redirecting all of them into User talk:Cute 1 4 u. That way, all messages intended for Cute 1 4 u may be sent there, and she may respond on her own talk page without having to form any other sock. This procedure will remove any reason for Cute 1 4 u to make another sock.--Edtalk c E 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I already merged all of the pages except for User talk:TV Lover. It's a protected page. Anyway, I haven't noticed any activity with Cute 1 4 u. I'm beginning to think she finally was able to evade her ban and evade the admins.--Edtalk c E 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's frankly something much worse. Ryūlóng 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well let me make myself clear. I haven't made a sockpuppet before, and I don't intend to. But if I wanted to make one, I would:
  1. First create a sockpuppet with no hint of relationship to the main account.
  2. Make some contributions completely different to the main account.
  3. Once the situation with the main account has died down, I would then make the edits the main account used to make. Editors working with this sock would then assume that this is a new contributor to their field, and seeing his/her previous contributions, wouldn't suspect a thing.
Just my input on possibilities--Edtalk c E 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u has sent a message, if anyone is interested, at User talk:Cute 1 4 u.--Edtalk c E 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I need an opinion on this: Does anyone think think Cute 1 4 u still lurks around Wikipedia?--Edtalk c E 20:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's just that she's been doing fairly well in not bringing attention to herself. Ryūlóng 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, except for this never-ending thread at the top of WP:ANI. FreplySpang 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This thread will never end. I think we should move this to a subpage, or archive it. Besides, no detected activity with Cute 1 4 u, right?--Edtalk c E 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not an admin, but I'd suggest archiving it anyway, and if she starts any more trouble with a sockpuppet or IP, just run a checkuser (if needed) and block. There probably isn't any need to discuss it anymore, particularly if she hasn't done anything in the last day or so. --Coredesat (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It will never be archived if you keep commenting on it. :) —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
All you have to do is move it to the archive. The bot isn't needed for this.--Edtalk c E 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It is, so just leave this alone for a day. The bot will do it on its own given 24 hours. Ryūlóng 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism?

It is not clear to me why one administrator, Sarah Ewart, has created so much red tape over one short article. It appears as if she has intentionally complicated things. The subject I wrote about is published and very well known in the engineering field. She is identified on numerous webpages and websites. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. There are numerous living and accomplished people from all over the world who are listed in Wikipedia. The subject of the article I submitted represents one of millions of these people. What is it about the subject that is causing problems for Ms Ewart and the team of administrators she has rounded up to review this... or maybe there are other elements that I need to now consider? Please let me know because her actions are truly inappropriate. I am trying to work with her, follow her suggestions, identify why the subject is important and noble, and yet she seems to escalate things without resolving them. She indicated that she now requires the advice of her peers when she abruptly locked and deleted the article. This demonstrates that she may not be qualified to be an administrator, let alone, a volunteer. In fact, it shows that she may have reacted too quickly and harshly in response to my earlier emails (in capital letters) and my lack of experience navigating the online communication of Wikipedia. The fact that she also called upon and identified an American and an engineer to further review my article demonstrates concern about anti-Americanism because the subject is an American. This was not an issue until she raised it and allied with Guinnog, another non-American administrator. Should I now be concerned that Ms Ewart and her administrator friends will go on a speedy deletion spree and remove every one or more of my contributions that I volunteered and spent countless hours on? Will I now face bans or scrutiny on Wikepedia? These are legitimate concerns that warrant formal complaints. Furthermore, I am amazed by the camaraderie among the network of administrators. I am posting this complaint because I cannot seem to get one impartial administrator (who is not associated with Ms Ewart and Guinnog) to respond to my request for a complaint on my talk page and for a resolution of this problem Ms Ewart created. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. Such administrators should not ruin it for the rest of us. Administrators need to respect all people- including Americans- who freely contribute to Wikipedia. We are *all* volunteers.

Hence I seek an immediate resolution and an opportunity to have my article unlocked and re-posted at once. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NYer (talk • contribs).

Please see Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:N Naconkantari 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It would help if you would say what the article is (admins can view deleted articles). I have read the messages on your talk page, and it seems the article has been deleted by three different admins so far as not meeting wikipedia requirements. There is are also considerable efforts on your talk page to help you by Sarah Ewart and Guinnog and I don't see anything at all to complain about in their conduct. I suggest you AGF and work with them. Tyrenius 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You haven't tried to work with us. You have made demand after demand and refused to listen to any advice, evidenced here.
I asked for further input and review because of your behaviour and your insistence that User:Guinnog, User:Centrx, User:Joelr31 and myself are all wrong about the article. I think being open to the opinions of other administrators is a good thing.
I went to school in the US, have family still there and anyone accusing me of anti-Americanism is simply sensationalizing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the article is Sandy Straus, which can be viewed at google's cache [112] if anyone without the mop is curious. And yes, it's pure vanity. --EngineerScotty 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Sandystraus and now User:NYer wants it restored? Are they the same person? Joelito (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you read User talk:NYer, you'll see that it is Sandy Straus whom is being discussed. BTW, User:Sandystraus has been a busy little vanity-beaver; there also exist the following articles:
  1. Dynamic Vision Assessment for Transportation
  2. Automated Driver's License Test
  3. Dynamic Assessment for Transportation
  4. Vision Assessment Procedure for Transportation
  5. Straus Pavement Damage Estimate
Some of these may be salvageable, encyclopedic topics if rewritten to be NPOV, V, and free of OR; as it stands the whole pile of them are pure sandy-love. They may not be speediable as blatant copyvios as was Sandy Straus, but as they are; I'm going to send the whole pile of them to AFD. --EngineerScotty 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty blatant sockpuppetry myself, and I endorse taking the matter to AfD. Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, Scotty, that is the article. User:Sandystraus originally posted it and was cautioned against auto, then some time later User:NYer was created and reposted the same article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User should have an explanation and warning about sockpuppetry, remembering BITE though. Tyrenius 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few more articles (and numerous redirects) created by Sandystraus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) in the past day or so; including numerous redirects to the above, and at least one soft "see also" redirect to the above. Also, Ms. Straus appears to have uploaded some nature images such as Image:Skink.JPG, which contain references to her business (ESRA) in the upload summaries. This might be kosher, I suppose--the images are released under the CC attribution license--but it's an interesting way to spam the wiki. --EngineerScotty 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted a posting made here by User:NYer because it included the full name and place of residence of another User. I have warned NYer about stalking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. And some thinly veiled legal threats as well. I'd encourage Sandy Strauss and putative pals to examine WP:NLT; legal threats put you on the short path to the exit here. William Pietri 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, someone might want to look at Automated Clock Drawing Test, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned User:NYer about the rather nasty personal attacks he/she has been making. I agree that these articles are of marginal notability at best and should all be subject to an AfD, which I'm glad to see Engineer Scotty has started. I think there are grounds for asking both User:SandyStrauss and the self-admitted meatpuppet User:NYer to take a break from editing Wikipedia. They have displayed a consistent inability to work with other members of the community, understand the basic rules of Wikipedia or to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Unfounded accusations of anti-Americanism and bullying have no place here, and are seriously disrupting Wikipedia and wasting everyone's time. Gwernol 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NYer is almost certainly Sandystraus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Guy 11:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Guy. They have the same IP (they've both sent me demanding emails). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NYer and SandyStrauss have the same IP because they probably share computers or networks in the offices. They are not the same person because I know of both. So it is astounding that everyone seems to be attacking them. So maybe one of you should try to work with them and put an end to this? It is possible they did not know the rules of Wikepedia. I certainly do not. Most people on Wikepedia probably do not know these rules. Has anyone thought of a nicer way to diffuse this matter?JPeter2 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We have "two" users making threats, personal attacks and accusing a well-respected member of the community of being anti-American for not allowing "them" to post their vanity pieces, and yet it's us that are being unreasonable? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm talking crazy here, but wouldn't the simple solution be for them to ask, rather than making bold and apparently unfounded accusations? I'd encourage them to start with Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and then move on to WP:SPA, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if we were to have an article called Sandy Strauss, it should probably be on this artist, rather than the self-promoting inventor and "authoress" of technical papers currently under discussion. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, calm down. There are no threats or personal attacks on anyone. You might know of some useful ways to help people on Wikipedia rather than waste time arguing. Answer the question instead: What can you do to nicely diffuse this matter?JPeter2 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I see she has been phoning User:EngineerScotty on the matter ([113]). A nicer way to defuse the matter might be if she accepted our policies on verifiability and refrained from vandalising this discussion which she started. --Guinnog 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Guinnog, I checked what you said and it seems that the IP is banned so any user would use a telephone if no other contact information is provided. That seems rather logical. I think the issue is with NYer who seems to have started this discussion. Not Strauss. This seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when IPs and computers are shared all of the time. (All computer savvy people know this.) The right thing to do is to lift whatever IP bans were put up and communicate directly with Strauss. I know I would certainly be upset enough to telephone EngineerScotty too if anyone anywhere wrote what he did about Strauss. He could have made his point directing it at NYer rather than Strauss. He did not need to totally identify and completely itemize everything associated with Strauss if he wanted to take issue with NYer. This is crystal clear, even if Strauss originally authored her own bio. Lots of people do it on Wikepedia or have others they know write it for them. You need to stop whining and work with others in a positive and productive way. You can't deny it or stop this type of bio writing. You can police it but how many of you are out there to police this? So what if two users made some mistakes by not reviewing or knowing all of the Wikepedia rules? So what? I am sure it took a long time to learn the ropes on Wikepedia. I don't see where Strauss and NYer were frequent or long-time users of Wikepedia. NYer seems to have just joined. Right? Strauss contributed a few articles and pics. Big deal. Then again, who cares? Do anyone of you get rewarded for any of this information? Stop wasting time and start helping people on this thing. Stop talking and start working. Do something positive. Make a difference. Now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPeter2 (talk • contribs) .
If you don't think its very important, why are you and your colleagues spending so much time and investing so much invective in pursuing this? A number of editors with long histories of making substantial and positive contributions to Wikipedia are being attacked without basis and in the most personal and vicious ways by Strauss and her cohorts, yourself included. Screaming "anti-American" and "bully" at every turn rather than trying to work with other editors is not making you any friends. Sarah Ewart and Guinnog went out of their way to explain the way Wikipedia works, and got hate-filled accusations thrown at them. Are you surprised that this was not welcomed with open arms? Try making any single contribution to the encyclopedia yourself before throwing around accusations about making a "positive difference". You have made none.
On a technical note: User:EngineerScotty can be contacted by email even from a blocked IP address, so the claim that a telephone call was the only way to contact that user is, like so many of your wild claims and accusations, simply incorrect. Gwernol 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone anti-American is a personal attack. Posting personal identifying information about someone is a personal attack. The nicest way to defuse (or diffuse) the situation would be for the people trying to post vanity information to understand our guidelines at WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO and WP:BIO and see if they're violating those. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe, this is old hat already about the anti-Americanism stuff. It is also an issue with NYer since he started this discussion. Thanks for the response though. I think that what you said needs to go directly to the two users and any others you find in the same boat. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have another question for all of you: This issue of privacy seemed a wee bit wobbly (if I may say that). Each of you except two women (Strauss and Ewart) seem to have aliases. Why not use aliases to protect their identities? This only seems fair. NYer should never have used Ewart's name but maybe there was no alias. Strauss seems to be an innocent victim here (apart from making the terrible mistake of writing an autobio and the having a colleague post it). Why not remove names of both ladies and refer to them under aliases? Each of you seems to have an alias on this and I think it is the right thing to do to help these ladies. Let's all pitch in to patch things up. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, these socks are getting tiresome. If I wanted to be referred to by an alias, I would use an alias. I cannot understand why you keep adding to this thread, stating your name numerous times, and then emailing me repeatedly demanding I delete it because "mentioning of [your] name" is not permitted. You say you feel stalked by various people here, imagine how you'd feel if people started calling you at home! It's completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sarah, but I only noticed this now. Judging by your reply, it seems that this was probably asked before. It just seems so logical that almost everyone on this thing has an alias. So you may not mind having your name referred to but maybe others do. About the home calls, all I can infer from this is that Strauss was unable to reach EngineerScotty. Not everyone knows how to send emails through Wikipedia, especially when there are obstacles to navigating through the site. The fact that many of you know shows that you have experience that others on Wikipedia do not. I agree with you though. These threads are getting tiresome. Rather than continue to discuss Strauss and NYer, why not try to work with one or both of them now? (I'm starting to feel like a moderator or advocate now but I am not.) Or end this thread or case? (If there is such a thing.) That seems like the right thing to do rather than to waste so much time digging up old news, old accusations, files, and defenses. Why is there such a need for each of you to continue to defend your actions? It's over. Just do something positive and help people on this thing already. Why is that so difficult? It's the right thing to do on and off Wikepedia. JPeter2 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, please, settle on one account and stop creating new socks. If you don't want to be known by your real name, then don't sign up for an account in that name. It's not that hard. As for Scott, you went off and looked up his phone number and then tried to call him. He did not give you his number or consent to you calling him. What you did was completely inappropriate, whether you can see that or not. Agreed, not everyone knows how to send emails through Wikipedia, but you sure don't have that problem. You've sent me numerous harassing emails containing defamatory imputations against me, Zoe and Scott, emails to the board, the foundation...you don't have a problem with your ability to send emails. Please stop this behaviour, it is enough already. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to have all names of businesses, business owners, and products deleted at once so that we do not promote the very people and things that we define as wikispam. This should be a very easy and quick task for any administrator to undertake now and within this article because we are definitely promoting several products and businesses and business owners here whether or not any one of the authors realizes this. Any names identified in this article, "anti-americanism" appear in search engines and generate interest in businesses, products, and peoples. It is to the benefit of the very people we do not want on this website. WikiklEnr 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this newcomer for trolling and for vandalizing this discussion. See WikiklEnr (talk • contribs) for his "contributions". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you want to remove all names off businesses? How are you going to have information about Enron? Or Microsoft? Or MCI? Or about all those characters at HP and their recent antics to control people's lives? Certainly a bad idea to have the name of, say, the American Cancer Society (they are an incorporation after all). Would anyone in government, say Al Gore, who takes a position in Business be deleted from the Wikipedia? Have any of you actually read any of the previous nonsense in this discussion? It reads like a bunch of Narcissistic ADHD children. Information is being shared and all you want to do is go on a witch hunt against each other? Huh? Take a deep breath. Exhale. Another breath - longer this time. Exhale. Now ... Think about the concept of sharing information. Now think about the wiki being for that purpose. Now think about the deletion of such material. Makes no sense. And what's this using a wiki page as a threaded discussion; someone write an extension that makes sense with automatic dates, threading, etc.

The above was posted by 70.195.250.239 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with Sandy Straus extensively on the phone yesterday. Given her attitude towarrd using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, her suggestions that this discussion was a "hate crime," her use of meat puppets after she was warned that this is unacceptable, her calling of an admin at his home, and her utter disregard for the norms of our project, she, NYer, and JPeter2 should be banned indefinitely. I have already done so with JPeter2. Furthermore, her request that her user name be changed so as too protect her reputation was and should continue to be rejected. We do not reward spammers by changing their user names to make it easier for them to strike again. My suggestion is that all contributions by them, including innocuous ones in which their company name appears, be removed from Wikipedia. Let's not open the door to yet another subtle form of advertising. Danny 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


This seems like a very one-sided view represented by a majority of administrators who are freely attacking three people (NYer, Straus, and WikiklEnr) WITHOUT allowing one of them to respond to these preposterousaccusations. Soon no one will want to fund or support Wikepedia. I completely support the request of WikiklEnr, who was also just banned and mislabeled as a vandalizer. I now vote to have all names of business people, products, and company names removed from this entry and only this entry, titled “Anti-Americanism” IMMEDIATELY in support of the three people who these administrators are unnecessarily attacking (NYer, Straus, and WikiklEnr). Straus is especially being viciously and maliciously attacked by the above administrators due to a bio she posted and then had NYer, a colleague, post when it was removed. NYer also started this entry- not Straus. Wikepedia also refuses to change her username and she is the only one on this entry whose name, products, andbusiness are being published. Everyone else has an alias. This is beyond unacceptable behavior for any online encyclopedia.


                                    TedDay 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Who is funding Wikepedia and do they know about this abuse of power? Listing the name and also the location of Sandy Straus on this page is breaching her security and every woman’s security. Just change her user name too if you have the authority to do this. Revise this page to reflect these changes, since you do this all of the time, and stop marketing the company products on this page (see products listed by EngineerScotty and Zoe) and stop making false allegations of sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, and spamming when there is common knowledge that IP addresses and computers are always shared between users (as JPeter2 said before he was banned with a few others on this website). Stop adding fuel to this fire. And stop silencing and banning people who want to rebut these false allegations about Sandy Straus, USer:NYer, and User:JPeter2. Stop abusing administrative power on Wikepedia. Be calm and realize such hostility is simply detracting from the contribution the wikipedia could offer. Folks, just be above it all and make it right.

Sethny 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

SethNY

Please Note, as a physician who has experience with patient care , The automated clock drawing test can have benefits to patients , doctors , hospitals, as well as The Department of Motor vehicles. Patients with cognitive impairment as well as students will benefit, please put the articleAutomated Clock Drawing Test back on the site. It is very useful and the information is very important. Thank You

                 Sethny

Sethny 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't believe you. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Sandy Straus, her colleagues, and others are banned from responding to all of these false allegations. Anyone who reads this website should NOT give any credit to what is being said here about Sandy Straus, her colleagues, and others. Any website which does not even permit allegations made to be personally responded to is NOT to be viewed as a credible source of information.

[edit] Wikidates

I am totally at a loss to find anything at all professional in this edit. I'm really not in a position to argue with ArbCom members. Could I get another pair of eyes on this, please? --Jumbo 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although Jayjg probably should have explained himself in his edit summary, it's generally accepted to not wikilink dates unless they're accompanied by years. For example, you would wikilink "August 13, 2006," but not just August 13. WP:DATE has more information on this. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:
  • Month and day

o [[February 17]] → 17 February

o [[17 February]] → 17 February"

--Guinnog 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Jumbo should probably leave dates alone for a bit. Guy 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Will do. But for how long should I have to wait for busy ArbCom members to come up with a consistent position? Is it a case of de minimis non curat lex or minima maxima sunt? --Jumbo 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There's plenty to do. Leave dates for a while and find some other useful tasks. You're not the only one involved in conflicts over date linking, I know. Guy 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a better sentence in the prose. We shouldn't try to shove in awkward things like "It will happen from 11 October to 21 October", repeating October just to get date preferences to work where they aren't necessary. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the date linking issues are recent and a bit heated - probably best to not jump into that pot of boiling water yet :). Oh wee, I used a metaphor. Cowman109Talk 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best course is not to get heated up over such a trivial issue. Centrx's comment above intrigues me. Is he saying that Jayjg changed
to
  • In 2006 the festival will take place from the 11th to the 14th of October.
because it looked better in the prose? I find this very hard to swallow! --Jumbo 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Centrx. It looks and reads somewhat awkwardly to restate the month. Danny Lilithborne 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see the advantage of de-linking any dates, but as far as I know, there's only a general agreement to de-link solitary years, e.g. [[2006]] → 2006. Month'n'day pairings should remain linked whenever possible, exceptions being if it's part of a proper title or direct quote, etc. where a particular format is intentional. —freak(talk) 14:44, Sep. 29, 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading here, maybe we should keep this on w-pedia

TedDay 18:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all above for the comments. Looking at the Manual of Style, I see the following under the heading of Incorrect date formats:

  • Use consistent date formatting throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to vary it.
  • Do not use ordinal suffixes:
    • Incorrect: "February 14th" and "14th February"
    • Correct: "February 14" and "14 February"
  • Do not use articles:
    • Incorrect: "the 14th of February"
    • Correct: "February 14" and "14 February"

The only exceptions are for direct quotations, disambiguation pages and section headings, none of which apply. The opinions of Centrx and Danny Lilithborne above, that the change was for reasons of prose style therefore carry no validity beyond personal preference.

As some will have noticed, Jayjg's edit was one of a series of reversions of my edits, in which I changed date formats in articles related to British subjects from month-day-year American Dating to day-month-year International Dating, as specified in the relevant Manual of Style section. It is my understanding that rationalising date styles in accordance with the MoS is acceptable, along the same lines as changing measurements in articles dealing with American subjects to feet and inches, or metres in French subjects. Blanket changing styles to personal preference against MoS guidelines, such as in the Jguk case, is clearly unacceptable. I have raised this matter with him, but he has not yet responded to some points, and on others I think he is mistaken in his views.

With all due respect to Jayjg, it looks to me like he's dropped the ball on this, and rather than have policy determined on the run via user talk pages, or left undetermined in the hope that it will go away, I'd like to get some advice as to where I should turn for the next step in the resolution process. Mediation? RfC? I should also stress that I am quite happy to abide by a formal ArbCom finding; I merely want the situation clarified to the point where I do not have to depend on contradictory comments made by individual ArbCom members on random user or article discussion pages. --Jumbo 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There is nothing in the Manual of Style section you cited about a range of dates, which I'd say is an issue that needs to be addressed. Avoiding repeating words when possible seems to be a basic principle of writing. Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As you say, there is nothing in the MoS to cover Jayjg's specific edit at all. I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Personally, I found it difficult to come up with a construction that would read well, regardless of user date preferences, and my edit was the least awkward. --Jumbo 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There should probably be a discussion about adding something to the MoS regarding ranges, so we can reach a consensus on what the right way is. :) Danny Lilithborne 00:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Done. --Jumbo 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like a sock puppet to me

User:AtLLo was created and immediately began changing my edits. And that user has done nothing but change my edits since. I strongly believe that this user is actually User:TJ0513, because AtLLo is making changes TJ said he would. AtLLo isn't exactly doing anything wrong -- but it's pretty obviously a sock puppet.Noroton 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking up on Sock puppetry on Wikipedia. Not all sockpuppets are disallowed, you may want to see if the sock in question would be violating any of the rules on those pages. If so, then we can do something about it. I've personally got several "segregation and security" puppets and find them quite useful. Hope that helps! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the contributions list for the sock puppet is made up entirely (well, 99 percent) of edits of my stuff. I don't know if, under "Forbidden" section of WP:SOCK the section on avoiding observation from other editors applies here because I'm not sure what's supposed to be "legitimate" and not legitimate in these circumstances, but it seems to me that the sock puppeteer is trying to get around my watching his edits of my contributions. We've had an edit war in the past. I guess I'll continue watching puppeteer and puppet.Noroton 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Okay, if you haven't found any instances of where sockpuppet policy was violated and you have a dispute anyway, you may want to consider using the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution process to negotiate with the editor. If he's violating a policy that mandates blocking, then we can do something about it. At the top of this page, it describes some of the various dispute resolution systems available, I'd highly suggest one of those. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, we've had a dispute in the past. It seems to have quieted down. Thanks for your time. Again, I'll watch and if something comes up, I'll pursue it further either with dispute resolution or reporting a more serious violation.Noroton 02:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with admins blocking accounts

Freakofnurture just blocked somebody, and FoN's edit summary was "fuck off and die". I'm not requesting any kind of punishment or investigation. What I am requesting is that admins stop "talking" to indefinitely blocked users in their block summaries. I don't think this kind of behavior is consistent with WP:DENY or WP:CIVIL. Chicken Wing 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:DENY isn't policy nor guideline yet, and hence people don't have to follow it if they don't wish to. However, that example is probably a breach of WP:CIVIL. Daniel.Bryant 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Put yourself in the shoes of a vandal though. Being told "user..." all the day long has to be pretty boring. I think you'd get tired of it. But if someone is telling you to "fuck off and die", you've clearly struck a nerve. (And just for the record, I completely agree with the block and am in no way defending that kind of username.) Chicken Wing 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Block summaries should stay civil, not because of the user who sees them when blocked (I have no problems with admins insulting username vandals), but because other users might see that block message due to an autoblock. For private communication with the vandal, use the vandal's talk page, not the (more public) block message. Kusma (討論) 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether WP:DENY is policy or not, turning this into a game with vandals, or making them feel like it's a game, could have rather negative consequences. And this is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and just common decency to autoblocked users.--Konst.able 10:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. You know what I say? We're admins. We're supposed to above the fray, not as bad as the people we are blocking. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never cared for the "user..." 'explanation' as it is meaningless to the occasional user who had no idea their username was similar to someone else's. That said, meaningless beats vulgar any day of the week. Actual explanations, like "confusing/misleading username, not a Wikipedia administrator", are vastly better. --CBD 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why there's suitable talk page templates ({{username}} anyone?) for advising the reason of a block. Far too many admins fail to post those advisories, leaving a bewildered newbie wondering... If you've got the time to force a block, please consider taking the time to provide a reasonable explanation for doing so to obvious unawares.-- Longhair\talk 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well ya, woohoo... but this is FoN we are talking about. That phrasing might well be a term of endearment, just about. :) (no, I'm not saying he should get a special pass... actually I agree, that seems a bad block summmary) Also, in context, if you are just about the only person on the newusers channel and the bad ones are coming fast and furious a standard answer is all you have time for, but when it's slow, the temptation to amuse yourself out of boredom is large. I know I've succumbed (answering questions the user name asks in witty ways, etc) which, really, isn't a good idea but hey, people do it. I'd rather a witty block message than no block at all, if it came to that. So... food for thought. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think witty can pass sometimes though informative is what should be strived for. As for the comment that was left, I don't think tis particularly witty. Maybe if there names was PopNFresh and they were told "Back to the oven you go", that would be witty, but the comment left was actually quite abusive. I think if Wikipedia wants to earn a greater respect from those on the outside they need to present a more mature and educated front for those looking in. For someone to think "yeah editing an encyclopedia sounds like fun and educational", to be met with people running around calling eachother trolls and telling others to "fuck off an die", is not really the image we would want to present. Especially if as the worry goes, someone else with the same IP, if its dynamic, may get struck with that on their very first attempt to visit/edit the site. --NuclearUmpf 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I apologise in advance but why dont you either fully investigate the situation before you start going off at us, or just leave us to do our job.
  • That block happened at 5:04am (UTC) and the user's name was "[removed]" (DakotaKahn is an existing Wikipedia editor)
  • Freak also blocked him under a minute later with no block summary with the username [removed]
  • However just one minute before Freak's "controversial" block summary I also blocked the same guy with no block summary (I often just leave it out when dealing with complete trolls - tho sometimes I dont depending on what I feel is going to be most effective), this time as [removed].
  • 4 minutes before that another admin blocked the same guy, this time as [removed] with the block summary "..."
Now, given that the "WP:DENY" summaries (nothing and "...") did zero to slow this clown I think Freak acted perfectly in trying another approach. It is ludicrous to state such summaries can look bad as almost no one sees them except the vandal (especially true if a soft block allowing user creation is used - and I have checked the autoblock logs and no one else has been affected by that block some 6 hours later - and no one will be autoblocked by it either). Also, this particular troll is with AOL he generates new users the immediately creates another one (often not even waiting for the first to be blocked) - and given that a new account was created just moments later he wouldnt have even seen the summary.
All I'm saying is in the greater scheme of things this is not even close to being a big deal - we do know what we're doing Glen 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if you are replying to me, but if there was a summary stating "fuck off and die" then its quite juvenile no matter how many times they were blocked before. I realyl don't get your arguement if you are attempting to counter that people should act like adults in order to show Wikipedia as more professional and not discourage others from participating in it. When a location such as this, an official channel on Wikipedia, is reported to have admins, people who are suppose to be helpnig Wikipedia, running around cursing cause they cannot maintain composure, it does not reflect well. I find it odd anyone, any adult at least, would argue that its ok to run aroudn cursing and blow their composure. This is not work and you are a volunteer to this project, just like everyone else, and as a volunteer you should not do anythnig that makes Wikipedia look bad. If you volunteered for Red Cross and ran around cursing and blowing your temper, you would be asked to leave. So again my point is that people should act like adults and "fuck off and die" is not very explanatory nor an educated reaction to a situation. --NuclearUmpf 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Glen is right, more context would definitely have been good. In this case I support the block as written. Harassing female (or male but strangely I never get harassed.. funny that) admins is Not On and multiple harassments can well justify an escalating response. I might have answered with more like "you wish" I guess but ... support. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the usernames in question; they provide context, but they also encourage trolls to create these names (remember also that these pages, but not the various logs, are indexed by search engines). The point is, this was a particularly ugly troll who deserves no sympathy.--SB | T 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This entirely miscontrues the issue. Nobody is giving ANY "sympathy" to the blocked user. No one disagrees with issuing the block to the slightest degree. However, if you think that "fuck off and die" is ever a good way to communicate you are seriously mistaken. No matter how annoying someone is, sinking to that level just makes the situation worse all around. Calling such an acceptable form of "trying another approach" or "escalating response" is dead wrong. It's inherently detrimental and there is just no reason for it. Making excuses about 'oh but they deserved it' or 'why are you taking their side' are either complete failures of understanding or deliberate avoidance. It doesn't matter how much 'they deserved it'... doing it is bad for Wikipedia. As clearly stated by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You'll note that we don't have a 'times when it is a good idea to tell someone to fuck off and die' guideline... because it is never a good idea. --CBD 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
CBD, feel free not to have an opinion on every issue. Especially when it's obvious what your opinion is going to be. -- Steel 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Steel, I would have never guessed you were an administrator based on that comment. It added absolutely nothing to the conversation and was little more than conduct unbecoming an administrator. Why would you attack someone like that? Chicken Wing 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. Try not to be so dismissive of people who do not share your views. Instead offer your view in a thought out manner and help continue the dialogue. --NuclearUmpf 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure what that has to do with the issue at hand. I don't see any circumstances where "fuck off and die" should be see as a good edit summary or defended, frankly it does not favours to wikipedia when admins leap in to defend each other on all and any issue regards of the merits of the case. --Charlesknight 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Steel, I tell you what... people stop making the claim that it is 'allowed' or even a 'good thing' for admins to violate civility standards and I will stop pointing out how hypocritical it is to do so while blocking users for the same thing. --CBD 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems we've done the rude language isn't really rude language dance a time or two already... Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
They aren't going to die. They just won't be able to keep their favorite username or their contributions under one name. They are capable of editing peacefully again after 24 hours or less. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats against Carnildo by Spockman

Spockman (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) linked an external PDF file that seems to amount to a legal threat against against Carnildo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) for "denying his constitutional rights" or some such, aparently related to various deletions and protections related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True v United Services Automobile Association. I know trolls throwing legal threats around are usualy blocked per WP:NLT, but this guy sounds dead serious, and while I doubht he have an actual case a touch of diplomacy might be in order to save everyone a lot of grief, or am I overreacing? --Sherool (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your not overreaching, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Just block him anyways, since there is no "First Amendment" on Wikipedia. The only rights we got is the right to leave and the right to fork. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
To add more to this, Carnildo deleted the recreated material at that said page, so he was in the right for protecting that page from recreation (Carnildo is not the only admin involved in previous deletions, he just happens to be the more recent, so that is why he got that PDF letter). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
So why is a letter addressed from Riga, Latvia, with phone numbers in New York and Long Island? sigh. I'm surprised he didn't mention Trenton. --Golbez 09:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
That was one of my concerns about the validity of this, but regardless, me and a few others are combing this over. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't mind me, but haven't there been problems with a user identifying himself as a "Mr. Koenig" recently? Ryūlóng 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
That I do not know, but regardless, I know we had issues in the past with USAA related articles, so I think that if someone can email me off-Wiki and explain the whole thing to me, I might be a little better think than I am right now (3 AM, RFOwned and tried). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
My lay opinion is that Carnildo should point the Foundation's counsel – Brad Patrick – at this letter. I further suggest that any editor who makes such threats should be blocked indefinitely, and that aside from that we can comfortably ignore this raving nutter person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be some comments in the letter in question that intimate that Jimbo, or the Wikimedia Foundation, are possibly getting bribes or kickbacks of some sort in payment for suppressing "the truth" about a matter. That might be considered libel or defamation against those parties. *Dan T.* 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I sent an email to User:Danny last night about this PDF file, and I still think Brad is on vacation (from what I last heard). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference: Wikipedia:Free speech discusses the impact of the First Amendment upon Wikipedia. Short version: We're not a government agency (nor quasi-governmental), so it doesn't impact us in the least. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read the Talk page, it is a hilarious and absurd complaint. Sue Wikipedia for not publishing something? Bring it on! Guy 22:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just started to leave the following and then came across the notice above:

Banned user Robert J. Koenig has used an anonymous IP account, 165.154.46.42, to post a link on [[[User Talk:Brad Patrick|Brad Patrick's talk page]] to a web site, where he has posted a lengthy semi-legal letter to Brad Patrick.
A list of Wikipedia-related files he maintains (including data on certain editors) on that site can be found at http://67.55.35.135/wikipedia/
Koenig has a long history associated with disputes over the USAA article.
--A. B. 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Carnildo, who has yet to overcome a presumption that he is a paid sock-puppet [wiki-shill; rent-a-shill] for Robert G. Davis, the attorney in fact for United Services Automobile Association, commits perjury several times in his report (below).

First: the "threat" which Mr. Carnildo theatrically refers to is this letter.

And the principal bolded italicized paragraph of the letter reads as follows:

  • I am writing to find out from you (perhaps after you have identified yourself and disclosed any conflicts you may have in this matter) exactly how I can arrangefor the encyclopedic history of True v USAA and thereferences to the pertinent documents to be "articled" on Wikipedia.

The letter does go on to explain that the cloud of apparently USAA-financed and USAA-directed Wikipedia administrators who hover over the USAA and instantaneously revert any edits, by anybody, which point out either that United Services Automobile Association is unincorporated or that True v United Services Automobile Association is a law suit which will bring about the collapse of USAA (and the loss to members of billions of dollars) serve only to intimidate. If that initimidation is carried out in concert and in a centrally controlled manner, with the principal purpose of intimidating so ad to suppress constitutionally protected free speech about facts - then several Federal Laws have been violated.

The principal mathematical and inescapable proof that a conspiracy is taking place is the repeated used of a group of USAA-financed wiki-shills who gang-up to revert an article: this means that the individual author quickly runs up against the 3-revert rule - while the USAA-financed gang of wiki-shills gets away scott-free.

Any Federal law enforcement officer who reads the over-keening self-preening traffic back and forth beween [114] and

Now listen - and listen carefully: Robert G. Davis's United Services Automobile Association is either incorporated or unincorporated. That is a fact which can be ascertained, conclusively, by any reasonably competant researcher. It is not even a matter of opinion; and it is certainly not material for swarms of hubris-laden self-appointed wiki-censors to revert and delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.246.17 (talk • contribs) .

*looks at the article* "One of the characteristics that allows USAA to operate differently than almost every other Fortune 500 company is that it is not a corporation(...)". That has been in there in some form for a while too, so much for that conspiracy theory... --Sherool (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leaked confidential information from RuneScape

Aside from being an administrator on Wikipedia, I'm also a player moderator on the online game RuneScape. Recently, some information restricted to player moderators were added to the RuneScape community article. [115] Per Jagex policy, any such information is considered to be strictly confidential and is never to be disclosed to the public.

Five screenshots were also added, and the images in question are Mod1.jpg, P-Mod awards.jpg, P-Mod can recuit.jpg, P-Mod Centre.jpg, and P-Mod forums.jpg.

As an administrator here, I have the ability to delete images. However, speedily deleting those images may violate Wikipedia's image deletion policies. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks. --Ixfd64 22:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a conflict of interests, I'd advise you to stay out of it. Certainly don't use your admin functions. I suspect there is no reason why we would delete these images - but you are welcome to argue for deletion, just don't be the one to do it.--Doc 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The place for the specifics of this debate isn't here. I suggest you take it to IFD and let the process decide. --Doc 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll cross my fingers and see what happens. --Ixfd64 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
they will probably be killed as copyvios. Incerdentaly this is why secret forums tend to cause problems in the long run and are best avoied where posible.Geni 22:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Jagex or any other company's policy isn't binding on Wikipedia. (If the CoS can't enforce their policy on us, nobody is going to be able to.) Granted, I can't imagine why these images wouldn't be deleted on AFD, but not for that reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Information needs to be publicly verifiable. If the information doesn't meet that standard, why can't it be deleted? If the images are copyvios, why not delete them? Wikipedia does not want to publish non-verifiable information or to violate copyrights. Metamagician3000 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
*cough* Nigel McGuinness *cough* Daniel.Bryant 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

User:Wikipediaman123 and User:Wikiuser456. Both accounts created at the same time, very similar usernames, and Wikiuser456 has just entered a malformed RfA for Wikipediaman123. Any thoughts? --Alex (Talk) 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Very similar talk pages as well... --Alex (Talk) 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipediaman123 was created around July. And although it does look odd, there doesn't seem to be any abuse going on. I'll keep an eye on them just in case, though. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[116]. Wonder why there's so many edits here... --Alex (Talk) 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer. Yanksox 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the recent edits to that userpage and Wikipedia man's edits, it appears it may have been an old account or a fun page. If no objects, I may delete this as U1, considering Jeffrey isn't really a user. Yanksox 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
No, please leave it. Take a look at Wikipediaman and Wikiusers talk pages - exactly the same! --Alex (Talk) 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[117] this really is it. Look at the summary! MY Rfa... --Alex (Talk) 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[118] Wikiuser's contributions - not many... --Alex (Talk) 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reported this here --Alex (Talk) 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

User:Mykungfu is in the midst of a one-week block for a variety of things, including spamming the 3RR board, edit-warring on several articles related to Greek-letter fraternities, and harassing users (including me) who opposed him or reported him for violations. He's back, editing from several AOL IPs, including edits to a closed sock-puppetry report: User:152.163.100.197 here [119] and as User:64.131.205.160 here [120] and here [121]. (Those are AOL proxy IPs, and I understand that there are limitations on what Wikipedia can do about abuse via AOL.) He also appears to be editing now as User:StrangeApples (contribs); for example, StrangeApples' fourteenth-ever edit was here [122] in a discussion of Mykungfu's sockpuppetry, and all of his edits are to pages where Mykungfu caused trouble or to an RFC on one of the admins who blocked him. If I should file a WP:SOCK report instead, let me know, but I figured I'd come here first and ask. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see a response, so I opened up a sockpuppetry allegation at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_(2nd). The first was closed without comment; I'm hoping an admin will take a deeper look at this. If he was strictly edit warring, it would be bad enough, but he's been hassling me and a few other editors for about two weeks now. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tariq Sabri

Vanity article created by User:Tariqsabri; has been deleted and recreated several times. The IP 24.12.4.50 continually removes the speedy deletion tag; based on contribs, I strongly suspect this is the article creator logging out so as to evade the rule against removing tags from an article you have created. Heimstern Läufer 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I tried nominating Cateogry:Renala Khurd and Category:Tariq Sabri for speedy deletion, but it seems the criteria requires the category to exist for four days without entries. I still think they should be deleted post-haste, though, as obvious vanity additions. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think we're good with this one now. The vanity article has been deleted and protected, and the user is blocked (among other things, for defacing my userpage). Thanks, admins. Heimstern Läufer 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser on Sahands

Could an admin with Checkuser access please help me provide his University his IP address and other pertient information, as I am making a complaint through that channel. I believe I've tracked down his University, but he might also use an ISP so we need to be sure, and the IP address will help the University (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) track him down, because his felony criminal actions online are strictly against their network fair use rules. And if he does use an ISP, I don't think their fair use policies include death threats either (see above for the whole case, or Sahands. I can be e-mailed at jkorkala@gmail.com on this. I do not wish the hell of a full blown police investigation on him (at least yet) so I'm trying to go through the ISP channels to make sure he will not continue this kind of online criminal activity. That is why I will need some help from the administration here. I have made a checkuser request on metawiki as well, not being sure which is the right place.

This checkuser request is based on Wikipedia privacy policy section 5 and fullfills it's requirements. It states "Where the user has been vandalising pages or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers"

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German language

There is an edit war going on at German language (a Good Article) over the insertion of an unreferenced paragraph. The insertion would also violate the "undue weight" guideline.

One of the user now is altering other parts of the article, apparently in violation of WP:POINT.

Two users have been reported at WP:AN3, and full page protection was asked.

Something needs to be done to cool things down, and to be able to start the mediation process. --LucVerhelst 01:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it. It's up to the editors there to come to an agreement. Grandmasterka 01:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help

I am being harassed by CFIF and TV Newser. TV Newser started vandalizing my user page and my talk page with bogus claims of being a sock. I am not sure what prompted these attacks, but they continued for a long period of time. When I tried to address them on his talk page, he would revert the comments. He then went around to a number of admin pages and discussing me there. Somehow, CFIF got involved. It appears he/she has some previous relationship with TV Newser. They are now ganging up on me. I ask that someone step in and stop both of them. Please feel free to comment here if appropriate as i am now watching this page. --Tecmobowl 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm trying to centralize this discussion. The two or three of you jumping from page to page and user talk page to user talk page is downright annoying. Let's just stay here since it is the right page (I'll update the talk pages of people I've alerted). I'll repeat what I said recently: I see no evidence - yet - that Tecmobowl (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg or DisplacedBrit. No edits to news articles and nothing related to CFIF (talk • contribs). To say the omission of those characteristics is just a way of throwing us off (as TV Newser has said on several people's talk pages) is an admission that there's no evidence. If this continues with no evidence, blocks may be coming soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please. Everyone just chill out. wknight is right: there's no need for claims of sockpuppetry with no evidence. Don't you understand, when you get so paranoid that you start lashing out at other editors, claiming they're socks with no evidence you are playing right into the puppetmaster's hands? It's clear from D.B.'s last post that he wants CFIF to be paranoid, randomly tagging people's pages as sockpuppet accounts so CFIF will get blocked. C'mon, guys, you're smarter than this. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I really think this is ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time. What is the procedure for having my user page unlocked? I'm glad it was so that the spam would be stopped. But at somepoint, i'd like to go back to editing it. Thank you again. --Tecmobowl 04:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you have requested it, I have removed the protection. I am certain that CFIF and Newser will be responsible enough not to re-tag your page. We have talk pages for dispute resolution. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will try and follow standard procedure if I have a problem with them in the future. --Tecmobowl 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no convincing evidence at present that Tecmobowl is a sock. For a start, it would require him to be acting in concert with at least one other account to cause false impressions on the relevant talk pages. I don't see that happening. TV Newser needs to give this a rest. -Splash - tk 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know if I am being parinoid, but this guy seems like a sock. There is just too much else going on and who he chose to target really seals it for me. TV Newser Tipline 15:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The above message was from 72.9.108.50 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) the IP resolves to a NYC ISP [123] and given the behavior of this sock ring(s) it is most likely an open proxy. TV Newser Tipline 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(I removed the trollish message). -Splash - tk 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xhotan

Someone needs to sort this out.[124] Tyrenius 03:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's bizarre. Grandmasterka 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a POV category which doesn't benefit the encyclopaedia (and no, that's not only because I'm jealous that I'm not in there...) Daniel.Bryant 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppet

On the page Template talk:Infobox actor, we are discussing a format change of the template; a user signing their post as HamishMacBeth contributed to the discussion, then a user signing their post as CelebHeights, who said they "agreed with HamishMacBeth;" a question was posed to CelebHeights, and the question was answered by HamishMacBeth, who referred to a page CelebHeights linked to as the "page to which I was linking." There is no indication on either HamishMacBeth's or CelebHeights's userpages that they admit they are the same person. -Shannernanner 06:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. – Chacor 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of that page, but as per the header "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first," was under the impression that this was not yet serious enough to report there. Shannernanner 09:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WATARU, etc.

I blocked WATARU (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for 48 hours for general disruption. (He's clearly the same as WAREL (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log).) (It probably should have been a month rather than 48 hours.) The only contraversial thing I've done (other than not blocking him for long enough) is that I've blocked his IP for the same length of time. I suggest the IP be blocked, including blocking user creation, for at least 6 months. This seems to violate our normal guidelines, but the IP has only been used (for editing) by an editor with the same characteristics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm extending the block to an indefinite one. Bypassing a ban and continuing the same behaviour is not acceptable. His editing behaviour is extremely sketchy and simliar to the banned user, and his name is similiar. If he has evidence to the contrary, he can voice it with an {{unblock}}. Adding false (but reasonable sounding) material to articles is very distruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And yeah, I'm now aware that the user is no longer indef-blocked on the other account. However, creating a new account could essentially constitute trying to unfairly clear his name, and it's also clear that he is not willing to undergo reform. It's a shame, but steps have to be taken to stop this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest help

This doesn't seem like the best place for this issue but I can't find a more fitting one, even after scouring the Request for Comment pages. So, if this is best moved, please tell me.

That said, here's the situation (omitting specific names unless given the ok to add them later): I've come to learn recently that an editor's real job probably makes it impossible for him to objectively edit articles that he has been the primary editor of. In other words, he's attempting to fill a sort of arbiter position on a couple of controversial topics that have been the subject of past editing wars, when his real employment should likely disqualify him from doing so.

I don't know how to give the additional elaboration that this specific situation seems to require without revealing more than might be allowed, so I'll wait for guidance before elaborating.--Beware of Cow 09:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Maxasus

Maxasus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) appears to be a good editor turned vandal judging from some of the comments left on his talk page by others. I've forced a 3hr block on this account, which I extended to 24hrs for abuse of talk page editing priveledges and unblock template abuse. Could any admins familiar with their previous account and editing habits review my block and advise thanks. Almost every edit of late has been vandalism or outright disruption, but if there's a good edit history I'm missing somewhere, perhap's they're just going through a rough real-life patch and in need an enforced break to cool off? -- Longhair\talk 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at their userpage it look like they were previously Joshuarooney (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) who was indefinitely blocked for similar behaviour. --pgk 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll confirm that it's Joshuarooney, Max left an apology on my talk page (here)for the personal attacks that got him blocked a while ago. There's a note of Longhair's talk page about it, too. Logical2u 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll extend the block indefinitely in that case. -- Longhair\talk 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon adding personal information to user talk page

59.93.244.196 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) and 59.93.222.107 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) added on User talk:Debajit Biswas personal infromation about said person. →AzaToth 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted those versions from the history. — xaosflux Talk 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongtrap

Can someone speedily delete this? An anon user keeps reverting the speedy tag. This item does not exist - 1 irrelevant googlehit. exolon 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive138_c554.html"