Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive69

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Disrespect of community opinion from an admin 2 Harassment - Jonah Ayers/Biff Rose 2.1 Question 3 User:Piecraft, part two 4 Canadian federal election, 2006 5 New Instantnood and Huaiwei Bans 5.1 7 Day Blocks 6 User:Professor Von Pie 7 Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet? 8 User:LaShawn Barber 9 User:☠ 10 Batzarros's userpage, need help 11 Timecop Permablock 12 User:68.156.64.5 is inserting random errors and gibberish, see contribs 13 User:69.172.251.162 personal attacks 14 Dudes111 (talk • contribs) 15 Blocked user User:Aidan Work circumventing indefinite ban 15.1 User:Royalist0007 could be User:Aidan Work sockpuppet 15.2 Blocked 16 Block evasion 17 User 72.10.123.177 18 User:134.161.137.162, Animal Liberation Front and Britches (monkey) 19 Revealing personal information 20 Indefinite block, User:Tommstein 21 User:Timecop - block removed following IRC discussion 21.1 WTF? 22 Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse 2 23 Indefinitely blocking ZimZum as a sockpuppet of Scandum 24 NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS Spirit Mountain Ranch Vandalism, Commercial Advertisement and POV of White buffalo 25 Spam protection filter 26 Udham Singh and NPOV 27 User:Snk 444 28 (Not so) sneaky vandal 29 User:Eeriesmeister 30 Am I missing something? 31 Anon editor vandelizing my user page 32 Speedy delete requested 33 User:Hisroyalhighness_721 and User:213.130.122.51 34 Dispute between Pamento and Pickelbarrel 35 Anittas again 36 User:Lamington-Child 37 Johnski 38 Anon making legal threats - on talk page and in edit history 39 Admin eval of sockpuppet NSA eavesdrop edit, please 40 Spam for a pretender 41 General Comment about new Checkuser system 42 Still another Zephram Stark Sockpuppet? 43 Being harassed on Talk:Intelligent design 44 Telectronics 45 Revert/Edit War Going on 10 Reverts 46 Legal threat

[edit] Disrespect of community opinion from an admin

Jimbo just closed the CFD on Category:Living people against 88% delete — three times. ZOMG DISRESPECT FOR TEH COMMUNITY!! I fully expect some idiot to block him for "disruption" - David Gerard 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

-) The issue here, if we want to wax philosophical for a moment, is the knee jerk taking of things to CfD (or AfD) lacking any sort of discussion. The category was created this morning by Danny and amost immediately placed on CfD, and then a bunch of votes came pouring in with absolutely zero acknowledgement of the reasons the category was created in the first place.

Thoughtful consensus requires us to elevated reasoned slow discussion over kneejerk proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL. Ok. I've had my laugh for the day. You had me going for a moment. I was about to edit with an instinctive "That's no Admin, that's the boss" type response, until I looked again at who the comment was from. Good one. :) - TexasAndroid 22:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, blocked. You just spend that time thinkihng about what consensus means, OK? --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple; it's a crap idea. If you want something like this, I could make a list in minutes of articles that have a birth category but no death category, that way we won't have to go to the effort of adding another category to multiple 100,000 articles, and wont have the extra category clogging up our already over categorised articles. Martin 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of dead people don't have a death date - David Gerard 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another positive side effect. We can add them. Martin 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, ANI gets far to full, can we take any content debate elsewhere (like [1]). Comment on the process if you like. Me, I think the debate is somewhat over. --Doc ^ask? 22:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, lots of people don't have a birth date either... but we can definitely say if they're alive. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How many have this new category though? I think possibly a lot less. Martin 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This diff comment is priceless. [2] Hall Monitor 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

is this a test to see if we have any guts? If we blindly follow like sheep and start categorizing under Living people, do we fail that test?--Alhutch 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I assume good faith on that comment, it comes out remarkably dumb. So I'll assume you're being subtly witty - David Gerard 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

please disregard my comment.--Alhutch 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What is with people's antipathy towards this? This feels to me like people rebelling because their precious community isn't quite as important as they thought. Don't worry, you don't have to categorise anything if you don't want to. [[Sam Korn]] 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to hear rationaly how having these in a category will make wikipedia better in any way. The idea that it helps to NPOV them is not based in reality. It will just waste the time of good editors. Martin 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is simply another examle of an fair-to-average idea that, since it wasn't explained or discussed with the "community" first, goes over like a lead zeppelin. Smashing dissent is bad, but "knee-jerk" reactions can often be avoided by a little prose beforehand. Was this talked about on the pump or signpost before its creation? As to the actual cat, it's poorly executed, but an ok concept. We shouldn't be using categories for meta-data, but having a tag of some description that allows us to identify articles that are potential "problems" is good sense. This category actually worked. While mocking it for being the dumbest thing ever (prior to its purpose being explained on IRC) I looked at the only article in the category at that time. Here's the result: [3]. Is there some reason that we are all thumbs when it comes to this sort of change? - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussing is fine, but a wiki doesn't require people to make an argument for creation. Remember the all-important phrase: If in doubt, don't delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea has been kicked around on wikien-l before, in the post-Seigenthaler debate; I recognised it when it was announced, certainly. Shimgray | talk | 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

wikien-l != wikipedia - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

agree.--Alhutch 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again those of us not on wikien-l or IRC are left behind. -- nae'blis _(talk) 03:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not prohibited from joining. [[Sam Korn]] 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but I didn't come here with the understanding that I would be required to be in three places to get the full picture. If the discussion page of the Category itself had been used to explain the rationale here, as Aaron Brenneman says, a lot of this could have been avoided. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears this is not in fact the case, and a lot gets decided there. WP:ANI isn't all of Wikipedia either. - David Gerard 14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is evil! We should all immediately join the pileup lynchmob vote here! This is vital for the Wiki!Radiant_>|< 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is right. David is right. If the procedures are so moribund that they're needlessly killing good stuff, we should rely on administrators to use their brains and look behind the numbers. Any administrator should feel proud to refuse to delete an article or other organizational component of the encyclopedia if he isn't happy that an argument has been made for its deletion. The article can always be deleted another day if it's really so bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But the procedure being moribund should not be an excuse for revert wars or wheel wars. As you said yourself, use your brains (and I would add, instead of your admin tools). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of wheel warring here. In fact I see no deletions or undeletions at all on this category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all a bit besides the point, but don't you think it is a bit of a stretch to jump from "Jimbo's word is law" to "Any andmin can do whatever he pleases, as long as he's called Tony" (which, with all due respect, seems to be your opinion on a lot of things lately) ? -- Ferkelparade π 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How on earth did we get 88% delete on a necessary maintainence category? Was there confusion about what it was for? -- SCZenz 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, yes? That's exactly the problem. It wasn't clear what this was for, it wasn't widely discussed, and in the absence of that, asking for it to be deleted wasn't unreasonable. Looking back at ads on the wiki, then on to user boxes, and now this, it begins to appear that someone is trying to make a point. In every one of these cases, having some modicum of respect for the peons and taking a week or two to talk about it and explain it first would have been the smart thing to do. Why are things continuing to be done the hardest way possible, followed by cheers from some quarters of "Hooray for us! Stick it to 'em!" ?? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Asking for clarification would have been even less unreasonable. [[Sam Korn]] 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Explaining on-wiki the need for a new administrative supercategory might have been even more reasonable. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasons they gave for keeping the category were adbrupt and unclear - that and the fact that someone (in this case jimbo himself) blanked the page several times throughout the debate... plus the "delete voters" had several rather valid points either way they were hard to ignore. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Clucking and shaking your heard about this won't do. Just use your head. Categories and articles should not be needlessly deleted. Take note of the clear message and act accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again and again I ask: Why chose the most disruptive method? It's all very well to say the first ten or fifteen times "why waste time with the process, I'll just do the right thing". Eventually it must become clear that more time will be wasted by acting unilaterally. At that point, if the disruptive behavior continues, surely reasonable people can ask, "Is there some other motivation"?
brenneman^(t)(c) 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact in this case nothing was deleted, and no discontinuity occurred. A few people who couldn't imagine that a category of living people could serve a useful purpose in the wake of the Seigenthaler affair came away disappointed that they didn't get to watch another category go into the memory hole, but I'm sure they'll get over it. The use of the word "disruption" here is somewhat wide of the mark.

As for your continual personal sniping, surely you recognise that Jimbo Wales and Tony Sidaway are two quite separate individuals inhabiting different continents and with quite distinct opinions, that he cannot be held responsible for my actions and I cannot be held responsible for his. Speculation that we may have a common motive for choosing a course of action of which you, personally, may disapprove and believe to be disruptive is isn't really going to help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Describing everyone who opposed this in CfD as deletionist maniacs isn't helpful, Tony. The fact is that a lot of the discussion (not a vote?) on CfD was about alternatives such as Persondata or using birth dates/death dates to accomplish this same goal without the need to tag thousands of articles by hand. Truth is it was already a discussion, albeit lacking certain information, when it got cut-off by our fearless leader. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you got the impression from the above that I think those involved in the discussion were "deletionist maniacs" (not the kind of language I use), and I apologise if I inadvertently permitted you to think that I think any such thing. My point pertained to people who, in deletion discussions, seem to treat them as some kind of silly game and Wikipedia something more closely resembling a school playground than a very large encyclopedia that requires maintainance. This does not give a good picture of Wikipedia decision-making; frankly the facile and unhelpful comments make me sick to my stomach. It's not about deletionism, it's about a comprehensive failure to engage with the project in a constructive manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I see a different message than Tony sees: When Jimbo speaks, listen.

What the situation looks like to me (from the history; I was not involved) is that the category was nominated, and Jimbo said stop. He was ignored; that was inappropriate, regardless of what objections were used to justify it. Every contributor is free to disagree with Jimbo, but they are not free to act in defiance of his authority. To make matters worse, when the vote was continued in defiance of his request that the discussion be moved, he clarified himself that the vote was to end immediately, and was ignored a second time. If that was not disrespectful enough, when he closed the CfD, he was reverted. At that point, a less patient individual would have blocked the reverter and dared anyone to think about overturning it, but he did not do that.

It is unfortunate that this situation happened, but it is an opportunity for all of us to remember that Jimbo is the boss. When he gives orders, it is our obligation to abide by them. We are free to voice our concerns and objections, and to refuse to participate in them, but we may not act in defiance to them. In this situation, if individuals object to the category, do as you are asked and voice your objections on the talk page. If the matter is not settled to your satisfaction, then decline to participate: don't add articles to the category, and don't watch the articles in the category. But, do not act in open defiance by insisting on deleting the category; to do so is disrespectful to Jimbo, without whom we would not have this project, and is disruptive to the orderly function of the site. It has been argued that discussions such as this CfD are the operation of the rules and processes that keep the site running; however, continuing this particular CfD in opposition to Jimbo's direct orders is a disruption of the most central rule to the orderly function of Wikipedia: The final decision on any matter is reserved to Jimbo, and there is no appeal of his decision. When we forget that, then we have forgotten that which is most central to Wikipedia. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is the boss of human knowledge. Jimbo's intervention here should be heeded, moreso than the intervention of any other user, but ultimately Jimbo has no real authority here. The only legal or moral power Jimbo has is to temporarily force us to relocate it to a server he doesn't control. I respect Jimbo a great deal—more than almost any other living human—and I agree we should listen to Jimbo and respect his wishes. But Wikipedia is not an autocracy and Jimbo is not the benevolent dictator of human knowledge. He makes no attempt to be, either—he said so himself on C-SPAN a few months ago, and this is one of the prime reasons he is worthy of our respect. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a somewhat frequenter from the C2 and MeatBall wikis I see sort of where he is coming from on the CfD thing... basically that all they are is a content management system available to the public. In reality though they are terrible discussion mechanisms due to interface problems etc., plus wikis at least originally were never designed to deal with spam and if someone wanted a page they generally got it. Oh, and in the name of wikis everywhere, I just deleted the category, because I think, at the very least in its current incarnation is really bad idea - which I think may result in good discussion (for everyone except myself, of course :)). To be honest I sort of envy the nastigrams Zoe gets, so here's to some of them on my talk page! (As well as an RfC, RfAr, Immediate de-adminship what have you). At the least it is an interesting experiment and I can say that I had real BALLS! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 09:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Jimbo thinks, but this category is teh dumbest thing ever. In fact, every category that could contain >100,000 articles is pretty dumb.  Grue  09:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that category sucks. Jimbo controls Wikipedia and what he says has to be done, but that doesn't make this category any less stupid. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, I am a bit divided here. THere are two very good arguments on both sides. For deletion: The category is ridiculous and will most certainly be horridly overpopulated if kept. For inclusion: Jimbo disagrees with the previous argument and he has the power to issue decrees. I see that RN deleted the category, since that is contrary to Jimbo's clearly expressed will I have decided to restore it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he though? I can't off hand recall the board vote that gave him such powers. Incedentaly how are the french and german versions of this going down?Geni 09:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he can. As I understand it, Jimbo controlls 60% of the board seats; he has one, and Michael Davis and Tim Shell were appointed by him, as will be thier successors when they leave the Board. Two memebers (Angela and Anthere) are elected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How does appointing members mean you control them? They do not have to vote the same way as Jimbo. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got reservations about this category (although I'm willing to be convinced), but I agree with Essjay. Of course, no one is 'the boss of human knowledge', so you are entitled to take your human knowledge and fork off. Actually, in the end, for better and for worse, Wikipedia is an autocracy. Thankfully, the autocrat appears willing to have a discussion - so go discuss it with him. --Doc ^ask? 09:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Imho, the category is stupid, but if Jimbo likes it, let him have it (is this a category designed for a sort of "Living People patrol", because vandalism to LP is considered more harmful? You still need people agreeing with this, and doing it, Siegenthaler or no Siegenthaler). We have lots of stupid categories, and while there are reasons to walk away from Wikipedia in a huff, this is not one. (We could have a template "deleted but for the grace of Jimbo" or something but maybe that would be disruptive). dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's slightly inaccurate. Tim and Michael rarely vote on Board issues, and Jimbo has undertaken never to vote against Angela and Anthere when they agree. [[Sam Korn]] 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both are completely inaccurate. I do not control the board. I do not control Tim and Michael. Tim and Michael always vote on board issues. In terms of actual votes, nearly all of our actual votes have been unanimous but that's because we discuss and find consensus about what to do. In general, it is not true that Tim and Michael agree with me about everything, all the members of the board are intelligent and independent voices. Don't be misled by trolling on the encyclopedia article about me. :-)

My special powers within the community have nothing to do with the discussion about this category, but it is probably worthwhile to discuss where they come from: the community itself. Why do we have explicit exemptions written into virtually every policy in Wikipedia? Because of overwhelming support within the community for the notion that we are freer to explore procedures for decision making under conditions of ambiguity and consensus when we also have a safety valve. It is not my intention to be the benevolent dictator of anything, but it is my intention to protect our communities core purpose against irrational rules-bound processes.--Jimbo Wales 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So what...it's one thing in a million...Wikipedia is not paper! It's good to be the king!--MONGO 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupidly alrge numbers of catigories don't look too good in certian skins.Geni 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

well, if 88% of people are going to refuse to use it, it'll just sit there gathering dust... dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that number is exaggerated by the number of people who can't wait to rebel against any kind of wiki authority. [[Sam Korn]] 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I rebel against the tyranny of the majority?--Doc ^ask? 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Could someone please point to a good reference for those of us who weren't around much in December and don't happen to know about the "Seigenthaler affair"? I assume Seigenthaler has accused us of libel, but I'd like to know more about the situation than what I can glean from context here. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • John Seigenthaler r.. This was a major kerfuffle and made international news, so it's in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Better, see John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy for lots of details. DES ^(talk) 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And can somebody please explain what this is about to those of us who don't use the IRC channel? Leithp 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One last note about all this from Jimbo: I'm the absolute first to say that things should be discussed with the community first. That is, indeed, what my big beef is about the current dysfunction of AfD/CfD. Rather than *discuss* concerns about the category (some of which are of course valid, and yes, we should discuss them), on either Danny's talk page, or on the category talk page, it was immediately put up for a deletion vote without asking questions. And then when I tried to stop the vote and hold a discussion, there was a lot of bitching and moaning as if somehow I was trying to stop the discussion! --Jimbo Wales 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah, the discussion about the deletion of the thing seems to happen on the AfD/CfD page. I think this is better than on the talk pages. Why do you not agree? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): As I understand it, the proposal is for a category that would in theory apply to every biographical article for a person currently living. This would be a quite large category, albiet not the largest we have. It would surely be large enoughj not to be useful for navigation. As I understand it, the arguemnt is that it could and would be used for various mantanence tasks -- for example, via "related changes" it could allow what amounts to a special version of the recent changes page specifically for biographical articles about living people. This will only work if at lest most such articles are indeed included in the category. There may be better ways to accomplish these objectives -- at least some in the various discussions have so asserted. The category does have the advantage that it does not require and code changes to MediWiki software. And it has been endorsed by Jimbo. It seems to me that setting up a project with the defined goal of monitering biographical articles and avoiding vandalism, libel, and false info there; and discussing technical methods at such a project would have been wiser. But that isn't what the people involved chose to do. The category has been created. Jimbo has intervened agaisnt its deletion. Why not now set up such a wiki-project? The project could be a place to discuss how to use the category, and what other tools might (right away or eventually) supplement or replace the category. If the project members, including Jimbo, finally agree that the category in unneeded, its delation will probably be uncontoversial. As long as such a project is finding or considering ways to make good use of the category, I don't see why anyone ought to be intent on trying to delete it. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a crazy idea to me. But when this guy said 'what about an encyclopedia anyone can edit?' most probably thought that was a crazy idea too. So this guy (even if he wasn't the boss) should be given a lot of latitude to try out his crazy ideas. Certainly don't try to snuff them out at first sight.--Doc ^ask? 10:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes if we could go back to focusing on the matter at hand that would be nice. I posted this at WP:AN but I'll post it here again. This is probably the most broad category ever made on Wikipedia. Do you know how much of a hassle it's going to be to list EVERY single person who's alive. That's a pretty useless, if you ask me. I don't think we need a category to help us divide the people who are alive. I think Categories should group people/things that are unique. Unique in bieng able to list a few people/things into a category of something specific that not everyone has. Something that broad like if their alive or not is hardly useful. Navigation-wise it won't help at all, it lists basically everyone! IMHO, I think this should be put up for deletion. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead people can't sue you for defamation of character. Live people can. Preventive measures with this in mind might call for the existence of the category. If Wikipedia were viewed as worth sustaining. 207.172.134.175 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment - Jonah Ayers/Biff Rose

This user, Jonah Ayers (talk • contribs), along with possible sock puppet Maslow (talk • contribs), seems to be creating articles about non-notable people for the sole purpose of harassment, in retaliation for administrative work connected to his editing. Two editors report having received menacing phone calls, apparently from Ayers. I ask whether the recent creations are possibly speedy deletions candidates. Ayers, with Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers, is engaging in unacceptable and disruptive behavior. Is this blatant enough or do we have to go to the ArbCom to get relief from his mischief? -Will Beback 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How has he got their phone numbers? Secretlondon 11:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He has their names. -Will Beback 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And I might add, on one occasion he posted a phone number with a request that people call to harass an editor. [4] (The actual info has been deleted). -Will Beback 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

nope. meant to post my number, but it's one digit off by mistake, and then was told that wasn't a good idea, for what are now obvious reasons...Jonah Ayers 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, if that had been the case you would not have been blocked for one week for divulging personal information. Is there any help available from admins? -Will Beback 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Will. I've noticed Maslow doing this once or twice, but I'm not familar with the background. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harrassment going on here, it's much like the case of brandt, and wiki watch, etc... you're really just falling into a category of people who will be included on the encycolpedia... much as slimvirgin does not warrant an entry, or will beback, in slimvirgin's case it doesn't seem like she does much for her community other than online wikipedian work, so her information wouldn't need to be placed online, but as for Will mcWhinney, this is a person whose father is worthy of an entry, and who also works in the community, and was involved in an interesting skirmish in the ranks of the sierra club, so for that alone his article has merit, and isn't worth deletionJonah Ayers

For the record: there is an AFD ongoing · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied it because it was created as part of this dispute, which seems to have involved harassment, and if editors are being telephoned at home, it's obviously quite serious. I won't wheel war over it, so if someone else restores, I won't delete again, but I hope no one else will. I've also asked Jonah to email me, because I'm quite willing to try to help resolve the dispute if he'll allow me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was clearly created in bad faith, I doubt anyone will disagree with you there. But the contents itself I don't think quite met the speedy criteria; that being said, I think it was a smelly enough move that it ought to be left well enough alone. It would've been deleted anyway. I certainly won't restore it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Being called at home, or having one's phone number published with an admonition for others to call, is harassment, plain and simple. Revealing the private information of editors is harassment. Defacing pages is vandalism, impersonating editors is harassment, violating the 3RR is prohibited, etc. This is not like the Brandt case, unless you're referring to his calling an editor's emplyer. -Will Beback 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean baout getting called at home, and the impersonation of editors waS started by biff rose who was editing his article as sojambi pinola, and then pinela, etc... all of whom we're banned, by you I believe. This case is similar to the brandt case in that people have been messing with edits and creating a hostile place to edit, i.e., you Willmcw aka Will Beback and its interesting to note that you were according to your posts not going to use the Willmcw as your administrator any longer, but function solely as Will Beback, you said that you would not do that, that Willmcw would end in 2005, yet as recent as january 10th you used both identities to enforce Administrative blocks and votes etc.... making one, your pick therefore a sockpuppet... So you see, it's your own behavior that is suspect, and you keep trying to turn the tables and say it is others...Jonah Ayers

Regarding your charge of using two accounts, I used my old account solely for the purpose of ArbCom voting because of a special requirement that voters must have accounts registered prior to October, and I gave both names to prevent confusion. -Will Beback 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that against the rules? I think you should work it out so you have one identity, and dont' seem to be some kind of sockpuppet. Please advise, I won't make anymore trouble with this one. Just have one of the administrators say that what you're doing is ok, and not being a sockpuppet, exercising admin rights via two different users, controlled by the same person.. if that is allowed, because voting in arbcom decisions is an admin duty, and theere is a consensus among admins that this is not in fact a punishable situation, then I will back off, smells fishy, but I want to see the honest standards of wiki enforced, because you seem to have a double standrad, blocking some people for 3rr violations, and not others, and then this...Jonah Ayers 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Having multiple accounts is not against Wikipedia's policies, so long as they are not used to a) be disruptive, b) evade a block or manipulate consensus, or c) violate Wikipedia's other policies. Besides which, he clearly identified himself. It isn't as if he was trying to vote twice. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To confirm: My actual name is Steve Espinola. My username is Sojambi Pinola. User:Jonah Ayers has created several sockpuppets which are variations on either my name or my username, for the purposes of confusion. He also created a username Biffrose and used it to write libel about singer/songwriter/comedian Biff Rose. Biff Rose has not contributed to Wikipedia. He has expressed thanks to me that I removed libel about him from the article, including claims of kidnapping [5] and child molestation [6].

"Jonah" also created a username which is my home phone number. He got the number from my webpage, where I had naively included it for the sake of gig bookings. The username was deleted, but I believe admins can still access the evidence. This username posted on the Biff Rose page at 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC). He has called my house five or six times, one of those times at 1:40 am. Two of the times he left obscene messages. One time, right after I had left a response to his writing on his talk page, the phone message was "Stay off my talk page." That strongly implies, to me, that it was him. Hard to prove, of course.

Again: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jonah_Ayers

Jonah often posts as anonymous IPs. Here's a sequence of messages he left on User:Derex's page where he spells out much of his MO: [7]].

One of these IPs also posted on Biff Rose's message board and threatened harm to Mr. Rose at an upcoming LA show.

It may be worthwhile to check out the user contributions of User:Steve espinola. [8] Again, that is not me, but it is the same user as User: Jonah Ayers, indulging in pretty outrageous vandalism. He created that username specifically to harrass me.

--Sojambi Pinola 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the Jonah Ayers account indefinitely, because he continued posting personal details after being warned by two admins that he risked the account being blocked indefinitely. There has also been multiple sockpuppetry and possibly telephone calls to people's homes, so it has gone far enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here is more evidence that User:Jonah Ayers has been involved in systematically harrassing and insulting editors he considers as enemies: here, here, and here. In this last example he is admittedly using a sockpuppet to evade his blocked account [9]. Marcuse 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Jonah was just blocked indefinitely by SlimVirgin. Are we sure that User:Maslow is a sock of Jonah? If so, that account should also be blocked. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly seems like a sock puppet to me. Blocked.--Sean|Black 06:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for the help handling this problem. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The user has returned several times with sock puppets, and further administrative actions will probably be required in the future. He once again has created a username with an editor's phone number in it, and used it to edit Biff Rose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Please be on the watch for harassment from this editors. Thanks, -Will Beback 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Biff Rose watchlisted, will keep on the lookout.--Sean|Black 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Piecraft, part two

Time for a stupid question from a new admin. Ever since his 24 hour block last month, Piecraft (talk • contribs) has disdained logging in, and has instead continued to contribute anonymously from a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets. He's even gone as far as to use them in attempts to vote twice at several AfDs. Some of the accounts, but probably not all, have been collected at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Piecraft. Apart from that, should we be doing anything else? - EurekaLott 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go again. Piecraft's language is getting abusive once more. See User:Piecraft, User talk:Piecraft#On sockpuppets, User talk:Avogadro94, and User talk:217.129.169.105. Would another warning be appropriate, or does he need a second time out? - EurekaLott 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian federal election, 2006

(continuation of above) I should mention that there has been lengthy discussion of the problem (official blackout of certain results of the Canadian election between 00:00 UTC and 03:00 UTC 2006-01-24) on Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006, TfD and VP policy. A great deal of consensus has been reached, but some parties remain unsatisfied. Given the timescale, I cannot see any greater consensus being reached before the polls close. Hence, unfortunately, there is likely to be edit warring tonight. No by me, I'm off to my European bed—I just felt I should warn the duty admins of what to expect. Physchim62 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• You and another user has reached a lot more consensus that the rest of us! Consensus may be in the eye of the beholder. Nfitz 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I say let them post that information, unlike Yahoo and Microsoft we don't help countries censor their citizens. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your helpful comment, but you fail to address verifiability issues. Physchim62 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Instantnood and Huaiwei Bans

I banned Instantood and Huaiwei both from Clock tower. Revert warring without discussion and the usual jabs in edit summaries.

I also banned Instatnood from Category:Transport in Hong Kong, Category:Transportation in Macau, and Category:Transportation in China, reverts on old fights in otherwise stable articles (or cats as the case may be) without summaries or discussion.

The full list for bans per this ArbCom ruling can be found here. --Wgfinley 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just added Lists of country-related topics as well, missed one. --Wgfinley 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And another....Singapore Science Centre, both Instant and Huaiwei, blatant revert warring. --Wgfinley 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Day Blocks

I have blocked both Instant and Huaiwei for 7 days effective immediately for continued and incessent edit warring despite numerous warnings, pleas to reconsider, and article bans accumulating at more than one a day (not to mention what I'm sure we're missing). This blatant disregard of their probation requires a more direct response and I believe this block is in order given their continued edit warring and disturbance to Wikipedia. --Wgfinley 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

May I request that this block be reviewed. The latest incident that prompted this block, in Singapore Science Centre, is not a China-related article; and so I'm not sure about the validity of that ban, and therefore of this general ban as well. In addition, the ban was issued after a discussion had taken place in the talk page Talk:Singapore Science Centre, and therefore I feel that the ban is rather unnecessary, as the reverting has ceased. For these reasons, I hope admins would consider reducing the length of the block, thanks. --Vsion 06:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Remind me again on how many articles they are banned from? If the article bans are not working, then blocks like the one issued is pretty much the only way to solve things. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

They engaged in edit warring first and 'discussion'–one lonely comment by Huaiwei–afterward. Whether the Singapore Science Centre is an article that was covered within the narrow terms of their original probation is moot; their behaviour was disruptive and inappropriate. (There is also an amendment to their original ArbCom decision on WP:RFArb, expanding the terms of their probation to include all articles.)

Moving their destructive interpersonal conflict to non-China-related pages doesn't give them a free pass to edit war. If they can't get this through their heads after being banned from more than a dozen individual articles and receiving two or three short-term blocks in the last few weeks, a seven-day block seems regrettably necessary to get their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As this notice states, this is not about one edit, it's about a documented pattern of behavior that shows no signs of ending. Huaiwei reverted the article 3 times in the past week without any discussion and the usual debate in the edit summaries. He didn't post anything to the talk page until after his latest revert. Finally, I'm pretty confident this meets the criteria of being China-related seeing as how the majority population of Signapore is ethnic Chinese. --Wgfinley 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I resent that, Wgfinley. In no way are we China-related just by the majority race. I'm Chinese in race, but I don't see myself related to China. NSLE _(T+C) 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So you don't think this fight on this article has anything to do with the fights on China-related articles?? --Wgfinley 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It may just be Instanthood wanting to get on Huaiwei's nerves, but Singapore Science Centre is definitely not China-related. NSLE _(T+C) 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Chinese, yes majority of Singaporeans are, but I have yet, after living here for a great deal of 15 years (I am an European migrant), I have yet to come across a Chinese here claiming to be related to China in any sense, except for ancestry. Its just a great deal of misconception, Singapore is a South-East Asian nation, the portion of the Asia continent where Chinese are considered migrants. No, Singapore Science Centre is not related to China, nor are any Singaporeans, in regardless of ethnicity, related to China. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And, once more, this is not about a single edit, this is not about the makeup of the Singaporean people although these are delightful exercises in wikilawyering. This is about how nothing justifies edit warring and dozens of other articles they're already both banned from. --Wgfinley 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is clear that because of Singapore Science Centre, Wgfinley issued the general block. His misplaced belief that the article is china-related undeniably influenced this decision. Also in several instances, the situations had been overstated: that "normal editings" being stated as "edit wars"; "simply revert" being stated as "revert warrings"; and "explanation in edit summary" being described as "jabs in revert comments". One clear example is in Clock tower, where a closer examination will show that there is no revert at all. Many editors do have the occasional habit of writing long edit summaries, and there is in fact no ill-will in the edits of Clock tower between them and other editors involved. However, Wgfinley had misinterpreted the few long edit summaries as a revert warring and issue the block, and continue to uphold it despite later clarification. As these decisions are questionable, it warrants a fresh look into the circumstances and that the length of the 7-days block be reconsidered. I earnestly request that because it is an extremely harsh penalty on two very important wikipedia contributors, as evidenced by their contribution pages; which also show that both parties have exercised considerable restraints in the past few days. An overly harsh punishment in this circumstance would not be in the interests of this community. I appeal for reconsideration, thank you. --Vsion 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come now, Instantnood and Huaiwei clearly need time out. They have been playing this cat and mouse game of reverts for ages now. They got their hands slapped at arbcon and have continued regardless. Singapore Science Centre was nothing special - it's just the article when Wgfinley finally had enough. He has been spending time and effort on individual article bans - we should be thanking him for that. Wikipedia is all about writing an encyclopedia, not warring. There are plenty of articles needing attention that if they both decided to they could have kept out of each others way. Thanks/wangi 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Professor Von Pie

Professor Von Pie (talk • contribs) repeatedly inserts POV edits into the Bob Hope article and is repeatedly reverted. I have asked him not to insert his personal opinion, but he just continues and now he sends me an email which says, "It will be reverted daily, possibly hourly". User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to try sweet reason then block when if it fails - David Gerard 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd seen him previously. His edits are careless (little apparent heed for blending content into narrative flow- often only tacks something onto the end of a sentence turning it into a glaring run-on, sometimes ignores simple stuff like double spacing a para break) and the details are frequently wrong or misleading, the wonted gossip thing. Wyss 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hourly, is it? I've blocked him for reverting five times in less than 24 hours. Zoe seems to have been very patient. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet?

Maybe somebody should keep an eye on Doctor Nicetan (talk • contribs). On his first day of edits (24 Jan 2006), he blanked the section on Inalienable rights that was previously blanked by Zephram Stark (talk • contribs), and another sockpuppet of his (Peter McConaughey (talk • contribs)). This "new" user seems to be familiar with wikipedia, using wiki acronyms, citing wiki policy, etc. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• He's using an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet KIMP, using profanity, attacking other users.... All standard Zephram Stark behavior. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Using an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet KIMP isn't a standard Zephram Stark behavior. --Doctor Nicetan 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... sooooo socklicious [10]. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it is pretty obvious. Just examine the Inalienable Rights edit history. There are three users who have a passionate hatred of the Criticism section and use exceptionally long edit summaries. They are Zephram Stark (talk • contribs), Peter McConaughey (talk • contribs), and now Doctor Nicetan (talk • contribs). It's the long edit summaries that give him away....that and the crazy ramblings on his user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's just great. Make fun of the handicapped guy. --Doctor Nicetan 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Doctor_Nicetan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) indefinitely as yet another sockpuppet of Zephram. He's almost becoming a parody of himself. Anyway, he certainly is persistant, got to give him that... Carbonite | Talk 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The technical evidence confirms that Doctor Nicetan (talk • contribs) is yet another Zephram sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:LaShawn Barber

I have blocked this user for using a celebrity's name. The user claims it is her real name. Can we AGF and unblock, or should it stay blocked? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See the user's talk page. I've unblocked. -- Longhair 04:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a bad idea to watch the account; I seem to remember Ms. Barber was at one point angry about her article. I highly doubt she'll vandalize, but we might watch that her article stays NPOV. Ral315 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:☠

Thoughts regarding a username that's just a skull-and-crossbones dingbat character? I admit it: it makes me nervous. Perhaps I was swashbuckled by pirates once toward the end of a former life, I dunno. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm jealous.  :) Here's to hoping he (or she) turns out to be a productive member of the project... and not some dingbat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

HA!! On a serious note, aren't folks with symbols as usernames generally blocked becuase of browser compatibility issues? For instance, this symbol just displays as a box for me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask them nicely to choose a more readable name, and show them how to put their pretty symbol into their signature…I've started the ball rolling. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know, one shouldn't really put non 7-bit ASCII chars in signatures or in usernames at least on the English wikipedia, because it prevents people using console-mode browsers from ever being able to edit pages where these users have signed. This is not because console-mode browsers do not support Unicode (indeed, lynx, and most others, support a wide range of charsets) but rather because MediaWiki appears to consider all text-mode browsers to be "blacklisted", and thus transliterates all non 7-bit ASCII chars into hex codes as an attempted workaround for browsers that don't support it. Unfortunately, as far as I've tried, this workaround seems to be broken in such a manner as editing a page containing non 7-bit chars with a text browser (through no fault of the browser) causes the text to be converted into a string of broken hex codes, and thus saving any revision of the page using a text browser causes the Unicode character string to be hopelessly messed up, precluding any editing of the page without messing up their signature. I have seen cases indeed where people have savaged users for messing up their signature in this manner (although I shan't name names). People may wish to remember that some blind or partially sighted users use text-mode browsers with a screenreader, and not everyone has a graphical terminal on which to work on. In my case, I am not partially sighted as such but rather have some discomfort reading pages of computer text for prolonged periods of time, and so prefer to work using a screenreader and terminal when doing heavy editing work; I've found it impossible to edit any talk page that Miborovsky or Encyclopedist signed, for example, in Lynx, and thus have had to use Firefox for editing any page they've signed. Just thought I'd mention this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the username should be changed–ideally by its owner–for reasons of legibility, ease of communication and to avoid confusion. I also wish that we hadn't enabled Unicode for usernames or signatures (spoofing problems, etc.) but it's too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube. I'm wondering, though, how Nicholas edits articles that contain Unicode...? I've seen it popping up more frequently, and sometimes unexpectedly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he should change his name. No reason he can't use it as a signature or something. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:21, Jan. 25, 2006

[edit] Batzarros's userpage, need help

I need some help here, because I'm a bit confused now. I think the events are as follows.

1. Batzarro had some fair use images on his userpage removed by Zanimum, repeatedly.
2. Zanimum protects the userpage to prevent further additions of such images.
3. Batzarro asks me to unprotect his userpage and promises not to readd FU images.
4. I unprotect Batzarro's userpage.
5. Batzarro adds two FU images to his userpage.
6. I remove them and protect the userpage again.
7. Batzarro now claims that the images are either public domain or his creation [11] and that they have the wrong tag.

I have trouble deciding what to do now, can somebody please help? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The star wars pic image:AEAT is a pic I made on my computer. The dog pic is from public domain. When I added the tag,I did not care about domain . Batzarro 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you Mike or Dave Sharples? The Star Wars image was originally credited as the joint work of the Sharples, but you uploaded the current version which has that credit coloured in. The two images are in all other respects identical. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the key objection I had to your and Ferall's userpages is that the images were not fair use that were at least used in the encyclopedia itself, as well as on your userpage, but that they were exclusively used on your userpages. -- user:zanimum

Batzarro (talk • contribs), 220.247.254.190 (talk • contribs) and 220.247.252.135 (talk • contribs) have been violating WP:POINT by editing other user pages in retribution. The account and the IP's also seem related to Ferall (talk • contribs). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that the Kooorooo (talk • contribs) and zanimum2 (talk • contribs) accounts have been created by Batzarro to prove a point. The wording Kooorooo has chosen on User talk:Kooorooo is completely out of character of zanimum, and is completely consistent with Batzarro's choice of words. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, as the real User:Zanimum. Sadly, I must add Booren as another suspected sockpuppet. Booren's only real edits are to his userpage, which was taken down by Kooorooo in my name. Also Batzarro's usertalk page evidences he's a fan of Ashida Kim, the image added to this new user's page. -- user:zanimum

I've added User:Booren to the list. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now we can add user:Zanee. Cute. -- user:zanimum

Curps has just blocked Kooorooo indefinitely. -- user:zanimum

I am not a fan of Ashida Kim but believe in neutrality. There is no proof that he is honest,no proof that he is a fraud either. The dog pic I uploaded was from a public domain site perrosdelargentina or something like that if I am not mistaken. I cant remember. Besides most of my edits and uploads were useful,except that i spend 25% of the time on my userpage which I narcistically fawn and croon over. Kooorooo edited the kkk template I added. I am an Australian/SRi Lankan/Indian/Singaporean mix not an American. As for kkk I have little caucasian ancestry.

Anyway just unblock my page?

The ADMIN who blocked me;user:zanimum had some fair use images on HIS userpage.He is the root cause of all the drama.Batzarro 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this user still permitted to edit? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Zanee (talk • contribs) keeps on removing the "suspected sockpuppet" tag from his user page. I am probably too involved to block him for this, so I would like another admin to keep an eye on him. If he continues, however, and noone steps in, I see no alternative but to block him myself. I will start at a 1 hour block, and I will then double it at every new revert. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Other admins, note that Zanee has edited the article "Batzarro", adding a link to user:batzarro's page. Only Zanee, Batzarro, and Booren have yet to be blocked, anyone find the evidence against them enough to do so? -- user:zanimum

Zanee has again removed the suspected sockpuppet tag from his user page, replacing it with something with which I think he's trying to provoke us. I will now block him for 1 hour. The next time he does it, I will block him for two hours, four, eight, sixteen, etc. Any admin who disagrees with this block is free to unblock him. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro's gone a major streak of vandalism, and he's been banned indef., as well as many of his socks. Keep an eye out on anything that has to do with Britney Spears, Jessica Alba, Whitney Houston, or alternatively, things that KKK members would be interested in vandalising, as he targeted both categories, the first of which he puts penises and clitorises up on the page. -- user:zanimum

Oh, and when he put clits and ps up, he adds in quotes from none other than Jimmy Wales. Why? It's Jimmy's quote saying about how our work isn't done until every child in Africa has access to our knowledge, an idea a white supremist like Batzarro of course doesn't share. He also puts up Jimmy's personal contact info, and rants about Ashida Kim. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Timecop Permablock

I'm definitely no fan of timecop or his ilk. However, I find the spurious accusation thrown by User:David Gerard that he is a sock puppet rather ridiculous. This flimsy accusation ultimately led to a permablock by User:Alkivar

Obviously, I whole heartedly support a permaban of timecop and all GNAA members. But at least be honest and up front about the circumstances. Wikicrusader 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

David has checkuser - it's his "job" to ferret out sockpuppetry. Guettarda 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are any other confirmed accounts editing from the same IP as timecop, they should be considered the sockpuppets, not timecop. This is backwards. silsor 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The dickyrobert account was the first indef blocked account of the person... all the others were linked to it... as we knew this as DickyRobert... it only makes sense that the puppetmaster gets marked as such.  ALKIVAR™ 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Timecop and his friends are here to fuck shit up. Others are welcome to assume good faith in the face of blatant trolling, and I probably can't convince them otherwise - David Gerard 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.156.64.5 is inserting random errors and gibberish, see contribs

• BTW, did you know that cannabis is closely related to peyote? Could Cannabis and Cannabis (drug) be semi-protected? It suffers constant random vandalism. -SM 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism is not that constant, and whatever has occured has slowed down a bit and, I feel, does not warrant immidiate protection. In the vent it re-occurs, put your request on WP:AIV, as it'll likely be tended to more quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Better still put it on requests for page protection --pgk^(talk) 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.172.251.162 personal attacks

69.172.251.162 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) persists on editing my talk page with personal attacks (see his contribution history), but they are over the course of days so I suspect if I report him on WP:AIV they will get dismissed as "Only been warned once today" or something along those lines. They are a persistant troll and vandal and ever since I warned him not to blank warnings on his talk page he has been harassing me over it, and will not drop the subject. He has almost no (if any) positive contributions and I would request a permanant, or at least a long term block as their account is purely for vandalism and personal attacks. VegaDark 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Contributing" since November, nothing but vandalism (oh, no, there is one spelling correction!), and now harassing VegaDark for warning him/her? OK... I see the account has been blocked for a couple of days. I'd request that somebody clever check whether this is a static IP, as the story suggests it might be. I'd be glad to extend the block, provided it won't just mean incurring collateral damage to innocent users. IMO we shouldn't keep abusive non-contributing "contributors" around at all. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dudes111 (talk • contribs)

I'm not very sure where to put this complaint, or quite how to word it, as it's a cocktail of a few reverts, deliberate posting of false info, and a dash of attempted sockpuppetry. Dudes111 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) repeatedly posted unconfirmed rumors with no citations on Avatar: The Last Airbender over the course of a week and a day. After I initially deleted his additions, he reverted them, claiming his facts were real. (He then thrice removed my subsequent "in-need-of-citation" tags) With some research, I realized a user on a popular fan forum for the show was taking credit for his edits in the same real-time timeframe, while simultaneously claiming to have "found" his initial submission here, rather than writing it himself. When this information was aired on the talk page, he attempted quasi-sockpuppetry by pretending to be an anonymous arbitrator and leaving his post unsigned. Am I in the right place? --172.171.196.5 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See [12] where Dudes111 apparently thinks he's logged off but hasn't. Strange - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User Dudes111 has explained the aforementioned actions and apologized alongside the explanation (seen here, scroll down to "Hello there I am the Dudes111, you can check ...") I'm satisfied with the apology and explanation, but I can't speak for how others feel. I recommend not taking any action right now, but watching the user to see whether they continue to be a problem, or if they become a valuable contributor. --Lesoria 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user User:Aidan Work circumventing indefinite ban

user:Aidan Work, blocked for serious personal attacks (as well as about 100 other policy violations), is now editing under the username user:Royalist0007. Proof - thats the first part of his email adress. Same kind of edits. Same homophobia on his user page. Same articles being edited over again.

A block is needed now before he thinks he can continue like this. --Kiand 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Royalist0007 could be User:Aidan Work sockpuppet

I suspect User:Royalist0007 could be a sockpuppet of User:Aidan Work. Aiden Work is currently banned because of abusive behaviour. Some current behaviour that I believe points to sockpuppet includes characteristic signing of his own articles and categories[13]. Also replacing Category:Commonwealth of Nations with Category:British Commonwealth because Aiden is more fond of the latter, which is technically incorrect. Also a general interest in the same articles and topics, and finally the categories that are used in his page. I have mentioned the sockpuppet policy on the user talk page. Djegan 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked User:Royalist0007 as an obvious sock puppet of Aidan Work. Both Kiand and Djegan are correct: not only is "Royalist0007" Work's email name, he is editing in the same manner. --cj | talk 09:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

When I was controversially blocked for 3RR violation and tried to explain that the block was not valid on WP:AN3, the blocking admin, ignorant as he was, doubled my block for "block evasion". Now I see that the blocked User:Molobo is allowed to roam freely in Wikipedia and to make controversial and inflammatory edits both in the namespace and on talk. Not content with WP:AN3, he even went to the blocking admin page in order to make stupid retorts. He posted on the talk page of the article he reverted ad nauseum, posted a request for comment, and a comment to the notice-board. In the past, Molobo openly admitted that the IP is his and used it to edit his user page, so no IP check is required. IMHO such a liberal attitude towards crass revert warriors who circumvent blocks and pay no respect to 3RR profanes the whole conceipt of blocking. Is there any policy on block evasion at all? --Ghirla | talk 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that it has come to my attention, I have reset Molobo's 24h block as a result of his blatant evasion and blocked the evading IP for 24 hours too. -Splash^talk 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note about my reasoning: normally, it is only really ArbCom bans that get reset upon evasion: it is probably more usual to block the evading account until the end of the original block. In this case, however, Molobo's editing has been so completely unrestrained (all the way to an RfC) that I think starting over is more appropriate. -Splash^talk 12:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 72.10.123.177

Just reverted some vandalism from a fairly major page (Jimmy Carter) and noticed that the user already has a "final warning" on their talk page placed < 24 hours ago. Hence, a block for 72.10.123.177 (talk • contribs) would be appropriate. Thanks. Turnstep 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:134.161.137.162, Animal Liberation Front and Britches (monkey)

I have previously reported this incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:134.161.137.162 and the Animal Liberation Front page was protected. However, the user has now started reverting over at Britches (monkey) and will not take into account the overwhelming support for the old version of the article at Talk:Animal Liberation Front. He will not stop reverting and will not allow the community to be the deciding factor, rather thinks that his own view is the only one to be listened to. So far he seems to be in violation of WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA and a few others. Is there any thing that can be done to stop this user constantly ignoring everyone else.-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An admin has now blocked the user for 24 hours but they have instantly come back using the ip User:134.164.137.162 and reverted yet again.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revealing personal information

About a month ago, Tina M. Barber (talk • contribs) revealed personal information (name, workplace and position held at that workplace) about another user, a registered wikipedian, as discussed above. This obviously needs to be deleted from the archives of wikipedia, and I have given her the chance to report it here. She hasn't done that in the few hours since I posted the {{Pinfo4}} template on her talk page, which couldn't be expected from her in such short notice. However, I don't want to wait any longer. She also claims to have told the other wikipedian's employer that he is using the company's computer and internet connection to edit wikipedia. What needs to be done about her? A block might be in order, although I'm not sure it still is an option a month after the offence. But if she needs to be blocked, for how long? 24 hours? 1 week? 1 month? Indefinitely? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the point in blocking a month after the fact? Blocks are remedial, not punitive. However, WP:BP#Personal attacks which place users in danger is clear enough that a block may be imposed immediately such an attack is discovered; I rather suppose the policy has in mind that the block still be pertinent to the fact. -Splash^talk 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand; What remediation is ever provided by imposing a block after personal information has been posted? Surley blocks in these circumstances are, if not "punitive," at least meant to discourage the behavior. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A block will prevent the editor from adding the information again. The editor having not apparently done so, a block wouldn't be stopping anything. There is a case, sometimes, for 'electric fence' blocks, but there's really no case for much at all a month after the fact. -Splash^talk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Tina M. Barber (talk • contribs) has edited wikipedia since I posted the warning on her talk page, so she must have seen the "You've got a new message" box. I presume she has and I presume she has viewed her talk page and seen the template. She has not requested the deletion of the edit from the archives, as instructed by the template ("If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia."), so I will do it on her behalf. The edit concerned is this one, the comment can currently be found here. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have now become a bit too involved, so I won't do it myself, but I think that what Tina has said on that talk page ("... his superiors are being informed about his Vandalism! I highly doubt that he is going to consider this very funny after his system is inspected!") is consistent with {{threatban}}: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or work-related, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'}

I emailed the victim of the attack, after I posted here, and he advised that T. Barber did indeed contact his superiors and also posted his name/work info on her own personal forums requesting those participants also contact his employer.

At the time she did this, a number of Wiki editors posted on the talk page asking T. Barber why she did this and telling her it was against Wiki policy and that an apology was in order, but she didn't offer one or remove her post.

Us being new users to Wikipedia, we didn't know what/if further action could be taken. It took a little time before I found this site to ask about this.

This caused considerable grief for the editor she "outed", but since the administrators didn't take any further action, he thought acts like that must be allowed by Wiki, so he hasn't posted since.

Will there be any further action taken? Once the person gets the Pino4 template, is there follow-up or does it just become inert if she doesn't respond to that template?

Because someone also tracked my IP address (again, being new, I sometimes was forgetting to "sign in" to Wiki)and posted my name on the page also, after that one. I don't know if that were her also or not. They used the name "Aslan" (shows IP address 70.35.67.56 03:33 before name), but I've since learned about "sock puppets", so maybe it was her and she figured nobody stopped her before so why not do it again. When it happened to me, that moderator didn't say anything about it, so again, I figured it was alright with Wiki too. I don't know if they have been able to track my employer yet.

I hope somebody can help us with these incidents because if this continues, editors are going to be pretty worried that their personal info is vulnerable if they post here.

MilesD. 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have wondered if maybe a technical solution might help. It seems that right now when these incidents happen there is a tension between on the one hand keeping the edit history as intact as possible for a number of reasons, not least of which is to preserve evidence that the offending editor did this thing, and on the other hand to preserve the privacy and thus the safety of the victim.

I wonder, what would be the practicality of the following procedure: when there is a reported attempt to "out" personal information, the page in question is temporarily pulled; the portions which represent the sensitive information are processed with one of the common hashing/checksum algorithms, and replaced with a template expression giving the length and checksum of the redacted personal information? This would preserve as much evidence as possible but still preserve the editor's privacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now requested a sock check to see if Tina M. Barber (talk • contribs) is 70.35.67.56 (talk • contribs). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's happening again. Another post today, with just an IP address, showing a link to Tina Barber's personal website listing the personal names and information of people who may not even be on Wiki or are on Wiki but not using their "real" names. The post is as follows:

"In response to the "others" statement that over 50% of the existing ISSR breeders left in '97-98, at Tina's request, I have reviewed the database and put it into a live web page that can be shared with the entire Shiloh fancy. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm.

"I am also preparing other documented data pages that will clearly dispell the objections that have been raised by the "other" "editors".

207.200.116.133 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"

Also, if possible, could you please check these potential sock puppet IP addresses 70.35.67.56 (as already noted by Aecis) and 207.200.116.133 (yesterday's poster) and name "Aslan" (the "name" of the poster who revealed my personal info) to both Tina Barber and also poster "TrillHill", as I do think there is a chance one or the other, or both are using these IPs and/or names to reveal personal information, as TrillHill will sometimes place posts saying Tina Barber has asked her to post (I don't know if maybe Tina Barber was blocked during those times). I'm sorry for this obvious hassle in trying to stop this, but I don't know where else to turn and it's getting really bad. Thank you very much for helping. MilesD. 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser, so that those with m:CheckUser privileges can check on these users. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, again, this poster, T. Barber (who also signs as MaShiloh and who knows how many sockpuppets), has placed 3 new posts today on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page, revealing two personal names.

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#Reply_to_New_Draft

The two posts are as follows:

"I have put a lot of time into preparing a reply page that would clarify a LOT of the BS that has been presented via the "objections" proposed by <name snip> I certainly hope that the editors here will take the time to visit this link & read the FACTS!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"

More BS ... <name snip>, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Oh <name snip>, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter --is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous and something more immediate needs to be done. These numerous personal names are all sitting out there on these Wiki pages, this poster has ignored the warning to remove them, has contacted at least one person's employer, has encouraged others to contact an employer, our administrator(s) haven't stopped it, and frankly, we want our personal info off these pages and for this person to be stopped from using them freely and obviously, without any concern that they will be stopped. Please, I am asking for someone to please take some definitive action ....enough is enough, already.

Thank you. MilesD. 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:Wikipedia Admin,Please Read Today, January 25th on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog discussion page, Under "Original Research vs. third party":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog

In a post that ShenandoahShilohs wrote, a "Tina M. Barber" not only broke up the article but referred to the poster twice by their personal name.

Revision as of 22:23, January 25, 2006 Tina M. Barber (Talk | contribs) New history draft

"Oh <name snip>, give it up!! I....."

"More BS ... <name snip>, you were there....."

This has become a common practice for Tina M. Barber in multiple replies and no one is taking action. It seems that there have been warnings issued on December 28, 2005 and December 30, 2005, followed by a serious warning of an unknown date. It would appear that the protection of other editors continues to be threatened as she continues to disregard Wikipedia admin. warnings and continues to use personal names in her posts and threaten editors work arena by contacting editors places of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tina_M._Barber

Tina M. Barber is getting more and more hostile and the continued use of personal names is extremely disturbing. She has crossed serious Wikipedia rules by doing this and contacting editors work arenas in attempts to get editors fired from their jobs. Are the policies truly considered serious if people can continue to break them on Wikipedia over and over and over again? If these are truly serious breeches of the Wikipedia rules and policies, can someone tell me and the other editors, why she has not been banned?

Concerned Editor,

--iamgateway 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see topic: Am I missing something? ShenandoahShilohs 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:I implore you to take action - a 3rd person's name revealed

Please, please, can any of you help immediately? I'm one of the editors in the ISSDC registries working on the Shiloh Shepherd article. Editor Tina Barber just posted another message on the discussion page, revealing a third person's actual name.

Please – why hasn’t anything been done about her giving personal info prior to today’s incident, other than posting to her user page? Why hasn’t anything been done about her tracing an editor’s IP address to his work, contacting his work to get him in trouble, and posting his personal information on her chat lists, telling her supporters to contact his work? Again, she got a warning on her page, asking her to delete the info. It’s my understanding that she hasn’t done it.

:If Wiki policies aren’t enforced, or if they aren't going to be enforced with editor Barber, please just tell us that, so we can make an informed decision about future participation.

Just posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=36826258 "And regarding the numbers and LMX on the new link above, if you search the Orthopedic Foundation For Animals database for German Shepherds born between 1970 and 1990 you get 23,613 records. There are less than *12* that have Shiloh in their name and out of those twelve, I think half might be from TB. *12* out of the twenty-some thousand that is claimed to have gone into the LMX program is pretty un-verifiable. WindsongKennels 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"

"[person's 1st name], you know that the OFA didn't record preliminary (under 2 yr) x-rays back then! If I had you subpoenaed into court, and you were asked (under perjury of law) if you saw the STACKS of x-rays on my dogs ... what would you have to say?? MaShiloh 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"

Editor Barber has a long history of contacting people’s employers, threatening physical harm and even worse, improbable as it may seem, threatening lawsuits, losing control and having to be physically restrained, etc., when people cross her. The risk is real.

Right now, this feels nuts – to read about Wiki’s strict policies and then see no enforcement when people are put at risk.

Sincerely, S Scott 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Note on the last "reveal" (X-ray post) -- in the user's first post to Wikipedia, she used her full name and affiliation.--SarekOfVulcan 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Update Thanks for the update on Windsong using her real name earlier. That's one less person's info revealed. It's also been clarified that editor Barber appears to be the only person using people's real names when those people haven't posted their real names on the discussion page. S Scott 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block, User:Tommstein

At 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I placed an indefinite block on User:Tommstein, because frankly I have had enough of his obnoxious behaviour towards myself and other Wikipedians. In particular, his post on my talk page accusing me of "fruity-cult-standing-up-for-fruity-cult bias" [14], and his reply to my request to leave me alone where he states "... I'm about to get banned because of being painted as a bad guy and the only bad guy by your bias for a fellow cult" [15]. This stems from his view of my Scientology background, which he reiterated (along with misc. other ad hominem) in what was essentially a spurious RfC against me, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull. He's been repeatedly warned by many people, including myself, and continues in this pattern of horrid behaviour; his contribs show this is a consistent pattern. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good show.--Sean|Black 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an AC case in the queue or accepted, but anyone in a case can email the AC, and doesn't actually have to be unblocked to participate. Just so's y'all know - David Gerard 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't block people you are involved in disputes with. Secretlondon 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is of course correct. If Nicholas cares to unblock, I'll certainly reblock - David Gerard 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Timecop - block removed following IRC discussion

I have (provisionally) removed the block that User:Alkivar placed on Timecop (talk • contribs) on the basis of having had a mediation discussion with this user via an IRC conversation; Timecop has stated that he is willing to be civil. I will be keeping an eye out regarding proceedings. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that GNAA have launched a campaign of harrassment at Alkivar and other Wikipedia users, I've gotta say I find it exceedingly unlikely that Timecop's learned his lesson. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil my ass ... i've been getting threatening phone calls at home.  ALKIVAR™ 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is too much. I've reblocked, though if you wish to revert me, Nicholas, I will not wheel war - I just think there are limits to what we can allow, and getting to harrassing phone calls is about 20 steps over the line. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No kidding...harrassing phone calls? He should be gone for good. Period. Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I know for sure timecop has done no such thing as harassing phone calls. Alkivar, you have largely implied that timecop did the phone calls, so please clarify your accusations. Sam Hocevar 09:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar, it's unfortunate that you got those phone calls. However, that's beyond the scope of wikipedia conduct, and (most importantly) we have zero evidence that timecop has anything to do with it. Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. Even if this was done by GNAA members in say, North America, timecop cannot be held accountable for their actions. All I can say is change your phone number. He has proven himself a legitimate user and I see nothing in his contributions tying him to DickyRobert either. I strongly recommend he be unblocked. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:41, Jan. 25, 2006

Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. That's the strangest logic I've heard all week. The first half means nothing whatsover if the second half is untrue: which means that boiled down, you're taking him at his word. I'd say there's very little reason to do that, gievn his track record. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet if I called your house and said I was timecop, I'm sure you'd take my word. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006

Okay, we have now left the realm of bad logic and have entered the territory of complete non sequitor. Also, since his user page proclaims "This user thinks Osama bin Laden is the greatest man on Earth" and "This user eats dog", you can talk to him about politics sometime and maybe pick up a few recipes while you're at it. I'm sure you take his word on those, too. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a non sequitur, it was intended as a question, but I couldn't find an interrobang on my keyboard. Please answer it. Alkivar thinks it's timecop, timecop says it's not him, I doubt anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call, nobody has any evidence that it was timecop, and it has nothing to do with wikipedia anyway. Do you consider these to be non sequiturs as well? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006

It's a non sequitor (i.e., a sentence logically untethered from what it precedes) regardless of what punctuation you stick on the end. A question mark merely converts it into a non sequitor rhetorical question, since you can't honestly expect me to believe that you're looking for information of any kind. And your doubts that anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call merely shows your lack of imagination -- or, indeed, lack of knowledge of the ease in making such international calls (assuming, of course, Timecop really DOES live in Japan to begin with). --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's part of a GNAA/Bantown campaign. Ask Linuxbeak about these charming fellows. They're not just trolls and hackers, they're loons as well. I have no reason to believe anything any of them says to me at any time whatsoever, and I hope others would be as smart - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed: "He has proven himself a legitimate user" - what the fucking fuck? - David Gerard 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's been the key force in keeping our encyclopedia clean of vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs, which I think is excellent work. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006

No, his is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you name any deleted blog articles that were worth keeping? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006

Irrelevant. His is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs" or "War on articles that I, personally, want deleted", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be slightly less dishonest to judge it by what it is, not by what it is called. This "War on Blogs" is exactly what was needed to counter the systemic bias caused by the massive proportion of bloggers on Wikipedia. Sam Hocevar 11:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone's even been attacking Alkivar with diffs on Uncyclopedia. Presumably on other wikis as well. If Timecop said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

David's right. Whether Timecop is doing this stuff personally, or his friends are the actual culprits, there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in allowing him or them back. More than that, there is no ethical reason either -- sannse (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather sickening that we're not seeing the bigger picture here: Timecop's organization is now criminally harassing one of our users because he blocked their "fearless leader". Whether timecop did this or not, are we so spineless that we're going to give into this sort of internet gang war? Should our admins be afraid to take action against GNAA members if they act like retarded clowns? When I was harassed by bantown, it wasn't their leader who did most of the harassment. In fact, it was the low-level trolls who were trying to prove themselves. No, I'm sorry. This is a picture perfect example of why we should not allow GNAA to abuse our good faith, trust, and resources. Screw them, and screw anyone who thinks otherwise. If GNAA members want to actually help Wikipedia, then why the hell do they harass our members, both in cyberspace and real life? This "war on blogs" bullshit is not justification for their presence. If they want to truely help Wikipedia, they can do alone, not in the name of GNAA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Who do you call criminal? Im sorry but i have a work, family and more, and im no criminal like you claim all GNAA members are. I've been trying to understand you but its not possible at all, maybe its time for you to learn from people who's actually willing to read and decide, like silsor. As for your problems with bantown, dont try to mix them with GNAA, because its not related. Cheers --blackman 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I've also had enough. I've been very patient so far, his harassment of members off Wiki is going too far. I'm permablocking. I'll send a message to Jimbo and the ArbCom about this, I'll let them overturn my permablock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, there was a user that was sanctioned for sending threatening emails to Wikipedians about Wikipedia related stuff, and I do not see that this is any different from that. If someone is making threatening phone calls over stuff happening at Wikipedia, then we should be able to do something here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

I love how a discussion about unbanning a troll turns into trolling the person that banned the troll. Is this what our community has degenerated to? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's now with Jimbo - David Gerard 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, TBSDY has perma-blocked TimeCop (presumably for all of the above) and left a note with Jimbo and the ArbCom. TBSDY doesn't have authority to make binding decisions for all admins, not being an Arb (or a Jimbo), so I thought I'd note it here. Not that I have any problem with the permablock, but it's at the very least customary to tell the other admins about such things, in case they disagree. -Splash^talk 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that TBSDY said this above as well. Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

WTF indeed! We have a guy that turns up here saying 'I'm the fearless leader of a bunch of international trolls, who disrupt websites for kicks' - and what so we do? We assume good faith. Bad enough, but even when our trusted admins get abuse, we still 'assume good faith', and demand the admin 'proves it'. Get a grip! AGF - does not mean we have to have our heads up our asses. I say call time on all these trolls. --Doc ^ask? 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. The only reason they're put up with at all is because it's not worth it in terms of soft security - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and noting it was correct. I'm just noting that it's got higher attention - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Alkivar, the GNAA isn't involved in any of this. He's talking to them right now, and they say that anyone who harrasses him gets banned. They said it is just someone who claims to be affiliated with them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-25 23:47

Just out of curiosity, where has Alkivar said this? Because his talk page still refers to GNAA harassment at home by phone, and he hasn't updated it. I've taken a look at his contrbutions and I can't see anything saying the harassment has stopped. —Phil | Talk 08:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats because i'm a lazy fuck apparently... Yes the calls have stopped, timecop was apparently not responsible. I have unblocked him after a conference with Linuxbeak, myself (duh), Timecop, and another GNAA member. For the moment simply treat him as a normal user, the threats were made in GNAA's name but are completely disavowed as a rogue non-member claiming to be GNAA. For what its worth, I'm willing to give Timecop another chance, consider him on probation if you will.  ALKIVAR™ 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse 2

It has come to my attention that the admin Jayjq is responsible for the asumed sock check of this incident and spreading the news. The evidence is here: User_talk:Jayjg#What do you make of this? and here: User_talk:Eliezer/archive2#Sockpuppet check.

This looks like several severe violations of Wikipedia:CheckUser to me. --Scandum 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, looks like Jayjg did everything by the book. What would be a violation of CheckUser (let alone a severe violation) would be if he told everyone what your IP was. All he did was say that you are a sockpuppet of ZimZum (or the other way around). There's nothing wrong with that. Thanks for letting us know here, now I (or another admin) will look into your contributions and block one of your sockpuppet accounts if you abused either of the sockpuppet accounts. --Deathphoenix 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore Deathpoenix. I've been quite civil despite the rather hostile attitudes of several users. Also, this is not what this issue is about and it looks like Deathphoenix is trying to obstruct the current discussion.

I've been told [CheckUser Policy] is a more up to date guideline for the check user tool. The actions by Jayjg still seem a clear violation of the CheckUser usage guideline. Especially the part stating that check user shouldn't be used for political control.

Taking into account that Jayjg is deeply involved with the highly controversial Circumcision article and seems unable to keep his role as an admin and editor seperated I suggest that the Removal of Access guildeline is followed before check user violations become the norm. --Scandum 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not obstructing the situation. I just came into this situation from reading WP:ANI. My actions have been reversed and I have promised to wash my hands of the matter. I was a complete outsider with no interest in either argument. If you think I am deliberately obstructing you because I have some vendetta against you, I invite you to check my contributions: I have never heard of you prior to reading this section. --Deathphoenix 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the guidelines, I don't see which of them you think he violated. It looks like he looked it up after being asked in relation to suspicions of vandalism and sockpuppetry. I don't see any evidence that he released private information. --Fastfission 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First check user should never be used for no good reason. There was never any valid reason to use check user on either Scandum or ZimZum. Secondly nobody ever asked if ZimZum was a sockpuppet of Scandum, and since there was no wiki sockpuppet violation I think it was way beyond Jayjc to reveal that information. Doing so was likely motivated by political reasons, making it a clear abuse of power. --Scandum 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean, you were caught? - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How come we don't get to have cool templates like that? Guettarda 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't, and I should stop using it even when grossly tempted ;-) - David Gerard 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinitely blocking ZimZum as a sockpuppet of Scandum

• Scandum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• ZimZum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I am definitely very uninvolved, having never seen either user nor posted (or even recently read) any of the articles in question.

This shows that ZimZum/Scandum created a new account because the old one was "traceable"; however, both ZimZum and Scandum are still very active. According to this post, Scandum = ZimZum. Scandum's first contribution is 4 March 2005, while ZimZum's first contribution is 17 January 2006. Therefore, ZimZum is the sockpuppet account and Scandum is the sockpuppeteer (unless Scandum itself is a sockpuppet of another account).

Therefore, as a completely uninvolved and neutral admin, I am going to block ZimZum indefintely as a sockpuppet. Scandum, you should only post using one account. If there are any admins that disagree with this action, feel free to unblock. --Deathphoenix 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, Deathphoenix. What's the abuse? There is no rule against using two accounts, as such. See the CheckUser policy: "As a reminder, sockpuppets are not generally forbidden (editors may edit wikipedia under several accounts). It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon." Bishonen | talk 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

(edit conflict) He's been posting to RFCs and being quite incivil. I would not have blocked if ZimZum is active while Scandum is not (since the stated intention of creating the new account was because of the stigma of the old account), but both accounts are active and very incivil. Overall, I've been taking fairly uncontroversial admin actions as a newbie admin. I suppose this is my first potentially controversial action, which I decided to take because I've seen a fair number of incivil sockpuppets like this become quite abusive, and this sockpuppet shows signs of being a potentially abuse account. If this were a normal and unique account, I wouldn't have done anything. However, I believe we should keep sockpuppet accounts on a much shorter leash. If you wish to unblock, go right ahead. I took one action and will wash my hands of the whole affair. I don't intend to get myself involved in this case any further. --Deathphoenix 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention, both accounts have been used to post to circumcision/genital cutting-related articles, but nothing else that I can see. They weren't used to simultaneously "vote" on any matters. ZimZum's posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh, but Scandum has not. That's about it. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they've both edited Circumcision. And I suppose it does make sense to set high standards of good behaviour for extra accounts. - Haukur 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean only people editing in a way 6 admins endorse have their privacy respected. --Scandum 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't know what to think. I can understand your frustration but I can also understand the case for revealing your puppet. On one hand we can say: "OMG!! Jay outed an alternative account of user he had been in a dispute with even though he did not violate WP:SOCK!!!!11" But on the other hand we can say: "The account looked like an abusive sockpuppet so Jay was asked to check if it was a sock. Turned out it was and Jay said so." It's a judgment call. Maybe Jay should have got a second opinion on whether to reveal the connection. (And maybe he did.) But I'd say he was within his rights and did not violate the checkuser policy as written. Maybe that policy needs to address cases like this more explicitly. - Haukur 01:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The account got checked for being suspicious cause it voted negatively for an RfC Jayjq himself was directly involved in. The votes were also highly unequal, so there was no way my vote was in any way affecting the RfC's outcome. I understand your opinion of me is as an annoying whiny abusive user due to the dirt throwing that has started right after the start of the conflict.

I'm not sure how exactly you are reading WP:SOCK but if you look beyond the counter accusations you might see there were no sock puppet violations making what happend highly inappropriate. A similar case would be where you asked if Jimbo and Lola are sock puppets, and the admin with user checking answers no, but since Jimbo hasn't been giving him pressies for Christmas you should know that Puff Pusher is a sock puppet of Jimbo. So much for not giving pressies! Enjoy--Scandum 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If the extra account was being used abusively (e.g. by commenting on the same talk pages as the other account with the same views) then the block is justified. If it was not being used abusively then the block is unjustified and Jay should probably not have released the information to begin with. Now, let's find out which is the case :) - Haukur 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both ZimZum and Scandum are abusive. A cursory glance at their contribs makes this painfully obvious. Tomer^talk 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, my understanding is that you only block a sock if it's being used for sockpuppet abuse, such as voting twice, or for a user to "support" himself while pretending to be someone else. Blocking it for general incivility of a kind you would not have blocked a unique account for, as Deathphoenix did, isn't right. I'm unblocking, for now, but invite Haukurth or anybody else to reblock if they find evidence of sockpuppet abuse as such. (If there is none, incidentally, Jay shouldn't even have looked.) And of course either or both of the accounts can be blocked for general abusiveness. I wouldn't object, I just don't think DP's block, with the reason as given, ought to stand. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

That's fine. I'll take that as a lesson and go back to just blocking vandals and such. I was hoping my actions would prevent wasting time, as my personal opinion is that ZimZum will, in the future, create a lot of headaches and waste the time of a lot of Wikipedians. But since such preemptive actions aren't allowed, I'll just stop right now after having done it once. --Deathphoenix 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Such preemptive actions are indeed not allowed. I can assure you that I haven't been anywhere near the same article with the two accounts since I created ZimZum to edit controversial articles. The accusations of me being abusive should be taken with a grain of salt since they have been suddenly popping up the minute the conflict of the check user tool began, not before that. --Scandum 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, Scandum. I distinctly remember Benami complaining about personal attacks you and Dabljuh were making. Jakew 17:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Deathphoenix, I am remotely involved in this nonsense—far more so than I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ZimZum was invented as a vehicle for Scandum to be abusive. This persona was invented 17 January, 2006, for the obvious specific purpose of endorsing Dabljuh's bizarre and incivil response to his RfC. Since then, ZimZum has taken on a life of his own, which has been, like Scandum, occasionally incivil and, where Jakew is concerned, clearly assumes bad faith, although overall productive. My suspicion is that the user felt freër to use the ZimZum persona for incivility, in the belief that it would be OK to do so since he could always just create another sock in order to continue to be abusive, rather like how foreign tourists are widely perceived as rude: precisely because many tourists don't feel a great deal of accountability for their actions, they leave their civility at the border. ZimZum's record has been far more abusive over a far shorter period of time than has Scandum's, hence my supposition. For whatever reason, Scandum/ZimZum has developed a chummy relationship with Dabljuh on circumcision-related articles, which is where (along with related discussion) all of ZimZum's incivility and assumptions of bad faith are to be found. It's on this observation, in concert with their identical interests and writing styles, that my original supposition that they're the same person is based. Everywhere else I've seen S/Z operating (eugenics/racism/online gaming (which is where I assume he first ran into Dabljuh)), he is, in fact, a civil defender of WP:NPOV and an otherwise good editor.

Scandum: (incivility) [16][17][18]characterizes his reinsertion of Dabljuh's assininity as "rvv"

(assumption of bad faith) [19]

Scandum also displays occasional mild antagonism toward User:Zen-master: [20][21]

As far as I can see (and this is my attempt at humor which S/Z hopefully gets), Scandum's biggest problem is that he's an insane egomaniac; ZimZum's is that he's drunk. (go read their user pages for support of this assertion)

ZimZum: (incivility) [22][23][24]

(failure to assume good faith) [25]

As for the protestations of harassment in "exposing" him, he does that himself, at the very least, admitting that he's someone else, and issuing a challenge to figure out who. Tomer^talk 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think your accusations are highly POV since I don't see the relavancy. Why don't you spend a fraction of that time investigating an admin abusing his powers? Or is it considered uncivil since he's your buddy?

I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that this is some kind of diversion from the topic above this one. --Scandum 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't see relevancy in my comments you consider them to be POV? That doesn't make sense, but whatever. I don't see any abuse of imagined power or I'd be commenting on it. What's incivil is your accusation of cronyism. I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that you think I'm advocating blocking you. I'm not, so enhance your calm. All I've done is demonstrate that you're not as blameless as you try to make yourself out to be. You can't expect people to come to your defense when you come to court with soiled hands. Tomer^talk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS Spirit Mountain Ranch Vandalism, Commercial Advertisement and POV of White buffalo

Someone (most likely these people from Spirit Mountain Ranch) have been vandalizing Ma-hi-ya-sqa and placing advertising, WP:POV WP:V and other content which fails and is not in compliance with factual writing. Some of the statements are nonsense and POV. Please monitor this article and **BLOCK** these people from putting advertising banners and disrepecting Native beliefs. They make statements that Albinoism is a "birth defect". Being born an "Albino" is not a birth defect any more than being born a Negro or Indian is a "birth defect". These people are simply using Wikipedia for adverstisement and reverting edits, posting POV, and vandalizing other pages about other White Buffulo considered sacred. Please monitor this article. 67.177.11.129 06:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC) [edit]

I believe that 67.177.11.129 (talk • contribs) is Jeff Merkey, a.k.a Gadugi (talk • contribs • block log), a permanently blocked user. He was blocked for continueing legal threats, personal attacks, and harassment. See the IP contributions for proof of this allegation. In effect, Jeff is evading his block to continue his usually non-WP:NPOV edits on subjects he feels deeply about. Please view his comments in that light. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

I also suspect that this is Jeff Merkey because of the nature of the IP's edits to the Jeff Merkey article and the pattern of articles edited.--Alhutch 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam protection filter

Current SPF settings are preventing editors from editing any number of pages. See also: [26]. Please, can someone look into this? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Udham Singh and NPOV

Over the past few days, an anonymous contributor with a roving IP (66.81.184.xxx and 66.81.185.xxx) has made a host of POV edits to the article Udham Singh. Here's a relatively minor example of the kind of thing I'm talking about with POV terms italicized:

Whilst living in England in 1940, Singh Shot dead Sir Michael O'Dwyer, former Governor of the Punjab. This was in revenge for the heinous criminal massacre, which General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer had perpetrated on innocent Indians under Michael O'Dwyer's rule, and which O'Dwyer had, unfortunately defended.

The article has been POV from its inception, and I added the {{npov}} template to it a couple of weeks ago. However, this anonymous editor continues to remove the template. I'm not sure what to do here; is semi-protection warranted? I'd like to clean up the article, but I fear this person will simply revert any edits I make. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the PoV nature of the edits and the repeated nature of the editing, I feel that semi-protection is warranted. Done. Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reinstated the {{npov}} template. — BrianSmithson 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Snk 444

I seem to have a comunication disorder with User:Snk 444, I'm afraid. Recently, on the King article, I've had a little revert war with him in which I continually removed his nonsensical images from the article. I told him on his page why they weren't needed for the improvement of the article, and to please explain his concensus for them being present. ([27]), and shortly after, Naconkantari did the same ([28]). The user in question then decides to violate WP:NPA and disregard our commments ([29]), after which, then decides to blank them ([30]). Meanwhile, on the article in question, Snk 444 decides to ignore concensus yet again and let loose another personal attack in his revision ([31]). This continued process of edit-warring then continues ([32]), until I once again pay another visit to his talkpage in an attempt to discuss the issue in hopes of reaching an concensus ([33]). He promptly responds by utilizing a sockpuppet to revert yet again:([34])

Im afraid this user has little respect for civilty and concensus, and he has violated WP:NPA on several occasions. I recomend a short block to garner his attention as he doesn't seem to want to invoke any discussion regarding his actions, and he seems to think that there is an established ownership of the articles : ([35])-Zero^Talk 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Not so) sneaky vandal

We have a sneaky vandal, 141.43.210.4 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), who is up to no good if this edit is to be believed. I expect it is just bluster, but thought I'd report it anyway. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I originally gave the user a short (3 hr) block, but it might make sense to increase it considering that talk page message. Rx StrangeLove 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through the anon's contributions (both 13th Jan and today) and couldn't find one that stood up to scrutiny (which is not to say they were all necessarily untrue). Given that this IP's edits spanned two short periods, nearly a fortnight apart, I'm not sure a longer block would really serve much purpose - a block for a fortnight seems too long for an IP. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert, In the future please dont remove an anonymous user threatening vandalism from his talk page... Leaving it there for us to read allows us to see that this is in fact a dedicated vandal who should be reverted on sight.  ALKIVAR™ 18:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert anonymous contributions "on sight"? That doesn't seem quite right. I assumed that it is a shared IP address since one contribution was effectively "I have access to loads of computers here", and it seems inappropriate to me to leave a promise to vandalise on an anon IP page. Still, I bow to your experience. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC) - and it's a first - I don't think I've ever been rolled back before! Thanks. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eeriesmeister

I've indefinitely blocked this user on two counts, one it appears to be too close to User:Irismeister, two it was restoring material on that blocked users page with the edit summary: "DO NOT WIPE IRISMEISTER'S PAGE! THIS IS LEGAL EVIDENCE FOR LIBEL IN WIKIPEDIA. YOU TAKE PERSONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU DELETE EVIDENCE!" which appears to be a legal threat. Subsequent to that block 85.195.123.29 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) did the same with edit summary "IN DELETING INCONVENIENT USER PAGES YOU TAKE PERSONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBEL AND CENSORSHIP!". And also left similar message on my talk page (and edit summary). I have blocked that IP for 1 month also. --pgk^(talk) 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok having looked a bit closer I would guess that this is just a sockpuppet of User:Irismeister since there seems to have been an effort to restore this userpage which has resulted in the 1 year block being reset. I can't tell much more about the IP address, so it could be dynamic or shared. --pgk^(talk) 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had a message from User:Rishimeister making reference to my blocking of Irismeister. Another sock. Secretlondon 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also seems to be using User:85.195.123.29 - seems to be a German anonymising proxy. Secretlondon 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I received the same message on my talk page that Pgk did, but this time from 216.37.184.147. Nlu has already blocked it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's been User:Sirianmeister too. Secretlondon 19:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And User:203.177.50.98. I've blocked for 24 hours but I'm worried about collateral damage as well as having better things to do than fight someone who clearly wants to be life banned. Secretlondon 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I missing something?

I have started a new topic thread as I am hoping the only reason the admins are not responding to this previous topic is they are not seeing it.

This is a continuation of the thread: Revealing personal information.

user Tina M. Barber (AKA MaShiloh) is continually and repeatedly revealing peoples personal names rather than using their screen names. see above topic for all the past infractions. Today, yet again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog

Current page under Reply To New Draft

Editor Windsongkennels left a post and this followed by Tina M. Barber:

(name snip), you know that the OFA didn't record preliminary (under 2 yr) x-rays back then! If I had you subpoenaed into court, and you were asked (under perjury of law) if you saw the STACKS of x-rays on my dogs ... what would you have to say?? MaShiloh 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion pages are filled with her revealing personal info still left unchecked from mid Dec forward, it is filled with violations to NPA, and she is filling it with link after link to her private web site and using it to slander all people not affiliated with her.

There are warnings issued, but it appears no follow up. If this is not the place to report these violations could someone please at least point those of us reporting them to the correct place or format? I have to say, I am in shock that with all the requests for assistance that not only does it appear that nothing has happened to this user, but everyone's personal information including where they work is still on those discussion pages. This last post seems to be a threat of taking the other editor to court. ShenandoahShilohs 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours for attacking other users and revealing personal information of other editors. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This feels like an offsite dispute that is continuing here. Our article says that Tina M. Barber is the original breeder of these dogs. She clearly knows the people she is arguing with (and is referring to them by their first names). However I don't consider the above quote to be a legal threat. We can't fix your off Wikipedia community and we're not the article police. You need to sort this out between you. Secretlondon 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. Please see WP:Harrassment (template Pinfo4) "Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia." Whether she may know who some of the editors are personally or not, is not the point per Wiki policy.

Also, please see other personal names/info she has posted (see above on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Revealing_personal_information)

Tina M. Barber (aka MaShiloh) has repeatedly published other first names, including a first and last name (mine, which she tracked through an IP address and I have never met her) and has tracked another's poster's IP address and contacted his employer. We don't expect you to "police" and we would be happy to "sort this out", but we are not administrators and we do not have the capability of blocking users who disregard and ignore (she has done both) requests that she desist from flaunting policies, nor do we have the capability to remove these names from Wiki entirely (they are all still sitting out there for viewing, including one editor's place of employment). In that sense, you are the "police", because you have the authority to do something about it. Thank you. MilesD. 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Secertlondon, I am sorry you feel like a plea for help is an offshoot to a dispute. I am also sorry to hear that you feel just because one person knows who they are talking to that it is ok for them to reveal that info on Wiki. Was it also ok for her to track an editors Wiki IP to his employment? Contact his employer and attempt to get him fired? Post his employment info on the talk pages, and to take this info gained from Wiki and post his name and employment info on other forums encouraging people to call his employer? This information is still on the talk pages, and the way I understand, it should be removed. These actions threatened a persons livelihood, is that ok too since she may or may not know them?

Yes there is an ongoing dispute on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog, but I cannot see how that justifies breaking Wiki policy repeatedly after being warned. We are human, and we can all make mistakes, but this editor has shown a total disregard for Wiki policy. ShenandoahShilohs 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with ShenandoahShilohs and MilesD. on this. If the (first) names of contributors are to be released to the public, it should only ever be released by the contributors themselves. This should never be done by others, whether they know each other or not, whether the information is harmless or not. Disrespecting and infringing on the privacy of other users is a serious offense, and Tina M. Barber has continued to do so, despite having been warned not to. Some time ago, I requested the removal of personal information (name, job, employer) of one user. I don't know how to do this, so I'm not able to remove it myself. Another problem is that the talk page has seen many edits since the information was revealed, which means that even if the edit itself is removed, it will continue to be visible in other edits. I don't know what can be done about this. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with ShenandoahShilohs and MilesD. We don't have a reason to take sides in the original dispute but we have a responsibility to act when the dispute is conducted on Wikipedia and the manner in which a side conducts it violates key Wikipedia principles -- not the least of which is WP:CIVIL. This isn't about policing someone else's dispute that started off Wikipedia; this is about stopping people who are using Wikipedia's resources to victimize others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Aecis said: "Another problem is that the talk page has seen many edits since the information was revealed, which means that even if the edit itself is removed, it (editor's name, place of employment [S Scott]) will continue to be visible in other edits. I don't know what can be done about this."

Does Wiki have the technology to delete this person's personal info? If so, can it be done immediately? If not, what other options do we have to protect this person, even if it's several weeks later? S Scott 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott

[edit] Anon editor vandelizing my user page

[36] - can he be blocked ? Zeq 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He only did it once - I don't think a block would be necessary. I'll warn him. Latinus 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete requested

Please could someone delete G4 Off Topic Forum and block User:FledglingZombie. The page, apparently about nothing whatsoever, has been suggested for speedy deletion in the conventional way by myself and User:ErikNY, who also AfD'd it. Each time, the notice has been removed. See history. Jakew 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted and protected it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hisroyalhighness_721 and User:213.130.122.51

These two users seem to be the same user. If you look at their contributions (12), they are all juvenille attempts to hurt what seems to be a school classmate. The user has vandalized many articles over many months. The user has been warned. I consider Hisroyalhighness_721 and 213.130.122.51 to be the same user due to having the same target and using the same article (Qatar).

I suggest a temporary block. It seems like a middle schooler who needs to learn that people pay attention and Wikipedia isn't the forum for insulting a peer. --Matt 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but they haven't posted since your last warning. I'll keep an eye out and block at the next inappropriate edit. Though my gut feeling is that they're most likely cheerfully abusing away from a different sock account by now... Somebody remind me again why we ever bother to block anybody? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Update: User:Hisroyalhighness 721 hasn't stirred since the warning, in fact from beginning to end he has only done two edits. User:213.130.122.51 has done a silly edit to Wassily Kandinsky but reverted her/himself eight minutes later. That's all, so there's not a blocking situation so far. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

More vandalism, this time to Brad Pitt's article. Weird pattern though. --Matt 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... no, I don't think I'll block this user, as yet. It's so small-scale ATM. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dispute between Pamento and Pickelbarrel

This is a rather nasty quarrel. I have to admit that I am finding it rather difficult to spot where it all began, but at the moment this much is clear (or not as the case may be!). I was contacted by a somewhat distressed User:Pamento yesterday regarding this matter on my talk page. He asked me to give him advice about how to stop User:Pickelbarrel harrassing him. I then told him that he should avoid anything confrontational and to report Pickelbarrel to an Admin for harrassing him if he kept on.

Pickelbarrel's response to this was to start harassing me on my talk page and to ask User:Cenestrad how best to get rid of me.

Right. Now as far as I can see, on the 14th of January Pamento made a perfectly reasonable comment on User:Uncle G's talk page asking about his opinions on WP:NOT dictionary policy. Then Pickelbarrel makes an unsigned comment on Pamento's talk page telling him not to harass UncleG (around 5:00 UTC), for no other reason, in my opinion, than newbie jealousy. Pamento then, stupidly, rises to this making an unsigned vandalistic comment on Pickelbarrel's talk page. This then begins a chain of events which lead to Pickelbarrel blowing this out of all proportion, attacking Pamento at every opportunity, using Uncle G's name in vain, Pamento getting nasty with Uncle G as a result... well you can see for yourselves really, all the pages I have found which link to this 'dispute' are linked above. To write it all down here would make for a dissertation.

I just hope that you Admins can make out of this a good and lasting peace! Dan 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I will add that although this probably doesn't fit the page guidelines, I was sent here by an Admin... so don't blame me! :-D Dan 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've already asked both editors to stop, and I've twice told Pickelbarrel that we should be civil to everyone here. I don't want to become embroiled in this dispute, which really has nothing to do with me. I'm rather busy working on WikiSaurus at the moment. Support from other people, reinforcing my requests to desist and to be civil, would be welcome. Uncle G 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move along, nothing to see here. Really folk, just leave these guys to it if they so desire - it's not really doing any harm (only their talk pages) and they're both much the same. They'll get bored at some point. See also: User talk:Wangi#Asking for possible help re an uncivil Wikipedian. Thanks/wangi 09:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and my talk page. Uncle G 09:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've looked and as I just told Sam Korn, I don't see an actual dispute (you know, like content, spelling, article naming, etc.), I just see two people kicking and spitting at each other--in such similar styles and levels of hmmm "contributions", in fact, that I'm considering the possibility that they're actually both the same person. They/he/she really needs to take a time out. Tomer^talk 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to see the IPs of all involved in this! ;) T/wangi 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, my problem seems to be that I seem to be the only person who has a problem with this. However... it appears to me to be a very bad thing that we let this sort of madness continue, and also if these two are separate entities then we are giving Pamento especially (as a newbie) a very raw deal. He is clearly being harrassed by Pickelbarrel, whose behaviour (as well as his spelling) is atrocious. But that's just my opinion. Dan 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to think they're both in need of a time out. Forced, if necessary. Tomer^talk 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Dan, his only contributions are to his own, Pickelbarrel's and some of our talkpages: Special:Contributions/Pamento... oh, and one real edit. If these guys are making a mess of your talk pages then just clear it up - that's your choice to do on your own talk page. However I don't think there's anything much here to get excited, or waste time, about. Pickelbarrel has made a number of edits, and at least one new article, and he seems most excitable, but lets not piss on the parade of two (if they are two :) potential new editors. By taking this to this platform we're stooping to much the same level level that they are operating at - pointlessness! Lets try to encourage rather than ban, after all these guys are not vandalising the encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You mean "this guy". ;-) Tomer^talk 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• It would seem Pamento has turned to vandalism on Panty waste[37] and using his talk page as an attack page[38]... Thanks/wangi 23:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am slightly worried by this on Pickelbarrel's talk page:

"If Dan is not interested in working with you I suggest that you look on his User Contributions page to find an article he is already working on and begin helping him with it. That way you can still work as a team --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should go to your prefrences and under nickname rename yourself "pickelbarrel the asshole" and then go to pamentos page and talk about what an asshole you are. That should piss him off good. Also let Uncle G & Wangi know that way they can speak with Pamento or maybe block him. As for working with Dan go to his user page and click on User Contributions on the left hand side of the screen in your toolbox (it's right under related changes) that will give you a list off what he is working on. Then all you have to do is pick an article and start editing. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)" That appears to me to be Cenestrad egging Pickelbarrel on to vandalise pages that I have edited... Dan 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Also- I did not tell Pamento that he could use his talk page as an attack page, however if what I said ("it's your talk page" or something like that) gave him that idea I'm very sorry. Dan 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anittas again

Anittas continues on as before despite his RFC, the recent discussion of his harassing others here and the 24 hr block that arose out of it, and his recent warning from Jimbo [39]. He's started up again, fanning the flames of others and inciting disputes with personal attacks and generally being disruptive [40]. I've warned him once and removed the personal attack. He's responded by deleting the former [41] and restoring the latter [42]. Someone else may want to want to look into his antics and have a word with him or something. FeloniousMonk 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to warn User:Turkmen for Monk. I strongly believe that Monk uses his tools in the wrong way and I wanted to let Turk know this. Monk calls this for a personal attack and threatened to have me banned. In addition to this, another admin was very rude to Turkmen, telling him to "shut up". --Candide, or Optimism 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I see neither rudeness nor a "shut up" in the link you provided. I do, however, suggest you learn how to deal with others, or else suffer a block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The "shut up" is there. I double-checked. Allow me to post his comment in full:

:He did exactly what he should do. You were rude and wrongly accusatory. Within the bounds of civil behaviour and respect for other members of the community you could follow the correct course of action and apologise for your unacceptable behaviour, or you could just shut up about your mistake, and I'm sure people would let it slide based on the fact that you are a new user. Since you chose to continue your rude behaviour, you should apologise and make an effort to learn something about community etiquette. Guettarda 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

--Candide, or Optimism 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That comment seems very fair to me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And if a non-admin would make that comment, you would be flooding his talkpage with warnings. He can tell people to shut up, but I can't warn Turk for an admin whom I believe is using his tools in the wrong way? Why is that? Are admins above regular editors? --Candide, or Optimism 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Don't put words into my mouth. If a non-admin said that I would not comment on it. It is a perfectly reasonable statement. Perhaps it was a little harshly worded, but not excessively so. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I want Monk to shut up, too. --Candide, or Optimism 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop disrupting Wikipedia and you'll have nothing to complain about. FeloniousMonk 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who reads Swedish care to translate his recent missive [43]? FeloniousMonk 07:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"check out/watch/look at this here guy, look at this exchange on blahblah talk page, he's blocked me for 24 hours,..." miscellaneous other whining. Tomer^talk 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lamington-Child

Quite possibly the most obvious WP:POINT vio ever, Lamington-Child's user page says that his/her goal on WP is to see how many articles they can vandalize before getting banned; my guess is 3(currently at 2 right now.) Also has an assload of userboxes, likely as a straw man against the Userboxen issue a few weeks ago. Karmafist 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been blocked already. Ral315 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, six minutes before your edit there[44]. Beautiful. Thanks. Karmafist 04:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnski

If someone can help us out I'd appreciate it. There has been a despite that has been ongoing for sometime now. He has been reverting and whitewashing articles having to do with Dominion of Melchizedek.

There is an arbitration case against him and others, but it has been slow to move throught the process because of arbitration elections. Essentially, due to those factors, he has been able to come in an reaking havoc on the article any time his wishes without facing consequences.

Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.. Davidpdx 11:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Johnski. If someone thinks that was wrong, please let me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He appealed the block to me in email. My reply email to his account failed for some reason so I have placed the reply on his talk page. To summarise, I advise him that if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia he should start a new account and edit one of the hundreds of thousands of articles on subjects other than the Dominion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon making legal threats - on talk page and in edit history

12.77.95.37 contribs talk has made legal threats against myself and on User talk:Sabalon. See the user's contributions. Legal threats are his response to us removing his linkspam from Clayton State University. In his own words: "Legal Notice Posted to Sabalon, Mreta, and Others" Mrtea (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note for him to read WP:NLT, and reverted changes to the article, your user page, and Sabalon's user page. See if he persists after reading NLT. Antandrus (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just going to leave you a comment thanking you for that and to direct you here- Looks like the anon's beaten me to your talk page though. Mrtea (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded to him on my own talk page; hopefully he will "get it" now. (Usual disclaimer: IANAL). Imagine if everyone had an absolute right for everything they ever added to any article to stay right where they put it. Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a WP:3RR warning on him, too. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Oh, how delightful, my warning seems to have made the person hop over to 12.77.131.243 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) before reverting again. I've blocked both the IP's for 24 hours, and put a note on the talkpages explaining that the person is now blocked and is advised not to play any more games. Antandrus, I don't know if you might want to add an even terser reply to him on your talkpage, encouraging him to create an account etc? Bishonen | talk 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Admin eval of sockpuppet NSA eavesdrop edit, please

While nobody was watching NSA warrantless surveillance controversy a suspected sock placed an inaccurate Original Research lead on top of the article. What I did was to label the article NPOV & needs verification, rather than reverting it. I noted this at the bottom of the NPOV section of the talk page. I did not leave the sock a note. Go look, please. Metarhyme 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

PoV and unencyclopedic language, yes, but why do you call it original research? Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It was like User:65.80.1.124's more recent edit - a statement not backed up by sources. Except that at least sources were submitted. Metarhyme 00:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam for a pretender

User:82.43.157.203 has been slowly but persistently re-adding links to a vanity website, "imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com", detailing imaginary claims to the Holy Roman Empire (see [45] for a newspaper article detailing the hoax/fraud/whatever). He continues to do so after being asked to stop. When would a block be appropriate? Choess 00:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's only added his link a couple times. There are {{spam}} templates to warn users adding linkspam. He shouldn't be blocked yet. I've warned him, let's see if he continues. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam for more info. Mrtea (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There were previous incidents of this link being spammed, possibly by the same person; see Special:Contributions/86.131.21.107, Special:Contributions/86.131.10.200, Special:Contributions/86.134.218.24, Special:Contributions/86.140.64.32 and Special:Contributions/86.131.15.13. Choess 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Comment about new Checkuser system

Isn't this inherrently flawed? It seems like by making a public announcment of all checkuser attempts, you're making the whole thing a bit pointless, I mean if someone sees themselves listed on the checkuser page, and they do indeed have a sockpuppet, the first thing they're going to do is log in with the user name in question under a different ip, or proxy, or hell, even AOL, there by thrawting the checkuser process, and giving a false negative?? All but the dumbest sockpuppets will be able to figure this out quite easily--205.188.116.65 03:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just blindly comparing IP addresses and seeing who has what. If it were that simple, we'd be using bots to perform Checkuser. --Deathphoenix 04:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Where are these being displayed? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume the poster means WP:RFCU. Which isn't a list of all checkuser attempts, but it does sound like what s/he has in mind. FreplySpang (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still another Zephram Stark Sockpuppet?

Check out Legal Tender (talk • contribs). Notice this edit voting to keep an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet Doctor Nicetan (talk • contribs). Funny how a someone claiming to be a novice user (see [46]) is suddenly voting on IfD (for an image that isn't linked to any page). Also note that he is editing Terrorism, the main reason he was banned in the first place.--JW1805 (Talk) 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, this is a lot like when I was dealing with User:EddieSegoura's sockpuppets, which all immediately voted to keep an article, and started wrking on the same articles (only Eddie wasn't blocked, and still hasn't as he's imrpoved). However, the signs are there and I'd agree it's a big possibility. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is Zephram without a doubt. He tends to stalk my edits, even non-controversial ones. See this diff on the rarely edited G.I. Joe: The Movie. I've blocked him and will wait until the next sockpuppet arises. Carbonite | Talk 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My question is, (and perhaps someone can point me in the right direction if it has already been asked and answered) with all of this sock activity, does Zephram's ban get lifted at the scheduled time, or is it lenghtened to include these offenses? (I saw Carbonite already lengthened it once. [47] Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The ban will be lifted six months after "Zephram" (the person behind the accounts, not just User:Zephram Stark) stops editing. If he never creates a another sockpuppet, the ban would be lifted six months from today (27 July 2006). If he keeps evading the ban by editing with sockpuppets, the date will keep moving back. If there comes a time when he hasn't created a sockpuppet for a few weeks, I may adjust the block expire date. Right now, it's not worth the effort to adjust the expire date every few days. Carbonite | Talk 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Carbonite. Just curious. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being harassed on Talk:Intelligent design

FeloniousMonk is harassing me on Talk:Intelligent design by constantly and for absolutely no reason bringing up the RFC he brang against me in the midst of a discussion I am having with another editor. He is clearly doing it to disrupt the discussion and it is clearly in completely bad faith. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant this attack. [48] ,[49], [50] I have removed his attacks but he will probably revert them. Please someone help. --Ben 06:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please pay attention to what FeloniousMonk is DOING, not saying. I don't want to start defending myself against his attacks. They are distortions. What he is DOING though, is clearly inappropriate regardless of any merit he claims his attacks have. He is even claiming, based on a completely bad faith assumption, that I am changing the word "ruling" to "concluding" in the article because I find the "ruling" (he again calls it this) "unfavorable." First, I actually find the ruling favorable. Second, I am right because he clearly doesn't know the difference between what a judge orders and what a judge says. This is very very frustrating and I can't believe that I feel the need to defend myself for what is obviously malicious attacks.--Ben 06:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like Monk - bringing out the worst of you, then reminding you of past incidents in order to lower your credibility. There's nothing you can do, Ben. All the admins stand behind him. Those who might disagree with him don't have the guts to speak out. --Candide, or Optimism 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another sad chapter in Benapgar's long history of disruption. Starting with POV pushing at Talk:Intelligent design he's descended into further disruption with an established history of deleting the comments of other's there and making religious-based personal attacks when his pov fails to gain consensus; something it has yet to do in his 3+ months on the article. A quick look at his user conduct RFC, his talk page, and his Admin bullying petition illustrates that Ben is the constant recipient of admin warnings, something he's taken to deleting [51] [52] instead of to heart. FeloniousMonk 07:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

removed personal attack by Benapgar (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and blocked. --Duk 07:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben seems to miss the point that Wikipedia works by consensus, and that by consistently acting against consensus he creates his own problems. All FM did in reverting Ben's changes was to ensure that what had already been decided upon as accurate was not improperly edited. Jim62sch 10:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I extended his block to 1 month. Ben is a serial NPA violator and needs a long break. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I reccomend these blocks should be done by the arbitration committee, not individual admins. They're way too long! Kim Bruning 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing here Kim? Aren't you supposed to be blocked for your dissertation? Tomer^talk 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not atm. Too long a story for this margin. Kim Bruning 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want Arbcom to do these blocks, ask Arbcom to do them. In the mean time, personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, and Ben is not welcome here until he figures that out. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Clear-cut cases don't need the ArbCom, as they've pointed out themselves in the past. But Ben's petition is useful for finding other people who Just Don't Get It. Radiant_>|< 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is throw it up to ArbCom for review if another say, two admins request it.--Tznkai 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What with all the mud flying around, I'm not sure where your clarity comes from :-P Kim Bruning 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben's been at this for months, unfortunately, and has already been blocked for a week for personal attacks, plus a few times for 24 hours or 48 hours. A longer block seems justified to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I do see. I would still like to see the arbitration committee look into this. They can also ban for longer, or look into mitigating circumstances (like if ben was being provoked) Kim Bruning 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this [53] if made repeatedly, don't require an arbitration case. Fred Bauder 17:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That edit is indeed very interesting. Kim Bruning 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telectronics

This page has a long standing content dispute occurring with very little, make that no, discussion on the talk page. The IP party to the dispute emailed the help desk on Dec. 14 with:
I am complaining about the entry under Telectronics in you dictionary. I am the son of the founder of the company and the reference to Keith Jeffcoat’s alleged contribution has no published citation. He did not work at the company until 1969 6 years after commencement in ME development and was employed as a salesman not an engineer. Also my late after was an engineer at Kreisler and worked in Radar during the War he was not simply a financier of Telectronics. I have a very concerned view of the material you are publishing as it may damage me and my business that is still today in the pacemaker field. I thought that you had to have published source material to publish material in your entries?
I don't feel comfortable getting involved directly in the dispute as the 203.* IP editor has made direct contact with and I don't feel that my involvement would be seen as unbiased. The edit summaries of "unsourced material" refer to a suggestion that I made to the editor that information that is unsourced and factually untrue could be summarily deleted. He has since deleted sources and content witht he summary "unsourced material." I would really like someone else to deal with for the reason stated above, as well as the fact that I am trying to limit my involvement in Wikipedia altogether as I have extremely limited time IRL. If nothing has been done by next weekend I may try to work on it, although I also have a much heavier courseload in school this semester. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL•18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that content disputes aren't supposed to be brought here, but as an uninterested party I thought that someone sympathetic might be found here. As I said, this doesn't specifically require an admin, just someone level-headed with some time to spend on the wiki. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL•18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert/Edit War Going on 10 Reverts

The Washington University in St. Louis article has an on-going revert war about the Chancellor's salary. Sourced and cited information about it was arrived at using the talk page, and factual errors were corrected. The user CLyerla began to remove the information without explanation. I and another user have been restoring it every few days, while posting in the University's talk page and on the user's talk page requesting that (s)he participate in the discussion and offer some reason for the removal of the information. We have offered suggestions for compromise on the information, such as moving it to another article, with no response from CLyerla. Once we began to edit his/her talk page, the reverts of that same information have started to be done by an anonymous IP, again with no discussion. I and another user have left comments on the anon IP's talk page with no results so far (the anonymous IP is a machine at Washington University). The user has since removed the salary information again without any discussion or explanation.

I applied a 24-hour block to the IP address for violating 3RR. Technically, the four reverts happened over a period greater than 24 hours, but considering it's most likely the same as User:CLyerla IMHO it's justified. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat

Wikipedia presently claims that Prince Georg of Bavaria had a bastard son and has articles that feature that supposed son's supposed descendants, including one actor who is asserted to have appeared, uncredited, in Amadeus, and who gave away his 10 million Euro trust fund to charity. I've asked on the article's talk page for sources for this assertion, and received protestations that the assertions are true, but no actual sources. But the reason this is on the noticeboard is that in the process the contributor has now asserted that his contribution is a copyright violation of itself(!) despite having been submitted under the GFDL, and has stated that "the descendants of Prince Georg" (by which he means the putative descendants)... "may be forced to file a libel lawsuit against Wikipedia". I would be happy if others would look in and assess the situation. - Nunh-huh 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I pointed User:Weissundblau to WP:NLT. At this point, it's just an empty threat, but if you can't verify any of the claims in there, I would send it to WP:AFD. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)