Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive156

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:KPbIC 2 Repeated violation of WP: Living rules 3 Unblock request pending review 4 The return of User:Panairjdde/User:Kwame Nkrumah etc. 5 Grapheus is back 6 Edits by anon user at User:131.137.245.200 7 U-Pack Moving 8 sock tagging of ips 9 Lpritchard 10 Editing block requested for US (Pennsylvania) High School 11 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Messianic_Judaism#Stepping_down_as_project_lead 12 User:WarHawkSP and Derek Smart 13 User:Oden's threats 14 Some form of very subtle vandalism which I can't figure out - URGENT 15 Semi-protect Maryville High School (Missouri) 16 Monopoly 17 Raw Deal: A Question of Consent 18 Template vandal 19 UCLARodent (talk • contribs) violating consensus, threatening edit warring, actual edit warring, attempting to own article 20 Can someone with the rollback button... 21 PocKleanBot 22 User:SkyBoxx 23 Possibly unfree image upload frenzy 24 Since when is the ArbCom in the business of creating policy? 25 User:71.100.6.152 26 Rollback please - requests for speedy deletion as minor edit 27 Sockpuppet of blocked user User:Peterwats 28 Jules Verne external links 29 Questionable blocks and WP:NPA 30 208.66.198.224 31 Itaqallah and friends lying 31.1 RunedChozo (talk • contribs) blocked 32 Ron Jeremy 32.1 How to differentiate real stubs and cut-down stubs 32.2 Moving forward 33 User posting obscenities on his talk page 34 Editor trolling in ArbCom votes? 35 Garry Newman 36 Heavy vandalism of today's FA 37 User:HarpsBoy 38 Request for Article Monitoring 39 User:Downwards 40 Blatant vandalisim , personal attack

[edit] User:KPbIC

I really don't know where to begin on this one, but I just want to keep in mind that this conflict is nowhere new, yet it has for a while remained dormant...until today. Anyway in the past there has been many incidents when this user, has repeatedly stalked on my edits and in some cases it came to pure trolling... like these three edits on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] before the article was protected. On demand I can provide at least thirty examples where he stalked on my edits like that, and as this one shows, he did it (and at times continues to) by using a dynamic IP to avoid blockage...it really reached its peak moment on Maladzyechna this example is a showcase of just how ridiculous this user can be. Originally it was about getting rid of a title that was inputed by a user who was not aware of wiki policies and functions. I moved it back to the translit version Maladzechna [6]. Like any stalker would do so, he went straight at it and reverted. That begun a four month dispute where I went on all possible attempts, including WP:CYR that was (and now is) to be a guideline for article titles...And I got the most stubborn resistance one has ever seen (relevant link). Even after you had Belarusian users with professional linguistic knowledge supporting, and when it eventually came to a point where no one would challenge on which title the article should rest, he went on link resisting the change... In the end we did move the page...and the word Maladzechna became Maladyechna... That's right four months of his stubborn resistance just to add a y... Does one laugh or cry about this?

Now then October/November he is absent on wikipedia. But, recentely he has returned, and really I just do not like knowing that every single edit of mine, particulary on sensitive articles is bound to get reverted by him w/o any consensus or discussion... Really its annoyance more than anything... However there is a WP:STALK policy which clearly dictates that such behaivour is unacceptable, regardless of what form my edits happen to be. So I decided let it be sooner than later, and managed to set a trap for him. If one can go to my contribs [7], then all edits between 14:36, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006 were made deliberately to check his response...and what do you know? Check contributions for him between 19:04, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006... all reverts. Oddly enough, I did actually have an excuse for the page moves which I put on his talk page here, and reverted him again, just to put one final test... And as I am submitting this contribs for 23:4x of the 6th December, same articles. Was it right or wrong for me to test him, you judge, even I get blocked for this, might be slightly extreme, but I won't challege it provided that I have the assurance that upon returning KPbIC will not be stalking me... --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point Kuban kazak wrote: "You once accused me of Russification, well on one side you are correct" [8]. This is the core of the conflict. Kuban kazak is a Russian user who devotes significant amount of his activity on Russification of Ukrainian history (as well as the other territories, which were taken by Russian Empire). The user recently moved 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro stations from Ukrainian spelling to Russian spelling. A part of the problem is that the metro stations do not really have a well established English name. But it should be noted that the people of Ukraine have chosen to have the only official language (as stated in Constitution of Ukraine), which is Ukrainian, not Russian. The Ukrainian independence, laws, and traditions of Ukraine are recognized by the civilized world, which commonly uses the local names in case establish English names are absent.

Back to WP:STALK alleged accusations, I explained to Kuban kazak that his identity is of absolutely no interest to me. My interest is primary limited to the Ukrainian topics, the topics of my country. If there are drastic Russification attempts, such as Kuban kazak often used to commit, then it’s my understanding that it should be prevented. Kuban’s attempts are on the edge of vandalism, as basically he’s challenging the integrity of Wikipedia.

The bigger issue is the relation of a majority and a minority. There are more Russian editors than Ukrainians. While WP:NPOV is postulated as one of the key elements of Wikipedia, often it’s difficult to achieve. With respect to the Ukrainian topics, instead of bothering with analyzing references, looking for information sources, some use brutal force to substitute NPOV by Russian POV. The rest of Wikicommunity very often does not care. Frustrated with the situation, many new Ukrainian editors simply leave, which only amplifies the prevalence of Russian POV. In the end, instead of being a source of reliable information, Wikipedia may fail into the hands of such majority groups. This is the challenge that Wikipedia is facing. --KPbIC 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard argument, that is half full of lies... anyway talking about NPOVs and integrities then I invite anyone to take a look on my contributions for the period that KPbIC was absent October and November... I knew he was gone, so had I wanted to choose to troll and russify articles, would I not take advantage of not having a stalker? Please if anyone finds anything in my contributions of that time then his argument might stand...however so far there is really is nothing for him to bite into... which immediately discredits every comment about russification which I must say is an extremely abstarct term, and in some cases is actually offensive if all my actions (according to him) are Russification. So that means, hypotherically every article I edit that is related to Ukraine is Russification...

As for Kharkiv Metro stations, then I agree with Alex Bakharev and actually with the moves... and as explained above it was but a simple provocation, to test whether KPbIC has grown up since his departure in October...I even told him on his talk page that should he raise the issue on Talk:Kharkiv Metro without first reverting, as a proof to me, then I would support him. One needs not be an expert to deduce that he has not.

Just to be clear, if there is a dispute on articles, I, unlike KPbIC prefer not to edit war if the people approach with necessary comments on a talk page... There is a WP:EQ which I strive to follow... yet some people, like him do not.

Finally, WP:POINT clearly states that insulted national conscience (his second argument) is no reason to harass other users by stalking on their edits... and the same goes with the integrity and NPOV arguments that he brought up... And just for the record, there are plenty of Ukrainian users contributing, yet so far only one seems to be harassing a Russian user by stalking his edits and then doing a big-bully accusation. I wonder why noone of the "Russian majority" is not extending him such a favour...And that is not because only 10% of his other edits are useful, i.e. as opposed to the 90% of them being reverts of mine. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent example Holodomor, a very charged topic, there was a very lengthy discussion on whether or not to include a controversial category. Even KPbIC participated, in the talk page and the dominating consensus was not to include it as genocide. However new users are often oblivious to this and sometimes this POV-pushing takes place [9]. However, per all consensus on talk pages when thousands of people revert this its ok for KPbIC, when I do it [10], its obviously not [11].

Like I said, I was patient for a long time, but its wearing thin, and frankly at times like these I ask that an admin takes serious action. Not just for the edits over the last two days, but for everything in the past. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the move war over the names for the Kharkiv Metro stations. I think User:Olexandr Kravchuk and User:KPbIC are right here. User:DDima and Kuban kazak wrote nice articles about these stations but the name should be based on the rules of Ukrainian language not on a strange Russian/Ukrainian mix. I have moveprotected the articles in the Ukrainian version. If Kazak or somebody else wants to move them back he can file WP:RM but I doubt it would succeed.

The second issue is that I agree that KPbIC (when he is onwiki) appears to stalk Kuban kazak and User:Irpen. E.g. I strongly suspect that even in this case he became involved into the move war of Kuban kazak vs Olexandr Kravchuk not because he had the Kharkiv metros stations on his watchlist but because he monitors all Kazak's edits. This is a recurring pattern and in the most cases (unlike the Kharkiv Metro names) it leads only to a petty harassment of Kazak without any benefit to the project. I have my own history of conflicts with KPbIC, so I might be biased in my assessment of the situation but I ask an uninvolved admin to look into the stalking allegations. Alex Bakharev 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues here have to be separated. As far as moves where concerned, those where indeed not "unexplained" as KK claimed when reverting them, but simply "unproposed". Unproposed, at least informally at talk, moves are generally a bad idea, but should not be automatically reverted. Those moves were sensible. As the articles are now at those sensible locations, the issue is moot.

The core of KK's complaint is that KPbIC habitually stalks his edits and reverts, picks fights and edit wars in various articles. I can ascertain that this is true. The editor indeed stalks KK (and myself) and while I find being stalked amusing and even thrilling to be that editor's obsession, I can see that Kazak has no obligation to take the stalker with a similar humor and can be, as such, annoyed by him. Stalking is really an issue here. KPbIC' response is basically off-topic. He has grievances about Wikipedia's systemic bias, he has his eternal grievances against "the Russians" in general, he invokes some unrelated issues in Ukrainian politics, etc. This all does not belong to WP:ANI.

Kuban kazak complains that he is being stalked for many months by user:KPbIC. I can certify that this is true. The only issue here is whether the KPbIC' habit in question falls under Harassment ("following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" , "stalking another editor who is acting in good faith" and "constantly nit-picking in violation of required courtesy") or it is a legitimate activity of correcting the problem editor. In my opinion KK is not a problem editor but a committed contributor (not without the fault like all of us) and KPbIC' activity qualifies as Harassment. I can tell because I am also an object of KPbIC stalking. I simply take it with pity rather than with anger. --Irpen 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Stalking is a big deal. To answer Kuban's original question, and I do think Alex's and Irpen's agreement that it is stalking is convincing (and therefore worrying), this noticeboard probably won't solve this kind of problem. Your best chance would be to file an RFC and go to arbitration if the behavior doesn't change, or perhaps even make an arbitration request immediately. Arbcom has banned people for stalking [12] [13], but, based upon severity and the offender's productivity, it has also devised useful remedies for preventing harassment [14] [15]. Either would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They say there are two separate issues. Wrong. The Russification is the primary and the leading issue; the other issues are secondary.

All the conflicts I had with Kuban kazak were caused by his attempts of Russification. On Kiev Metro he was pushing for the Russian language map. He did the same on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram. He attempted to impose the Russian spelling for Maladzyechna. Exactly as he moved the 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro to the Russian spelling.

I'm primary interested in contributing on the topics of my country, Ukraine. I check the Ukrainian new article announcement portal, Ukrainian projects on subdivisions and language, and I do check contributions of users that are know of being involved in Ukrainian topics, and Kuban kazak is among them. Nonetheless, I decline the alleged accusations of me wikistalking Kuban kazak. I'm not following him from article to article. Kuban kazak had conflicts and problems on other issues (like on Moscow metro), which I don't care of. Having no significant interest in Russia, I'm not getting involved in his other conflicts. I'm not supporting his opponents based on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. But when Kuban kazak comes to Ukrainian articles being in Russification mood, here I get involved. I did found out that Kuban kazak moved 4 articles (not 3 or 5) by checking his contributions. But this is the common approach to respond to vandalism issues. When I notice, someone vandalized a page, I fix it, and I check vandal’s contributions to find out whether the other articles were vandalized. As a vandal probably getting pleasure out of vandalizing the wikipedia, possibly Kuban kazak is pleased by his Russification attempts. When disagreement is expressed with his attempts, he may be under negative emotion. Yet, there is no valid reason to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s his attempts to Russificate the articles of the neighbors of Russia, predominantly Ukraine that when discovered, may cause his dissatisfaction. It’s not the other way around. What should I do, keep my eyes closed when someone is damaging the articles, compromizing the neutrality of them? My advice to Kuban would be to leave the Russification spirit out, and I’m always open to cooperate on improving the encyclopedia.

Dmcdevit, what worries me is that you found Alex's and Irpen's agreement convincing, and this is in the situation when yet the other "members" of "Russian mob" like Grafikm_fr or Ghirla did not show up. What I'm kindly asking for is an independent review of the conflict. --KPbIC 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That reply above does not really need a comment. It supports the point about the user's attitude well enough. But I will comment on the previous proposal, especially since Kuban kazak asked me to. I know that Krys makes occasional useful contribtuions and find his stalking of myself really just a rather minor neucsance. I got used to being stalked from time to time and mostly ignore it unless the stalkers' actions go beyond bugging me but causes a major damage to encyclopedia and is a large scale harassment, like in some cases this ([16]) or this ([17], [18]). So, I am not annoyed enough by this to undertake the time comsuming arbitration. As per this, I would advice Kuban kazak neither for or against taking this to ArbCom at this stage. --Irpen 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say, the arrogance displayed by KPbIC is extreme, but not surprising. The point is its not as easy as to say Russification of Ukrainian articles must be allowed. For example, Oleg I of Chernigov, this actually was a source of previous vote fraud, when an infamous archtroll User:AndriyK moved it with no consesnsus to its twisted Ukrainian name Oleg of Chernihiv. Then vote frauded the request to move it back. In fact one of his first edits was (a stalk on my contribs) a revert of [19] the return to the move, that is despite the fact that the article was moved shortly afterwards anyway, by an admin... Disregard to consensus, disregard to other users... a classic patter of his. Or the European Square (Kiev), where he twice reverted me by arguing that I was russifying the article. Ok, I must say this, Ukraine was privledged and fortunate (or in KPbIC's view un-) to be united with Russia for over three and a half centuries. I mean even my ancestors, Kuban Cossacks came from the Ukraine and in KPbIC's views, must be still Ukrainian [20], so if such, that means his claim that I have no right to edit Ukrainian articles is even more absurd. Taking this extremely contradictive logic further, that means, my homeland, Kuban is Ukraine (again I did not say this, I am just following his thoughts). So, again according to KPbIC, I am now actually in Ukraine, whilst he is in Minnesota and hence (again according to him) I have more rights to edit Ukrainian articles and stop Ukrainisation attacks on shared history. (Such as historical names for European Square (Kiev)). However the part of that statement that is true is the shared history. In particular the events that happened to the land that make up today's Ukraine, (not only the Ukraine, but other neighbouring lands that were incorporated into the republic over the course of the 20th century), what heritage have they took from the pre-Ukrainian times etc, and as it turns out to be that heritage is much MUCH stronger than anyone things it is. For example why would in the course of last spring/summer over 10 regional governments elevate Russian as an official language? Why indeed do the people of those areas almost exclussively speak Russian? So why should wikipedia be biased against those people? The city of Kharkov is a perfect example of this, and Kharkiv Metro should also be. Is that Russification? Not really, it is my attempt for wikipedia to be fair towards everyone. For example nobody is trying to get me to move all of the Kiev Metro stations to their Russian names (articles which I alone wrote). Now before KPbIC shall start arguing about what is what and that I am not from Ukraine so hence I cannot make those decisions, let I remind that Minnesota is much farther away from Ukraine than I am (three hours drive to reach the Kerch Straight)

Now then, continuing to make sense of his extremely contradictive views, how, and for what reason did he become involved with Belarus. The latter country, unlike Ukraine, actually has Russian as its primary state language. Now there are Belarusian users on wikipedia, some very useful contributors, some I must say are not useful at all, except for starting disputes and edit wars. However that does not stop KPbIC from trolling [21], POV pushing [22], [23] and of course the circuis around Maladzyechna, which I must say I did not move to Molodechno (the Russian name) but to Maladzechna, a different variant of the Belarusian transliteration (a system which was a mess, as there was no guideline whatsoever on how to title articles now has order partly due to my efforts on WP:CYR which KPbIC VIGOROUSLY opposed). Last and not least in almost all cases here is his claim that I had no such rights as I was from Russia not Belarus... Well KPbIC, I must stress this, and break you some news...even though being born and living most of my life in my dear Varenikovskaya, my mother happens to be from Polotsk... So does that mean I can stop any user from moving articles that are written in Russian to Belarusian? According to you that is the case.

Lastly I ask anyone that sees any Cyrillic (let alone Russian) letters [[24]] to speak out. --Kuban Cossack 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated violation of WP: Living rules

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead (BTW, that story seems a bit silly to me anyway. Unless she was a subtanial beneficiery which seems unlikely, then I'm doubtful anyone would bother to go to the trouble and risk of killing someone. Even if she did have sex with him, at most I would say she didn't care if he died but it seems unlikely she was trying to cause him to die) Nil Einne 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote on that page, Rjensen's wild accusations above have little in common with Tvoz's non-sensationalist and well-sourced edits. Rjensen was recently blocked for 31 hours for revert warring on Nelson Rockefeller, and should probably be blocked again for making what amount to personal attacks against Tvoz. (As I have myself worked on the article in question I recuse myself from doing so.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request pending review

I don't know who is watching Requests for Unblock, nor what the usual response time on that board is, but there is a block that should be reviewed pending at User talk:ThuranX. The blocking administrator, User:Philwelch (redlink is correct), is aware of the unblock request and has posted his views on the userpage, so the block is ready to be reviewed. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• There's discussion on the talk page, and it's clear that ThuranX's edit summaries are deceptive, and that his use of the deletion debate is incorrect. I'd feel better if somebody else had blocked, but I see no reason to overturn. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'll admit I'm surprised by that analysis. It appears to me that Philwelch, in his capacity as an editor, blanked an entire article after talkpage discussion that elicited mixed views and turned it into a redirect. ThuranX disagreed with that action and reverted with an edit summary "rv vandalism." That was less than helpful but I can't see it as warranting a 24-hour block, particularly by the administrator who was engaged in an ongoing content dispute with the editor. Granted the user has some rough edges and some history. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure someone looked at it. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From the talk page there seemed to be agreement that a merge was a good idea, and that it wasn't just Philwelch in favour of the idea. I'm not one to count heads, but 3-1 with the 1 maintaining that the AfD result was a binding reason to do nothing...granted, Philwelch certainly shouldn't have made the block. We need another opinion here. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • II am second that Philwelch shouldn't have made the block. Thuran was incivil and was already warned for incivility, but Philwelch should not have blocked him. IMHO blocking for rvv in summary is warranted after a few specific warnings and there was non. If nobody objected I would give Thuran a stern warnings and unblock him. Also a warning for Phil is IMHO warranted as well Alex Bakharev 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked and asked him, ThuranX, to engage on the talk page (you're right, Brad, that was somewhat out-of-character for me). Whether Phil needs to be engaged further on this matter remains an open question, and perhaps one best pursued by ThuronX himself. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch has abused the blocking policy in the past. [25] [26] [27] Dionyseus 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears I have a stalker. Whatever the Wikipedia equivalent of a retraining order is, I want one placed on this clown. Philwelch 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you don't have a stalker, and you shouldn't call anyone a clown like that. You have drawn the attention of someone who didn't like what you did in the past, and who quite rightly alerts the community when you do similar things again later. If there is a pattern of inappropriate behaviour on your part, then the problem may be with you, and not those drawing attention to this pattern. Carcharoth 08:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I have two stalkers. Can you guys please let go of your pathetic little vendetta? Philwelch 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By your definition of stalking you have a lot more than two stalkers. Count up the number of people that have questioned your actions. In the interests of preserving the peace, I'll stop there, but I will plead with you to step back and look calmly at what people are saying about you. Carcharoth 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: User says he's still autoblocked. Someone take a look, please? Newyorkbrad 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have looked, and I can't find anything that says he is blocked still. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and although I know ThuranX dislikes me (He tends to accuse me of conspiracy against him), I do also want to voice my disappointment with the editor's blocking him. Find another editor and ask for them to review the situation. This was inappropriate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to all the Admins and Users who helped me get unblocked, esp. those involved with the odd lingering autoblock, including NYBrad, ChrisGriswold(yes, really!), and Sarah Ewart. ThuranX 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I've never been involved with you, but Dionysis is right. Your block and page protection for John Reid was probably the most inappropriate admin action I've ever seen, and your response above only worries me even more. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus I've heard on Reid is that it was "the right block but the wrong admin". In any case, Reid's disruption and petty incivility has come to an end, and I can only see that as good for the project. Philwelch 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't edited for 3 weeks, if that's what you mean. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The return of User:Panairjdde/User:Kwame Nkrumah etc.

User:Panairjdde, and editor who was banned for aggressive editing, reverting, and sockpuppeting, eventually returned as User:Panarjedde, under the understanding that he would stop sockpuppeting and editing in the same aggressive way as previously. Since then his User:Panarjedde account has received several blocks, and he has created a number of other sockpuppets, including User:BaldClarke, User:BlaiseMuhaddib, User:BlueDome and user User:RedMC, some of which have also been blocked for 3RR, and all of which exhibit the same editing patterns (aggressive editing and reverting, removal of "AD" from articles, etc.) For more detail regarding this editor, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde.

As the new accounts have been editing in the exact same way as the previous problematic (and indefinitely blocked) accounts, I suggested on the Arbitration Committee list that these accounts should be indefinitely blocked as well; Essjay and Jimbo have supported this suggestion, and no ArbCom members have objected. I have therefore gone ahead and tagged and blocked the accounts, and brought this incident here for further discussion, if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(written after the page was archived)May I ask you when/where I said I would have not used any sockpuppet?--##Panairjdde## 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that we allowed the user to continue editing at Wikipedia after his constant use of sockpuppets :). I think it's clear that he should be blocked on sight. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of sockpuppetts is not forbidden.--##Panairjdde## 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has had plenty of opportunity to stop being disruptive. Ban. —Centrx→talk • 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, the style was definitely familiar. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell couldn't have said that any better on your page, Jayjg. Thank you for taking the time to investigate this fully. My only concern is that this person will likely create new pseudonyms and will try to edit WP once again. Have you considered blocking subnet ips? --Palffy 10:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. He edits from a large IP range, and I don't know all the history, but I think that previous attempts to block IP ranges didn't work very well. Still, might be worth a try. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One question about the tagging, is it confirmed by checkuser or edit pattern? Because they require tagging of different templates per WP:SOCK --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by CheckUser. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grapheus is back

See 80.90.37.15 (talk • contribs • WHOIS). Long-term troll with a penchant for privacy violations. See [28], [29] for background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(range) blocked. —Ruud 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by anon user at User:131.137.245.200

I would be grateful for an experienced admin or two taking a moment to look at this user's stance on Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, please. It appears to be bordering on legal threats, possibly past the line.

Additionally User talk:131.137.245.200 shows suspected sock puppetry in the past. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps we ask user to confirm it's not a legal threat? And to avoid same action in future? Rich Farmbrough, 20:06 12 December 2006 (GMT).

Interestingly the user has now migrated to editing this article from another suspected sock puppetry IP address - see User talk:131.137.245.199. There is now a statement from the new IP address that it is not a legal threat. I think we seem to have moved beyond that into some sort of agenda based sock puppetry. Whatever the realities of it I do perceive the editor's behavour as intimidating and unhelpful. Fiddle Faddle 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact this user is now in process of switching throughout the IP address range. A "whois" is educational, and may explain the "brooks no nonsense, takes no prisoners" attitude, but a recent edit summary at Royal Canadian Sea Cadets is somewhat presumptive despite being asked to change the attitude Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This may well be dynamic. I suggest WP:AGF as best as possible, and come back here if there are insurmountable problems? Rich Farmbrough, 20:31 12 December 2006 (GMT).

I always assume good faith, even when the going gets really sticky :). I have been watching this with some concern, especially since the article edit history is now containing the words "responsible authority". Of course the problems are not insurmountable, and of course this editor has the right to edit unless proven otherwise. I was looking at "dymanic IP", and of course it is likely to be. But it held steady for a long time and now has started flitting about. To be fair my neck hair was raised by the "possible sock puppet" warning on a couple of the talk pages, plus a somewhat intractable attitude displayed, hence my initial request for an experienced eye. I'd appreciate it if that eye stayed looking for a while, please. I don't have any particular interest in the article. My edits to it have only been cosmetic Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U-Pack Moving

U-Pack Moving: The article probably needs to be deleted and protected, look at the history, there's some sort of funny business going on. Thanks. -THB 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (Looks like it should be a protected redirect to prevent commercial spamming). -THB 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the to my watch list and talk to contributors. `'mikkanarxi 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -THB 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sock tagging of ips

is tagging ips by sockpuppet tags really acceptable? I observed the following recent tags: User:82.60.190.93, User_talk:82.60.190.93. At least it may lead to impractical results: an ip may next time be someone else's ip, and however there is a ready tag, then totally misleadingly labeling another editor as someone's sock. Then, I am not aware how that sock accusation is based: where are the grounds actually to make such tag - are taggers not at all required to document grounds for their accusations; both regarding the actual identification, and also regarding the reasons why the sock allegedly is an abuse case. Then, a small side concern: sockpuppet tagging is a way to make personal insult to someone, and rather lomg-term one, perhaps permanent in record here, so: is the tagging not qualified in any way?. Should sockp tagging be assessed as any other personal attack, and if not, why. Well, and finally, admin intervention is needed if those now tagged pages are to be deleted, or otherwise refactored to erase attacks and insults etc. Knowing that the editor who made the tagging, is not willing to listen to reason in many cases, some admin sanctions would be needed if that person is desired to get to listen. ObRoy 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lpritchard

The one-week block of User:Lpritchard expired today and she has attempted recreation of the deleted and protected pages (Legal medical advisor and Legal Medical Advisor) by replacing the disambiguation page LMA (Diff), creating Legal Medical Advisor Certification and on her talk page.

She's also spamming her website on the talk pages of the deleted and protected articles, so those need to be deleted and protected as well.

After her last block she blanked her page and tried to get reinstated twice. She also has done some strange listings on log pages and forged my signature, etc.

The new spam article(s) need to be deleted and page protected and she needs blocking again, perhaps permanently this time? Please see her user page, talk page, and history of contributions.

I'm not going to try to revert the vandalism until she's blocked because it wore me out last time trying to keep up with it. Thanks.

If there's any doubt this is spam, see [30] with her name and business scheme. She's also leaving messages on User:RHaworth's talk page now as he was the Admin who first blocked her last time. -THB 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing block requested for US (Pennsylvania) High School

If possible, please block the following IP range from being able to edit:

146.145.221.128 to .143

These IP addresses are for Holy Ghost Preparatory High School in Bensalem, PA.

The administration of the school has discovered that students are using school comptuters to maliciously edit Wikipedia pages and wants to avoid problems in the future.

Sincerely, Tom Coughlin Director of Information Technology Holy Ghost Preparatory High School Bensalem, PA tcough01@holyghostprep.org 215-872-3300

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Messianic_Judaism#Stepping_down_as_project_lead

Sorry to bother everyone, but I wanted to inform the admins of what has been occurring here. IZAK and inigmatus have been in a disagreement over Messianic Judaism. While both are entitled to their opinion, inigmatus has remained calm and mature about this while IZAK feels the need to belittle inigmatus. This disagreement has been quiet for about a week as inigmatus has not been editing since then, but IZAK felt that he needed to stir the pot a bit and state today: "Keep us posted on any other special messages Hashem sends you, while here on Earth all the other good Jews wait for the real Jewish Messiah to show up. IZAK 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Personally I find IZAK's behavior immature and childish. He has a history of being uncivil when someone disagrees with him. I am a complete outsider in this except that I have emailed inigmatus about 2 weeks ago just to say to keep his chin up in all this. My issue here is that I have seen countless times on here that when people disagree, instead of doing it the right way, it leads to childish and immature behavior. Shouldn't we leave the games to the kids? Anyway, thank you for your time. MetsFan76 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious propaganda of user:inigmatus, as exemplified in the section you qouted, has absolutely no place in wikipedia. We are here to edit encyclopedia, not to provide "this frontline position for Messianic Judaism". Also, his claim "I am stepping down as project leader at the immediate direction of the Lord himself" makes me question either his sanity or neutrality: I would certainly strongly object to have editors here who in their editing are guided by some foreign God rather than by rules of wikipedia. Not to say that we have Jimbo to guide and direct us. :-) `'mikkanarxi 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, inigmatus's sanity is not the issue here. It is IZAK's immaturity and blatant attack on inigmatus. I could care less as to who thinks who is under the direction of the Lord, but immaturity such as IZAK's "has absolutely no place in wikipedia" either. Thank you. MetsFan76 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I support mikkalai's assessment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What is there to support Humus? MetsFan76 13:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:I am not an admin, and I acknowedge that I have no real standing here.While I cannot find any particular support for Inigmatus's actions in written policy, I have no objections to seeing someone who has an interest in a religion contributing to, and possibly even founding a WikiProject, relating to that religion, as long as the content itself meets wikipedia standards. Nor can I see how a fervent believer expressing his beliefs on a project discussion page regarding his project-related activities necessarily qualifies as insanity or lack of judgement, just sincere belief. However, I really can't take too many shots at IZAK's actions either, as I have a rather sick sense of humor and might have made similar comments in the past myself. Personally, I think we're all best served if we approach all subjects in wikipedia from as fair and objective a position in possible, and that includes each other's comments, and while I do not in any way fault Inigmatus's actions, I acknowledge that they were almost certainly a driving force behind IZAK's criticizable actions. Unfortunately, I can't really see any other way of avoiding the subject than by trying to avoid using religiously-loaded language, on either article, talk, or project pages, and actually only using it when absolutely necessary. Badbilltucker 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last suggestion sounds reasonable, with a word of caution, though. There are some seemeingly religious phrases that are just a matter of speech, kind of "oh, God" or "Allah forbid!" Ive see so some people overreacting in these cases. `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It comes to my mind that filing such complaints on behalf of a third person looks like a harassment to me, especially keeping in mind the mildness of the quoted IZAK's quip. If the other side feels insulted, it may demand an apology, and it is quite possible IZAK will withdraw his commment. If he will refuse, then we have a case, but not before. We are people here not robots, and running around and unnecessarily policing other people speech should be frowned upon. There is a blurred bounday betwen jokes and insults, and only the receiving side has the right to decide, unless we have clear cut cases such as "you moron" or "your fascist edits". `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it comes to my mind that when I see someone being uncivil on here, even if I am a third-party, that it should be reported on here. Why should we turn a blind eye to it? If you see an old lady fall down in the street, would you turn your back on her? C'mon Mikkalai....be reasonable. IZAK was clearly acting like a child, regardless of what ignimatus said and the fact that you are actually justifying his actions is ridiculous. MetsFan76 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When you see someone uncivil, why don't you talk to the person privately first? Even anon vandals are supposed to be warned before being blocked. And I am not "actually justifying". Too bad that you seem to have a bad habit to read between lines. And I guess it is quite useless to tell you to stop unwarranted policing and talk to people instead. `'mikkanarxi 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I guess its too bad you have a bad habit of picking sides as an admin.....Aren't you supposed to be impartial and look at the facts before you open your mouth? Anyway, I'm done with you. Have a good day. MetsFan76 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no request for arbitration from IZAK or inigmatus, and I am free to express opinions about any of them just as you did. Since I am not a Jew, believe me, their intersectarian squabbles are indifferent to me. At the same time I express an opinion that yours looks like harassment and spamming the admin's noticeboard, since you did not provide any evidence of attempts to resolve the issue amicably. `'mikkanarxi 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Looks like harassment??"" So you don't agree that IZAK was being rude to inigmatus? He has been provoking him for several weeks now and I am surprised at you, being at admin, that you are attempting to turn it around to make me look like the bad guy where all I am trying to do was show what was occurring. And to consider this "spam" is ridiculous!! As I clearly stated in my last messages, I am done talking to you. It's the holiday season....try chilling out a bit. MetsFan76 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may. I was not aware of a process to forward complaints about rude behavior to admins... though I am now. I tend to be very lenient with those who I believe sincerely misunderstand me or what I believe, so I would not have submitted this particular request for review, but I am glad it's here for the record. IZAK has crossed the line of civility with me several times in my opinion, and if anything I'd like this discussion to be kept on file as an archive that proves that his comments towards me are quite distracting and offensive to other people as well as myself. Personally, I don't think it really is helpful to engage in such character-smashing and nitpicking; especially on a talk page for a project that has nothing immediately to do with the character-smashing. I provided in the same discussion a reasonable explanation of what I meant when I wrote the "frontline" phrase. To be honest though, I am a little concerned that my work on wikipedia seems to be policed by IZAK for practically any WP violation, when I've done my best to read up on process, be courteous, and contribute to an NPOV standard for the articles I'm engaged in. As I implied above, I believe IZAK misunderstand me and my beliefs, and that is why I have not pursued a complaint process such as this admin notice board. But again, I'm glad it's here for the record. Sincerely, inigmatus 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Inigmatus....I knew you weren't going to complain about IZAK, but I just could not sit by and watch him bully you any longer. All one has to do is look at his user contributions to see the snide comments he puts on his edit summaries regarding you and it is obvious he has been policing your work. Personally, I have nothing against IZAK. I just feel that his actions are taking away from your work, which contrary to his beliefs, are important. I am glad to see you are acting as the better person here and I apologize if I overstepped by reporting this here without discussing it with you first. It needed to be on record as you stated. It's a shame that other people on here don't feel that way. Anyway, happy holidays! MetsFan76 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You still continue to miss my main point, although now you yourself agree with it: before grabbing big guns, talk to involved people first. By the way, did you inform IZAK about your proxy axe grinding? `'mikkanarxi 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point because you don't have one. If you read what I wrote to Ingimatus, I clearly stated that I was going to report IZAK's behavior regardless. And yes, I am sure IZAK knows about this as I linked this to the talk page where this was being discussed. Anything else I missed? Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it your job as an admin to stop editors from harassing others as IZAK has been doing?? It shouldn't matter who reports the incident. It was an infraction that I noticed so I reported it. Maybe you should re-read some of the words I have written above because it seems like you are missing MY main point MetsFan76 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WarHawkSP and Derek Smart

Well he's exhausting my patience. Can't speak for the community. He got his second 3RR violation in 4 days today (I haven't checked to see if he has been blocked yet for todays violation). diff. He's been blocked before for vandalism to that article, which is his only article-space entry he has edited( see here.). The only other edits he has are to AN/I regarding edit wars on that page, and to his own user/talk pages.

This is such a rampant case of repeated POV pushing and blatant disregard for policy, I believe administrative action is necessary.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: He's been reported at 3RR, and after being told he violated 3RR in the above diff, he's proceed to revert up to his 6th revert, and then filed a request for page protection on his version. I should note here that his reverts are removing multiple sourced materials that there is talk page consensus to include (his grounds for doing so are allegations that newsgroup postings, even those verified to be from the subject of the article and on a subject inherently notable to the topic at hand, are not reliable sources. There is considerable consensus on the article talk page that in this instance they meet all criteria for inclusion, especially given the notoriety of the subject for engaging in flame wars on usenet, to the point where Daily Victim did a comic on it and it became a notable web meme. It should be further noted that the link to the daily victim comic, and link to a less than flattering article on Opposable Thumbs at Ars Technica were also repeatedly removed by WarkHawkSP.)

At this point, I'm requesting a block on WarHawkSP for exhausting the community's patience. I find it ironic that his user page notes the "SP" as standing for "Sock puppet", when in this case it should be more like "single purpose".⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48h by Steel359. Let us know if the behavior resumes - or, if it's just reverts, file a new case at WP:AN3. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update 2: He's removed the 4RR warning and another vandalism warning from his talk page. As I'm not sure what the current status on policy regarding removing warnings is, I won't re-add them, but he was notified of a 12hr block. I'm not sure exactly how long is left on it, I think around 6 hrs, but I believe it to be an insufficient cool off period, especially given the time it was issued (3am eastern time? Midnight pacific? He'll be asleep for that whole period). Seems to me if a 12 hour block were to be effective, it would need to start around 10am EST, which correlates to 1500 UTC, which should cover the most primetime editing periods, yet leave him sufficient time should he indeed decide to be constructive to do SOME editing between the hours of 10 and midnight eastern. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user exhibits the same behavior as User:Supreme Cmdr, and as I wrote here, for dispute resolution purposes as per a previous arbcom ruling Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Sockpuppets (and_related_principles)For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. It would not be that much of a stretch to put forth an article ban for this user as well as he is clearly a single purpose account with interest only in Derek Smart. Cowman109^Talk 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that as soon as he is blocked there are suddenly IP edits to the talk page (I didn't even check the page itself) attacking the editors who oppose WarHawkSP. This is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!}

Hi Jester. The IP address you are talking about is 209.214.22.231. This IP Address started making edits to the Derek Smart article after WarhawkSP was banned for violating WP:3RR originates from Fort Lauderdale, Florida with the hostname host-209-214-22-231.fll.bellsouth.net. There has long been suspicion that User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarhawkSP were both Derek Smart's users, but this latest happen chance seems to confirm it.--Jeff 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice wiki-detectiving. Derek Smart, as in the subject of the article, has offices based in Ft. Lauderdale, and as I've mentioned several times before, this is exactly the kind of behavior he is notorious for. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, despite the coincidence, I'd be surprised if this anon IP is the same user. That or the user is a good actor. His demeanor, post-first-edit, is not that of Warhawk. Just my opinion. Is a RfCU warranted? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a pretty astonishing co-incidence. Warhawk gets blocked, and a drive-by user happens to stumble upon the article a few hours later and removes the exact same paragraph the blocked user was removing with similarly inflammatory edit summaries? This is the internet, you don't need to be a good actor. -- Steel 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Take this edit as well. This anon is not new to the Wikipedia, nor to the situation with Warhawk. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr also edits from bellsouth out of florida - see here. Supreme Cmdr has explicitly taken ownership of edits from that address - see the first edit under his user account. Warhawk also edits from Florida IPs when he 'forgets' to log in - see this or even better this. This is in the public logs so I don't think it should run afoul of any privacy policies, but feel free to blank this comment if I'm misunderstanding that. Ehheh 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before, Derek Smart's screen name is Supreme Cmdr (across the internet, not necessarily here), and his offices are in Ft. Lauderdale, something that WarHawkSP has also tried to conceal by removing from the article. Seems pretty cut and dry all over the place to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what hasn't been mentioned is that "both" Supreme Cmdr and Warhawk seem to have the fine art of "rules-lawyering" down pat. Either poster is quick to mention any and all relevant Wiki policies they can cling to in order to justify their edits and reverts. To be sure, this sort of person would also be aware of WP:VAIN, though they would never mention it. It would also explain why You-Know-Who will never fess up to being You-Know-Who or You-Know-Who. Or in other words, if Derek Smart were hypothetically editing his posts, because of his careful study of the rules, he knows that he would always have to appear to be someone who isn't Derek Smart or all of his changes could be dismissed and reverted. Even if he was painfully aware of the existence of an article related to himself, he could never get involved (much less own up to it). More's the pity. Mael-Num 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, a checkuser was inconclusive. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

incase one doesn't click the link, DmcDevit says that while inconclusive, they're the same region, different ISP and suggests its possible that it comes from another house or library etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noting here that I semi-protected the talk page Talk:Derek Smart due to the rotating IP trolling and leaving personal attacks directed at other users. [31]. Cowman109^Talk 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that now the page itself is semi protected, comign down from full protection, and is in the midst of a full scale edit war. I fail to see this ending in any other way other than arbcom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Oden's threats

Hello all,

In the past few days, this guy made some highly incivil edits. The first one was on User_talk:Khoikhoi, where he apparently has the pretention to teach an admin how to do his job. [32]

Here are some "nice" stuff from the diff. "Your failure to participate in that thread is, in my opinion, further indicative of a disregard of Wikipedia's guidelines on etiquette.", "I fail to see how you can serve any real use on Wikipedia." and above all, "the next RfC you will be reading might not be someone elses', but your own". The user apparently fails to grasp the principles of wikipedia, and threatening someone with an RfC borderlines on trolling.

The second "nice" edit was on my own talk, where the user basically threatens to "review my contributions", that is to say, to stalk someone else's past edits because he fancies to. I find such an attitude highly disturbing.

He got an informal warning from Inshaneee and Alex Bakharev on his talk, but I think a further reflection on the matter and a potential enforcement might be necessary on the present page. I hope it will get some more attention than the previous one, too. Thanks for your attention, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is being handled well enough by Khoikhoi and the others, no need to add more energy to a dispute. Mangojuice^talk 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some form of very subtle vandalism which I can't figure out - URGENT

If you go to the edit window there is an innappropriate image in the spot which normally clicking on results in the formation of redirects. JoshuaZ 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not seeing it on mine. Syrthiss 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. You are talking about the "#R" button? Looks fine to me. Firefox/Windows. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not seeing it (Safari/Mac). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a monobook.js, so it's not from there. yandman 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely fine on Firefox/Mac. – Chacor 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is undoubtably the penis vandal again who must have been quickly reverted. We need to nip this in the bud. This entire noticeboard is full of notes on this guy. Let's find out the IP range this guy is going through and give it a 1 month hard block. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And perhaps contact his ISP as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is still showing on mine- shouldn't that sort of thing be the sort of thing that only sysops can edit? Anyways, if it matters at all I'm using Firefox on a PC with the MonoBook (default) skin. No monobook.js. The image appears to be a small closeup of of female human bending over. JoshuaZ 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be that the change was reverted but is still in your cache. Try pressing Control-F5 to see if it goes away. --ais523 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem w/ Windows/Firefox/monobook default skin. Have you tried to post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Also, could someone who is on the IRC channels maybe post it over there? Clearing the cache didn't help matters. JoshuaZ 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone post a link to the actual image that was vandalized? Where do those icons above the edit box come from anyway? --Cyde Weys 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, although I don't know where, that the images used for those buttons are available as images. In that case, it might be a simple case of a vandal making changes to those images. Protecting and reverting those images would solve the problem. On the other hand, I don't see any problem - I see the WP interface as usual. Nihiltres 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A screen grab would be useful too. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've uploaded a screen capture Image:Screenshotwithredirectvandalism.JPG. JoshuaZ 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe MediaWiki:Common.js is where the code for the buttons exists. If so, the redirect button uses http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png as the image. However, I don't know how one translates a direct link to the image into the Image:* page name syntax to check the history & ensure that it's protected. -- JLaTondre 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, when I look at the above link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png I see the vandalism image in question. JoshuaZ 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, using other browsers(such as IE) shows the correct image when I go that page. I'm going try restarting firefox and seeing if that helps. JoshuaZ 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Someone on Talk:Jimmy Wales was complaining about a penis at the bottom of the page, but I could not see it, and there were no edits to either the talk or the article between the complaint and my view. Using IE6 and IE7. The link above displays the proper #R graphic.Crockspot 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restarted firefox and cleared the cache again and its still showing the vandal image in both the redirect and on the .png page. JoshuaZ 22:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I turned java and javascript off and then cleared the cache and that seems to have dealt with it. Why I needed to do both though isn't at all obvious to me. JoshuaZ 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So ... have we figured out how this happened yet? I'm very curious. I don't see how it could be a JavaScript attack ... only admin users can edit JavaScript. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we even sure it was vandalism? I get wrong images served from Wikipedia every once in a while, so perhaps this was random bad luck. Kusma (討論) 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it may be some image uploading nonsense, similar to when Willy on Wheels overwrote the portalpage logo on Commons. Is the icon hosted on the wiki? Is the software designed to use a specific imagename on the wiki if it exists and if not defaults to the built-in one? 68.39.174.238 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The image has not been overwritten/vandalized here (as it is protected) nor at commons. --Splarka (rant) 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect Maryville High School (Missouri)

• Can I get a semi-protect on Maryville High School (Missouri)? There is an persistent vandal there. Look closely at the IP edits because they are using deceptive comment summaries.--Isotope23 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Best place to report protection requests would be to WP:RFPP in future. --Majorly 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Yamla 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I knew there was a page for this... just coudn't find it.--Isotope23 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monopoly

Eww someone had seriously vandalised the monopoly page. I think it may be gone now though, but ewwww —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.0.238 (talk • contribs).

Yes, we really need non-vandalized version flags. Go bug the WMF-paid devs. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raw Deal: A Question of Consent

I was going through some of the items on WP:BLPN and came across this one. Old versions of it [33] give unsourced allegations of rape and the alleged victim's name. The page was tagged for a speedy deletion, but was turned into a redirect without actually deleting it. From what I've read about the incident, this seems like an accurate rendition, but considering the enormity of the allegations, I would like to ask that an administrator delete all versions of the article prior to the redirect being created. BigDT 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template vandal

Mentioning it here because of recent events ... see Template:User0 ... specifically [34]. --BigDT 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the template has been protected and the vandal blocked. --BigDT 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCLARodent (talk • contribs) violating consensus, threatening edit warring, actual edit warring, attempting to own article

See Talk:James_Kim#Timeline.3F. The above user has threatened edit warring more than once over the timeline [35] (edit summary), [36], [37], clarifies it here as undending war [38]. After it is pointed out that consensus is about 9-2 in favour of removing the timeline he makes this statemet [39], and again insists it will again remain no matter what [40]. I gathered consensus between that discussion where there were 3 or 4 individuals who clearly did not want it there and only 2 (that editor and an IP) who see it as useful and this related AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death) where 5 editors state the timeline isn't useful or encyclopedic in that level of detail. He's already restored it 4 times in the last 24 hours, but I think my leaving a 3RR at this point would only exasperate the situation and I need someone else to step in here and clear this up.--Crossmr 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone with the rollback button...

Undo some blog-spamming please. - 152.91.9.144 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know about AIV but this isn't exactly vandalism, and they get narky on tht page if you don't follow the "rules" robotically.

Interesting comment from someone who gets "narky" when he thinks other people aren't following the "rules". pschemp | talk 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Blocking policy "rules" versus AIV beaurocracy "rules." My mother said If you can't say something nice then don't say anything, so I'll comment no further on pschemp. It would be nice if he returned the favour.
152.91.9.144 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

She. Essjay (Talk) 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I think its perfectly appropriate to point out when the pot calls the kettle black. Besides, you've already said plenty of not nice things about me so once again, it would be nice if you followed your own maxims, but that's hardly to be expected. pschemp | talk 04:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend both of you take a step back and let the appropriate people handle the situation. You don't get anywhere here making digs like this at each other, regardless of who said what.--Crossmr 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PocKleanBot

This bot is doing massive spamming of User Talk pages. I have asked User:PocklingtonDan to turn it off until it gets opt-in permission from users to have it spam their pages. If it doesn't get turned off soon, I'm going to block it. See PocKleanBot (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot appears to have been withdrawn by the author as of 20:29 today. Deizio talk 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that this bot was never approved. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It also appears it's on a tear again the last ten minutes: Special:Contributions/PocKleanBot. -- Fan-1967 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the bot for 3 hours and notified its owner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's totally unacceptable. He used a bot to spam user talk pages, and at that without permission. The bot should have been indef blocked, and possibly PocklingtonDan blocked for 24 hours. Patstuart^talk|edits 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SkyBoxx

Not really vandalism per se ... but could someone take a look at SkyBoxx's contributions [41]? He/she seems to have been a pretty good vandalism reverter, but replaced their own talk page with every user warning template in the book and an edit summary of "haha eat me". Now, he/she is giving "tireless contributor barnstars" to vandals and new accounts. I'm at a loss ...BigDT 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Now it is vandalism ... and a massive cleanup is needed ... I have reported on AIV BigDT 07:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • User has been blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree image upload frenzy

User:Animeguy99 has been busy uploading music related "google image search" type images for a couple of days, with a big push in the past hour. I've warned him to stop but don't have loads of image patrol / policy experience, what to do? Deizio talk 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of those appear to be valid promotional images. I'm not sure about the rest. He needs to be told to use the appropriate image tag. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are images with no tags at all, not even Missing Copyright tags. As he's been told to use the correct tags and has been warned several times, it looks like he'll need a break from Wikipedia for a couple of days. Sorting out image tags is a bugger frankly but I'll try and run through all the images he has uploaded and tag them as best I can. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. But please, remember that not all publicity images are acceptable on Wikipedia. Per WP:FUC item #1, we only use unfree images when it's not possible to create a free one. Note that, in cases where no free replacement is known to exists, but could be created, we stick to using no image at all instead of using a replaceable unfree image. This pretty much rules out images of active music performers. Yes, this is the most abused criterion on WP:FUC, but it's still policy, and has be supported by Jimbo himself. --Abu Badali 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've managed to save something like 4 photos, one album cover, one logo and two group photos where there is no chance at all of Free Use image being created. The remaining images are all copyright violations and I've tagged them for speedy deletion as such, they're not even lifted from the artists websites, just random webpages, mainly music magazine sites - some were even lifted from Photobucket. What was more annoying was the fact most of the images were actually unused. There's one image that is missing a source altogether so if an admin wants to delete that too, that would be much appreciated. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all what you tagged that was not used in articles. `'mikkanarxi 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User is indefblocked by me at the moment. Anyone can feel free to lift this block without talking to me if you can get the user to understand the licensing issues. Syrthiss 18:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a few more of his images this morning when they were discovered to be copyvios. Syrthiss 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User has apologized and asserted he will now comply with image policy. I'm happy to take this in good faith and unblock per instructions given by Syrthiss and Mikkalai. Deizio talk 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since when is the ArbCom in the business of creating policy?

This is frightening. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not to me. That's a workshop edit by one non-arbitrator. I'd be surprised if it was taken up. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern would be not that they will explicitly state that, but that they are desysoping Mongo on that basis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What Tom said. Speaking as the non-arbitrator in question, it seems to me to be necessarily implied by the Arb Comm decision as it currently stands. I would like the Arb Comm to take it up, at least to explain the scope of the rule they've identified, but I'll leave it up to them. TheronJ 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth reading the judgment as currently written, though some remedies are under review. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue they are objecting to is the last item under Section 3.2.6. In that instance MONGO unprotected a page which he had not been editing at all recently (if ever). It had previously been protected three days prior by Seabhcan, but subsequently unprotected and reprotected by two other admins. This might thus be called a 'wheel war' and the ArbCom is apparently assuming MONGO's action was motivated by his ongoing conflict with Seabhcan elsewhere... but it could also have been a good faith unprotection on the assumption that the dispute was resolved. --CBD 12:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What it comes down to is arbcom can desysop anyone if they think it is appropriate. If that's how the community/Jimbo wants it to work, fine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.100.6.152

Not sure where to report this, but User:71.100.6.152 has made some (admittedly hilarious) personal attacks on me on my talk page. Said user did this in response to my removal of a trollish comment on the science refdesk here (economics or politics had nothing related, I was going to let it be but "Hence the spoiler for every person on the planet having their own source of (cost free) electrical power is terrorism. In other words every person on the planet can not be ultimately rich because the terrorists will not allow it." was enough, I felt, to remove it). Also, I am concerned this user is a sockpuppet of User:MinervaSimpson due to both's repeated use of the phrase "teeny-bopper" and the fact I recently placed a block template on their userpage (blocking administrator neglected to) here. Here, and other AfDs created by user, use the same phrase. User has been warned (see their talk page). Again, I apologize if this is in the wrong place. --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks should normally be reported to WP:PAIN, although usually some administrator reading this will look into it as well (I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do) In this case, a gentle reminder to the other user to please refrian from personal attacks may be a good first step, before taking this any further. Fram 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback please - requests for speedy deletion as minor edit

Silverhorse (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has requested speedy deletion for several articles, has not given an edit summary, and marked them as minor edits. Can someone please rollback the user? Thanks, Andjam 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled back those speedy requests where a reason was not included. Viridae^Talk 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In his defense, many of the ones he has provided reasons for are valid speedies (for example, Hope Party - content was "The Hope Party of Australia is a political party in Australia"). Proto::► 12:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Which was why I left them alone. Viridae^Talk 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet of blocked user User:Peterwats

59.100.76.166 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) is, by the user's own admission (see contributions), a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Peterwats (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Please block. —Psychonaut 12:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done by Fuzheado. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jules Verne external links

This is in regards to User talk:217.119.180.170 and User talk:193.252.18.96 who is the same user, who has been editing Jules Verne adding two external links to a foreign language site (I believe they are also self-links). I have reverted over 10 times over the course of the past 3 weeks and left numerous messages on the article talk page, article edit notes and users talk pages per WP:EL rules on foreign language links. The user ignores all attempts at communication and has continued to add the links back to the article despite over 8 warnings left on the users talk page to communicate and/or acknowledge. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both IP addresses. -- Kjkolb 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable blocks and WP:NPA

[edit] 208.66.198.224

This IP has continued to vandalize after receiving a final warning. Geoffrey Spear 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seven vandal edits to four articles in a little over an hour, but only one warning today, and the previous warning was November 20. From the history, it looks like a school IP, and I don't think the damage today rises to a level needing a block. -- Donald Albury 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Itaqallah and friends lying

Regarding this edit can an administrator please take a look? His edit summary claims the edit is "unsourced OR" when clearly it is NOT OR and NOT UNSOURCED.

He's blatantly lying and I see no reason to even continue a pretense of assuming good faith in the case of this POV pusher; WP:AGF policy clearly states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

Lying like this is pretty massive evidence. RunedChozo 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah's second lie: there is no "discussion" of these changes anywhere previous on the talk page. RunedChozo 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This dispute resolution page can be your friend in a case like this. (→Netscott) 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't care about that, it seems. RunedChozo 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Runed. Why can't you use the talk page before adding disputed content so you can discuss them and defend them? I haven't seen you discussing them at all. Please use the talk page and stop accusing contributors of POV pushing. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah has now had an admin tool lock the page in bad faith on his behalf. This is beyond insulting behavior and so far beyond good faith it is not even funny, and FayssalF's involvement would appear to be just another Muslim Guild member. RunedChozo 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to take this up on Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat before going to dispute resolution or coming here. The only comment I see from you on that talk page is this: This article is already such nonsense it should probably just be deleted. Completely nonfactual propaganda and whitewashing. RunedChozo 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) and that doesn't speak to good faith on your part. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmmmm! Talking about an admin who got a clean block log? This is yours (5 blocks w/in 1 month). Please behave. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything, they have friendly admins ready to harass anyone who doesn't think Muslim POV-pushing is OK at moment's notice. RunedChozo 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your accusations. It won't help your case. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

seeing as RunedChozo has come to AN/I, i think it would be appropriate to mention that this user has been aggressively revert warring, for which he has been blocked several times. he has also been blocked before for exhibiting the same behaviour as soon as his block has expired. he was recently blocked for three days for revert warring, and as soon as his block has expired he is back, doing the exact same things again. as for my apparent lying, he had inserted his own OR, and every revert since then has been to that version. and i have been involved in every discussion on the talk page, while RunedChozo has been involved in not one of substance. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah starts lying by calling a properly sourced item in the article "Original Research", doesn't mention his own constant edit-warring and POV-pushing that I've been trying to counteract so that the articles are actually fair and neutral (let's face it, "Mohammed the Diplomat" right now is a joke, nothing more than "mohammed was so great let's all worship him" fluff). His comment is nothing more than more bad faith. RunedChozo 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was examining block logs here and there's a massive disparity between Itaqallah and RunedChozo, that would seem to be indicative of where the problem is stemming from here. (→Netscott) 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah is part of an organized meatpuppetry group called the "Muslim Guild." RunedChozo 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Normally I don't like to bring this out, because it's more often used as a whacking stick, but this seems to be the case in point of why the policy was created: one must assume good faith on Wikipedia. I've heard the words "bad faith" or "lying" in your words far too often to be comfortable. Throwing around accusations, refusing to use the talk page or talk to them first, and accusing the admin cabal of being on Itaqalla's side has not helped your case in the slightest, even if you were right. Please act more in line with the procedures that Wikipedia has set up before coming to the message board. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to assume good faith, but I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries. WP:AGF does not say that I have to be a stupid idiot blind to obvious bad faith behavior, Patstuart, and I'll thank you to notice that please. RunedChozo 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, let me also add that I do not particularly appreciate this: [42]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd acted in good faith it wouldn't have been necessary. RunedChozo 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, that diff doesn't look too promising as far as the future participation on the project of the editor concerned here. (→Netscott) 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Attack me all you like, that's what you do right? Attack the messenger? Yeesh. It was bad faith after I reported Itaqallah blatantly lying in edit summaries, and it's bad faith given the obvious conflict of interest. RunedChozo 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) In accordance with the dispute resolution page, I'm taking a break for the rest of the day. POV push all you like Itaqallah and Muslim Guild meatpuppets, I won't be around to stop you. RunedChozo 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I keep telling you, being incivil just increases wikistress for everyone. This is exactly why you AGF because getting into a mindset like this is just unhealthy. Wikipedia works on people being able to sit down and talk. Your rhetoric towards those you view as "POV Pushers" ensures they don't want to come to the table.--Rosicrucian 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RunedChozo (talk • contribs) blocked

I blocked RunedChozo (talk • contribs) for his personal attacks and incivility here for a period of 1000 minutes (16 hours, 40 minutes). Reasonable? -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mild, I'd say. But I won't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. I just didn't want to have to deal with the you only blocked him cause he was saying anti-Muslim statements sentiment. I do think a longer block is not a bad idea, especially considering this block comes less than twenty-four hours after coming off another. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a look at this user's first ever edit summary in wikipedia, i am afraid Netscott is right. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go up to 48h a week on him, given his block history and the fact that they seem to have no effect on his behavior. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed and denied his unblock request. I will lengthen the block to 48 hours if nobody objects. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User has continued this behavior on this talk page even after being blocked [43] --BostonMA ^talk 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed and denied again. I don't see this going anywhere good. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Rosicrucian has reposted User:RunedChozo's comments containing personal attacks upon Itaqallah and Future Perfect at Sunrise. [44]

I was a bit irritated by that too when I saw it, but I think the context makes it clear that Rosicrucian was only mirroring what Runedchoso had written on his talk page in order to reply to it. No reasons to get upset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I didn't quite understand at first. nevermind --BostonMA ^talk 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. When I reply to a comment left in my talkpage, I typically copy the conversation as completely as possible to the user's talkpage to preserve the context.--Rosicrucian 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse a block length approximately five days. Also, the user is abusing {{unblock}}. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that he is now removing denied unblock requests as well as warnings from admins, I'm afraid I have to endorse extending his block as well. He's made his bed, and he seems determined to lay in it.--Rosicrucian 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have increased his block to 48 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering his rather obvious block evasion here, I think another extension may be in order. --InShaneee 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One step ahead of you; I restarted the block and upped it to five days, due to the further incivility and the fact that the user has been blocked multiple times (twice for three days). -- tariqabjotu 06:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not cool. Please cease lengthening his block if all he's doing is aruging on his talk page. Nobody's going to unblock him until it's over; admins need to walk away and let situations cool down rather than continue to provoke them with multiple (what, three now?) block extensions when the only offense is arguing on the talk page. He may be too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but the lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves for this. For shame. Leave him alone, or do an indef community block, but stop piling on like this. Georgewilliamherbert 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For all interested; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo, mentioning the claims of block evasion that were not actually mentioned on here. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The results of the checkuser have come in with the conclusion being possible. Nevertheless, let me make a case for why the IP address in question that led to the extended block is most likely RunedChozo (talk • contribs). First, note the previous request for checkuser that came back confirmed. The IP address from that confirmed IP address comes from Houston, Texas (see WHOIS lookup). Both IP addresses part of the more recent checkuser (the one the ended as only possible) come from Houston as well (see WHOIS lookup one and two). As stated already, the rhetoric from RunedChozo (talk • contribs) and 70.114.237.14 (talk • contribs) are quite similar (note the reference to the talk page being protected, as well as the tool accusations). One editor on the English Wikipedia mailing list noted that 70.114.237.14 (talk • contribs)'s edit times don't match up with those of RunedChozo (talk • contribs). Perhaps that is correct, but it does not seem unreasonable, in my opinion, for someone to be editing around 11:30pm and 12:30am, especially if a user is angry and passionately wants to say something.

So, it is possible that 70.114.237.14 (talk • contribs) and RunedChozo (talk • contribs) are just both especially anti-Muslim editors who happen to both live near Houston, edit similar articles, and use similar types of statement. However, I am convinced, without reservation, that the users are one and the same. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth reading the (long) WikiEN-l thread on the subject. Likewise, this post seems to build a pretty strong case that they're the same person (I say so because no one's even supposed differently, since that post, as far as I can tell). Luna Santin 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Jeremy

I have stubbed the Ron Jeremy article in accordance with the BLP policy, as it contained large amounts of unsourced and potentially defamatory material. User:Tabercil Has been restoring the material, claiming my actions are vandalism despite clear edit summaries stating that the edits are for BLP reasons. Posting this here because the BLP board is relatively unmonitored. Thanks, Frise 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That action makes little sense. Why not identify (specifically) the issues instead of removing everything in the article. The entire article now consists of "Ronald Jeremy Hyatt is an American actor." (!) El_C 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually have to agree with the removal of what was last removed in the article. The tid bits that were in that were a bit excessive, unsourced (are there any?), and a bit POVish. Maybe rewording would be a little better. Try to calmly talk this one out on the talk page, and abstain from editing until an agreement can be reached. Note, I didn't see this[45], which is excessive to do with the exception of copyvios. Yanksox 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the bits that Frise had problems with per WP:BLP and warned both editors about revert warring. I cannot see much more that would be seen as libellous but blanking the page would not be the best course of action - removing the offending info would be. Hope this helps. Localzuk^(talk) 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you added an infobox to the article stating that he has a 3.25 inch penis. Do you believe this isn't negative material? What other information did you not verify before you added it? What is true, and what isn't? Frise 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have explained this on your talk page, please read it. You have now been told by myself and Tabercil, and the editors above that blanking is the incorrect course of action here.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical question: If I were to add the statement "Damon is referred to as "the clown prince of porn" for his comic sensibility and "The Hedgehog" because of his hairy body." to the article on Matt Damon, would that be a BLP violation? How is it any less of one because it's Ron Jeremy? If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to source. If it isn't able to be sourced, it shouldn't be in the article. That's not to say that each and every living person article should be stubbed, of course, but in this case there is too much bad mixed in with the good. The article should be stubbed and good information carefully added back with proper sources. Frise 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are slightly confused by the WP:BLP - the idea is to remove controversial material from such articles, not all unsourced statements - the majority of the information in that article is not controversial. If you think the article needs sources, add an 'unsourced' boiler plate to the article, don't blank it.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands is shit. Apologies for the language, but it's appalling. As it's a living person, all content should be vigorously sourced, particularly when what is there is risible. I've spammed every uncited 'fact' with a citation needed tag. Anything not cited within or day or two will be excised. Proto::► 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have to apologise for your language, you shouldn't use it... Seriously though, the issue Frise had was BLP which demands the removal of controversial unsourced information.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced information may be removed by any editor, especially negative information and doubly especially in biographies of living persons. If editors wish to put it back, they must verify it first. I cannot believe that people still do not grasp that we are writing an encyclopaedia, not Wikipedia, the collective repository of shit people think they know about stuff. I had to remove a report on admin intervention against vandalism about this, for ----'s sake. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So you say that blanking a page is better than going through and removing the problematic info?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is looking at the problem incorrectly. Blanking the page is better than doing nothing. Better still, would be to go through and remove the problematic information. The worst thing would be to do nothing. I would rather than we have a nearly blank article of information that we can verify, than a long article of unsourced and unprovable nonsense. I have said more on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All unsourced information is problematic. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Browsing through the history, I see that 155.33.145.172 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) is our problem user for violating WP:BLP. Although everything was unsourced beforehand, he introduced a lot of BLP vandalism into the article that I later saw removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoring bad information after it has been removed is no different than adding it in the first place. Frise 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not my point. There was no "bad" information in the article to begin with, just very little sourced information. Some anonymous user vandalized it, afterwhich you removed everything but "Ron Jeremy is a male adult film star." I also find it a little odd that you have only registered in the past 48 hours, and are well versed in WP:BLP's regulations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All unsourced information is bad. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't answer the question there. The user, Frise, blanked a page that contains a large amount of information - about half (i'd guess) is sourced. Are you saying that it was right for him to wipe all of that information? All I have done is gone through and removed the BLP offending information - leaving the general unsourced stuff to be dealt with on the article by people who edit it regularly.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the last version blanked by Frise (oldid, before "blanking") was completely unsourced, apart from a single line about him appearing at the Oxford Union - which wouldn't have had much context if it was left in the stub. I did answer the question; you asked me if blanking a page is better than removing the problematic info, and the answer is that in a (to all intents and purposes) completely unsourced article, blanking is removing the problematic info. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see, I can see 3 sources there - one regarding the oxford talk, one to the Adult film db and one to the IMDB - which contains some information. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it also contains information which is simply not needing blanking because of those 3.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'm merrily beavering away in the background with Google trying increase the number of sources: from 3 to 11, and growing. Just the same, a lack of citations shouldn't be fatal to an article... look at Jimbo Wales's article - I count 7 "citation needed" links. As I type this, Ron Jeremy now stands at 9 cites needed. Tabercil 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And of those 7 citation needed links in the article about me, virtually all of them are citation needed because they are false, misleading, or POV. There are no citations for a reason... --Jimbo Wales 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Two general information sites added to the bottom of the article cannot count as sourcing. If they can be used as a source, then editors should have no problem spending five minutes adding inline citations to the relevant parts of the article before re-adding the information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few editors here that are missing the point here. Frise - you deleted everything in the article, regardless of whether it was sourced or not. How is this acceptable??-Localzuk^(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The stubbing of the article was way too dramatic. Frise should focus more on improving the article and discussing particular points of issue (if there really are any) rather than wiping the article down to nothing. The stubbing looks like a WP:POINT violation to me, given that Frise's account is so new and yet supposedly so well-versed in WP:BLP. Johntex\^talk 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fellas, this isn't the only article Frise has gone after while citing BLP. There's a pattern here that I don't like. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the motivation behind the editing, about which I am disinclined to speculate, I suggest that your reversion here was not a good edit, and would encourage you to revert yourself. Jkelly 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He should revert himself on this one as well.[46] People seem to be more concerned by my status rather than the relevant policy. That's too bad. Frise 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some/much of that content can come out, but you're also removing plenty of legitimate, easily sourced content on the grounds that it's unsavory, not that it's inaccurate or unsource-able. For example, I just added one citation to Jude Law to the section I restored. I couldn't care less how long you've been here; I care that you're deleting legitimate content. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative unsourced material is not legitimate content. If you are adding the material back with sources then you are doing exactly the right thing. Wholesale reversion of unsourced articles that speculate on penis size and general attractiveness is not. Frise 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Following up, both Jude Law and Mike Price are now restored, with proper citations for all content that Frise removed. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Frise 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only point I see is that some new accounts understand cornerstone policy better than some older ones. Deeply regrettable, but not in the way you think. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, that is a scary pattern. Some of the information he is removing is being done so correctly, but in other places it would have been very easy to get citations for the info (for example the Helen Wong article with its list of movies would likely have been available on the Adult film db site.) I wonder if Frise will own up to who they really are?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's easy to get citations, then editors should have no problem adding them, instead of simply reverting and making innuendos about the account's age. The burden of proof is on those adding or restoring information, not those removing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware stubbing of an article is only used in WP:OFFICE concerns; if it's just run-of-the-mill unsourceable statements, just remove them as appropriate, don't wipe out the whole article. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What shall we do if the whole article on a living person is unsourced statements? Frise 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Add {{verify}} to the top of the article, add {{citation needed}} to anything in the article that needs specific attention, and maybe look for sources yourself? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Cornerstone policy. Please read it, and stop suggesting that people who find rubbish in the street are responsible for sweeping it up. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the obligatory "tag it and go away" arguments, maintenance tags are less of a sticking plaster, more someone sellotaping a piece of paper to the wound reading "This is bleeding, pls fix". Certainly not a solution. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimbo Wales, on the Mailing List linked from the BLP page. Frise 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note the words "unless it can be sourced." So far, everything I've found that you've removed has been easy to source. I'm not sure why you won't make that effort. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's been easy to source, then what's the problem? Why are editors so up in arms if it's so easy for them to replace the material in accordance with Wikipedia policy? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for any other editor but myself. Why do I find Frise's actions problematic? One, he's removing accurate-but-unsourced content, rather than taking the time to source it himself. He's not removing inaccurate content, according to the sample at which I looked. Two, he's doing it quickly, meaning that lots of accurate content will be lost, because it's faster to run around deleting than it is to run around sourcing. Three, he's using a cleaver when he needs a paring knife, and has caught up a lot of innocuous info in his deletions (e.g., in the Jude Law deletion, he took out simple details like the fact that Law was married and divorced, has several children, was engaged to Sienna Miller, etc.). And finally, this still looks like WP:POINT to me - particularly the part about coming here to talk about his actions. Nothing speaks more loudly than a set of solid citations, IMO. That's the sound I'd prefer to hear. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I hear the words "rather than taking the time to source it himself" or variants on the theme of 'people who find rubbish in the street are responsible for sweeping it up' one more time, I'm going to be the one running round with a cleaver, and it won't be metaphorical, it will be sharp. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. As far as WP:POINT goes, the worst Frise can be accused of is a breaching experiment on, well, how much we're willing to follow the cornerstone policy that makes us an encyclopaedia and not Popbitch. The answer is, apparently, not very. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with editors wanting to improve an article having to rummage through the page history to see if there are possibly unsourced bits that were removed earlier, that would in fact be easy to source. Many editors prefer to see articles gradually build up the way we are used to seeing the wiki-process work. Editor A adds this bit, Editor B adds this bit, Editor C adds a fair use image, Editor D adds sources for the bits that Editor A and B added, Editor E replaces the fair use image with a free image, and so on. This process is being short-circuited (for good reasons) for articles about living people where the material may be libellous or without sources. Obviously it would help if those removing unsourced material and those wanting to re-add the material, could work together to find sources. I once saw a suggestion for a voluntary code where everyone who removes a piece of unsourced material should try to counterbalance that with adding a source for another piece of material (not necessarily in the same area). That would ensure productiveness in the addition of sources, as well as productiveness in the removal of unsourced material. Carcharoth 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The solution to this perceived problem is quite simple: don't add unsourced information to articles in the first place. Adding the unsourced information is the problem, removing unsourced information is a solution. WP:V is very clear on these points: adding unsourced information is a violation of policy, removing it is not. Chondrite 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding unsourced information is not a violation of policy. People do this all the time throughout the encyclopedia. If they stopped, the encylopedia would cease to grow. What WP:V actually says is that editors should not (not must not) add unsourced material. WP:BLP is stricter and says that adding unsourced material to articles about living people is really bad and should be stomped on. Outside of article about living people, there is a long tradition of people coming along later and tidying up material and adding sources. That is what the {{fact}} tag is for. You also seem to fail to realise that I support both stances on this issue. Adding sources when adding new material is the ideal, but I also support the "let the sources accumulate later" model. Drawing the line is a matter of judgment. Merely undoing good-faith additions is not the best solution. Again, I would appeal to those removing unsourced material, and those adding unsourced material, to work together. Any individual from either side should balance any removal of any unsourced material with the provision of a source somewhere else. Build at the same time as pruning. Always, of course, excepting WP:BLP, which is a special case. Carcharoth 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The original issue that was raised was that WP:BLPN was crowded and larely unmonitored. I have, as per nobody objecting on the talk page, archived everything that was a month old (there were still listings from early October on there). I have also suggested, on the talk page, that we use tags similar to {{drt}} and {{drb}} to close issues that have been resolved. That way, the noticeboard will be of a manageable size and scope. Please consider (1) replying on the talk page if you like or do not like my suggested method for closing issues and (2) remanding this particular issue to WP:BLPN since it was setup for that purpose. Thank you. BigDT 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather disapprove of editors creating a new account purely to do things they think will be unpopular, so that the tar won't stick to their other account. Frise, knock it off. Pages should not be blanked when only certain parts of it are problematic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to removing warnings from his talk page [47] and deleting messages without archiving them, Frise is refusing to discuss the issue there, insisting that the discussion take place here (which seems to me to be more WP:POINT evidence - a two-person dialogue does not require an audience). Frise continues to mix in deletions of non-controversial content with deletions of controversial content (example), which seems to me to run counter to this part of BLP, the second graf here in Verifiability, and this part of the Verifiability policy as well: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page" (emphasis mine). Between those two policies, it seems clear to me that the proper course of action when one finds unsourced, non-controversial content is to tag it as unsourced to give other editors a chance to provide references (or, better, to source it oneself), or to remove it to the article's talk page for the same purpose, but not to delete it entirely. There's also the issue of Frise pointing to WP:BLP in his edit summaries, even when BLP itself doesn't justify the edit. Since Frise refuses to discuss the issue without an audience, I'm bringing it back here. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would object to me removing those warnings from my talk page, considering that they were reviewed and dismissed by an uninvolved admin and even Jimbo stepped in to say that I had done the right thing. They were obviously without merit; What possible purpose would leaving them serve? The reason for insisting on having the conversation here is so that it is out in the open and everyone can weigh in and benefit from it. ANI has a much wider audience than my talk page, after all. Given that Jimbo agreed that stubbing the article was the right thing to do, it would seem that there are quite a few people here that could stand to benefit from this discussion. Since you also disagreed, I would respectfully suggest you stop for a moment and carefully re-evaluate your understanding of the verifiability and BLP policies. We might have to agree to disagree, which probably happens hundreds of times a day on Wikipedia and not worth getting upset over. Quality, not quantity. Verifiability, not truth. If we are going to represent a living person's number one result in a Google search, then they deserve the strictest interpretation of our core policies and an article that is rock-solid.Frise 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo did not state that stubbing the articles was the 'right thing to do'. He said that a stub was preferable to leaving an article on a living person with unsourced information, especially if that information was negative. However, he outlined several preferable things to do over stubbing it.

You seem unwilling to help actually improve these articles. You are unwilling to discuss your actions on your talk page, which is generally an unacceptable practice.

You have also ignored, and thus I will repeat, my criticism of your actions in creating a single-purpose alternate account to do this. You clearly know that your behaviour will draw fire and are hiding behind the cloak of an alternate username to do it. This is not QUITE in breach of our current sockpuppet policy, as I understand it, but it IS skating on thin ice and is IMO not a responsible way to behave. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism is respectfully noted. I intend to adhere to policy, so you need not worry. As far as improving the articles, pruning of unsourced information is an improvement. Removing is better than nothing, and it's still safely in the page history so it can be restored with sources later. Your allegation that I am unwilling to discuss my actions on my talk page is a bit misleading. There is already a lengthy discussion taking place here. Splitting the same issue across two different pages wouldn't make much sense. If you feel it's more appropriate that the discussion actually take place on my talk page, just say the word and I'll copy the whole mess over there. However, I feel that the discussion itself is far more important than where it actually takes place. Frise 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would not be opposed to an RFC if anyone thinks that would be a better venue. The underlying issues are serious enough. Entirely up to you guys, though. Frise 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict - response after Morven)I have to say that your comments mirror my own thoughts exactly. The idea of the site is to create an encyclopedia - removing unsourced information is A Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. My grief is that the methods of doing so are confrontational and dismissive of the work of those who have added sourced information to articles. The way to improve the site is not to delete content, it is to add sources and remove false information. If we went through the entire site and simply deleted all information that was unsourced the site would shrink hugely - and upset a large number of editors whose work was deleted in the crossfire. Instead, what most editors do is see unsourced tags and go off and find sources (at least that is what I do). If the unsourced information is unverified after having done a bit or looking for sources, yes, you should move it to the talk page - deleting it outright just because you think it is nonsense just means that you don't have a source - but someone else might.

With regards to the BLP - I 100% agree that all contentious information should be removed if it is unsourced. There is no argument here.

I disagree with your (Frise) and Jimbo's blanking of the Ron Jeremy article still - as it is using a slegdehammmer to crack a nut (leaving a single line is not a stub, it is a blanked article). Both Frise and Jimbo saw that there were a collection of willing editors trying to improve the article so should have let nature take it's course for the references and should have simply deleted the contentious and stupid material in the article, and moved anything they saw as unsourced to the talk page (as there were sources there for some of it).

Finally, Sam Blanning said that 'Two general information sites added to the bottom of the article cannot count as sourcing' which is incorrect. Not all sources have to be inline.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:SOCK this is an entirely legitimate use of multiple accounts. -- Chondrite 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is probably in breach of 'Avoiding scrutiny from other editors' in the 'Forbidden' section of WP:SOCK. Additionally, creating a second account for disruptive purposes is frowned upon by '"Good hand, bad hand" accounts' in the same section.

It's certainly uncool, whether within the letter of policy or not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you take note of the Legitimate Uses area, specifically "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area" and "Keeping heated issues in one small area." Frise 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The first seems to apply only to admitted second accounts, not to unadmitted socks. As to the second - it's arguable. What makes it arguable is that you are not doing it in regard to subject matter, but in regard to actions that will be unpopular. The arbitration committee has frowned on such use of sockpuppets in the past. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the relevant talk pages, it has not been established that user:Frise is a single-purpose secondary account of an established user. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this assumption is true, Frise has pointed out two (of several) uses that are explictly sanctioned by policy and that would be appropriate in this situation. Use of a secondary account in these explicitly sanctioned ways is hardly violates the spirit of the policy. The policy doesn't say anything about "admitted socks." User Frise has definitely left an audit trail in regard to this matter and does not appear to have made any attempt to avoid scrutiny. Quite the opoosite, as a matter of fact, Frise has invited scrutiny by first bringing this matter to AN/I [48] and by suggesting RFC. I respectfully suggest that this line of discussion does not address the substance of the issues. Chondrite 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But are the actions unpopular just because they are performed by a new user? I feel too many people are focusing on the editor rather than the edits. Tell me, honestly: If I had stubbed an unsourced and controversial article as an established editor, would I still be facing the same reaction? All I can do is assure you that my actions are honorable and that I'm acting in good faith. I have refrained from making many BLP edits until some resolution is achieved as a sign of that good faith. Frise 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, your actions are unpopular because you acted in an overly dramatic way to stub the articles. Your being a newly created account raises additional questions, but they are not central. The central point is that your actions were too extreme for the circumstances. Johntex\^talk 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are speaking of the Ron Jeremy article specifically, I'm having a hard time reconciling your statement that my actions were too extreme with the fact that Jimbo said my actions, while not ideal, were at least acceptable. Frise 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to differentiate real stubs and cut-down stubs

One of the problems here is that this action of pruning to a stub (which is quite proper for articles on living people where there are problems) fails to differentiate between articles that are a stub and always have been a stub, and those stubs that are the remnants left behind after pruning (what I call a pruned or cut-down stub). Ideally, anyone expanding a stub will first check the page history to find out whether the stub is a genuine stub (usually shown by a stub template) or whether it is a stub that has been cut-down from an earlier version. Often though, a cut-down stub gets expanded from scratch, and previous effort is wasted. It is sometimes more efficient to build on previous material, adding sources, rather than building up again from scratch. Sometimes, of course, it is more efficient to build up again from scratch. It depends on the article. I have a proposal that I hope will avoid well-intentioned editors coming along later and rebuilding from scratch and duplicating previous work (they might, for instance, add a stub template, re-inforcing the impression that a stub was all that ever existed). My proposal is to have a template that people can use if they are pruning down to a stub, and this puts a stub-like template at the bottom of the article that explains what has happened, places the article in a category of articles that have been 'pruned', and either gives the date(s) when the pruning(s) took place, or a link to the version just after pruning (those that know how can then skip back a version to review the material and decide whether any material is worth is rescuing). This is what I would call thoughtful and constructive pruning, leaving the path open for rebuilding and regrowth, as opposed to lazy, quick, 'blunt hacking' type of pruning that is destructive and sometimes tramples roughshod over previous work (some of which was added in good faith and is perfectly OK).

What do people think of this idea? I'm not that good at creating and implementing such templates. Can anyone create or find such a 'pruning' template? Carcharoth 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is what the talk page and the edit summary are for, no need to comment about our editing process on the article page. Kusma (討論) 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the point of {{stub}} and its numerous variants in Category:Stubs? They all speak to the editor, not the reader. What I am proposing is merely another type of stub template, but a template to label pruned stubs, instead of labelling fresh stubs created from scratch. Do you see the difference? A normal stub template says:

• "this is a stub - expand me".

A 'pruned stub' template would say

• "this is a stub - I got cut down to size from a larger version - expand me - consider rescuing material from previous versions of this article, but don't repeat the mistakes people made before".

Both templates talk about the editing process, appealing to the editors, not the readers. Is that any clearer now? Carcharoth 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be drawing attention to bad versions in the history from article space. Kusma (討論) 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that direct mentioning of this would be a bad thing. That is why indirect and vague language can be used. Just to tip off editors that there is a bit of history to this article. If you've ever gone through the history of an article (and I really hope that experienced editors don't ignore article history), you will know that it is sometimes possible to find material that it is quite easy to re-add to the article and provide sources for.

Another thing. What I am writing here is an attempt to be constructive. It is annoying when someone responds by picking out the negative stuff without acknowledging whether there are any valid points. There is a genuine concern that excessive and aggressive pruning of articles loses genuine and valid content, and what I am proposing is an attempt to acknowledge and address this problem. It would be very easy to prune Wikipedia down to a few hundred thousand articles if the "remove unsourced material" concept was taken to its logical conclusion (and again, in case anyone missed it, I know that WP:BLP is an exception where unsourced material should be aggressively removed). Carcharoth 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, if material has been pruned from an article, we shouldn't want it simply being added in again. If it can't be sourced, it should be gone for good. If it can be sourced, it would be better that editors add the material while referring to reliable sources. In fact, I would favor a warning not to use material from the history, but to be sure to use only material from reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

It doesn't look to me like there's any more progress to be made here. Jimbo has already weighed in on the Ron Jeremy article, so I would suggest that if someone wants to take a deeper look at the underlying issues they should start an RFC or some other procedure where consensus can be guaged. Frise 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where would be the best place to take the newly-created stub versus pruned stub section I started above? Carcharoth 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably the village pump WP:VP. Eluchil404 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User posting obscenities on his talk page

I'm not quite sure what the policy is, and I hesitate to use the term "vandalism" for postings that a user does to the user's own talk page, but recent postings [49] [50] [51] by User:William E. Johnson to User talk:William E. Johnson seem to show a certain, um, disregard for wikipedia conventions, and for the opinions of other editors, whose comments he deleted. Guidance and/or administrator intervention would be appreciated. John Broughton | Talk 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would recommend an immediate protection of the page and block for personal attacks. – Chacor 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick trawl through his contribution history leads me to believe that the recent edits are very out of character... is there a chance someone's had their account hacked somehow? --Dweller 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. I indefblocked it for the moment, but didn't protect the page. Syrthiss 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To give some credence to the "hacked" theory, he posted again to "his" talk page, with an edit summary (I've omitted the leading sentence, containing graphical language) of: NOBODY STOPS JOHNNY THE VANDAL. I suggest blocking the account from editing the talk page as well. John Broughton | Talk 18:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor trolling in ArbCom votes?

Again I am not sure if this is where this question belongs, but it possible to deem an editor guilty of trolling based on his or her votes in the ArbCom election? User:Ybeayf, who has a recent block for trolling but has been around for awhile and has made good-faith edits, has been voting in the election for the past few minutes, with ... creative explanations of the votes, such as:

• Paul August - Oppose - "Candidate appears to be a Yankee"
• Blnguyen - Oppose - "Per user page, candidate appears to be an inanimate stuffed animal"
• Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me - Oppose - "Unclear if candidate is, in fact, a clown"
• Flcelloguy - Oppose - "Candidate appears to play the cello"
• FloNight - Support - "Candidate does not appear to be a Yankee"
• Geogre - Oppose - "Candidate's name is misspelled"
• Harvestman - Oppose - "Candidate is French"
• Improv - Support - "Candidate is kinda cute"
• John Reid - Oppose - "Candidate has boring name"
• Jpgordon - Oppose - "I hate Oingo Boingo"

Voting rationales like this make a travesty of the election, but a trolling block based on votes in an election presents an obvious slippery slope problem. Plus, although the philosophical issue here is an interesting one, we don't want to feed the troll either. What is to be done? Newyorkbrad 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Said votes with comical rationales removed and editor indefinitely blocked by Cyde for disruption and trolling. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Nothing to see here, move along. --Cyde Weys 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it's been deCyded. Us process wonks will lose sleep ... but not too much. Newyorkbrad 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The slippery slope concern you mention is well considered, but in this case it's so obvious that there's no need to lose sleep. I chose to warn instead of block, but the block is fully justified. - Taxman ^Talk 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's heartening to hear that someone else takes the approach that process is important. However, after following Cyde's periphrasis on his talk page, once I traced the references he made, his approach to the situation is defensible. While I'd've preferred to see the transparency of the vote maintained (by deprecating rather than deleting the votes), I do see the value of the deletions as a means of not feeding the trolls. --Ssbohio 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This was just an account that was once good now being abused periodically to return to vandalize and sow disruption in-between blocks. No point in stringing it along with the incremental blocks, allowing further disruption each time. --Cyde Weys 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is anyone striking out the votes, or are you letting them stand? ~Kylu (u|t) 08:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They were all rolled back hours ago. Grandmasterka 08:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garry Newman

User:SteveIrwinsMom has posted what looks like personal information diff on the page. It's removed from the page, but not the edit history. The user is blocked for, it's just to get rid of the personal info. --h2g2bob 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article does not demonstrate compliance with WP:BIO (I appreciate his mod is well known) so I've listed it at AfD. Deizio talk 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy vandalism of today's FA

Today's FA is under quite a concerted attack from vandals armed with the usual genital images. Reports have been made to WP:AIV some time ago, but faster action would be appreciated... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's now semi-protected, which I do support in theory, but which I also thought was all-but-forbidden per official policy. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:HarpsBoy

Could someone who knows these things please review the edits of HarpsBoy (talk • contribs)? I know nothing about Irish football, but this editor recreated the hoax article John Fullerton, so I distrust anything this new editor has done. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick google seems to reveal that every one of his current edits are for real players and/or places. anyone want to second-check me? --Charlesknight 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They're real, but probably AfD candidates. They are all players or former players of Finn Harps F.C., a semi-professional club from the second level of Irish football. Oldelpaso 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Article Monitoring

Greetings. I would like to request that the admins would monitor the editing activity currently going on in the "Homosexuality" article. A known vandalizer, Izanbardprince has been placing his virulent pro-homosexual bias into his edits of the "behavioural modification" section of the article. I myself probably also need monitoring as I am prone to rash action at times and relatedly, Izanbardprince has also vandalized my user page in the past because he disagrees with me. Thank you.

Imgi12 15:25, 13 December 2006

Just to note: Izanbardprince is currently blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, so he won't be able to respond to the above. Þicaroon 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that there is no vandalism going on in the article, but rather a content dispute which has resulted in the blocking of two users involved. Imgi12 and Izanbardprince have both falsely accused others of vandalism on the article, in what appears to be a misunderstanding of the differences between POV and vandalism. It is true though that Izanbardprince did in fact vandalize Imgi12's user page in the past and was blocked after the occurance. --Wildnox 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Downwards

This user is consistently reverting my efforts to better sort Cat:African American basketball players and Cat:American basketball players. I am seeking to delete the American basketball player category from players already in the upper category of African American players, but the editor has consistently worked against it, claiming (through his edit summaries, (not on any talk page) that "he is definitely american" or "(restored cat: African-American is a cultural identity, American is a nationality)" or, "Not African-American apparently" or "(yeah, I used to have that same outlook, but then I thought if you change one, you'll have to change them all. It's not worth it. rv). The last was in response to my message on his talk page concerning this. I asked user:darwinek to intervene on my behalf but downwards seems not to care for Wiki's rules.--Thomas.macmillan 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've issued one final warning; this looks like WP:POINT to me. I'm rolling back some of his edits now. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He kept right on reverting, so I've blocked him 24 hours - after which I discovered this lovely edit. It's too bad, as I see a lot of good edits in his contribs. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant vandalisim , personal attack

user 203.10.224.59 and his second IP addres has been addressing other editors with profanity besides blatant trolling some of his actions can be found in these links. a Contrib. Check shows that they are clearly the same guy, and at either rate both have engaged in vandalisim.[52][53] [54]

Suspected sockpuppets

203.10.224.59 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

203.10.224.60 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Marshalbannana 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't see evidence of trolling. Some mild PAs in the edit summaries, I would give you a warning Alex Bakharev 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's something funky going on with the Wales page. My apologies I don't have time to figure out how or where to report properly.