From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• August 13 - 14

Contents 1 General 1.1 Satire and WP:POINT 1.2 User:Coqsportif 1.3 Michael Parodi and User:Aesculapius75 1.4 ArmchairVexillologistDon 1.5 RIDCSP has already started making contributions . 1.6 User:Himmla 1.7 Sanity check on sockitude of User:Gateman1997 and User:BillyCreamCorn 1.8 Unlock Obesity 1.9 User:J. Jones 1.10 Doppelgander vandal 1.11 Admins, Help!!! Func (talk · contribs) is not Funс (talk · contribs) 1.12 Enforcement of User:JarlaxleArtemis's temporary injunction 1.13 Unverified images 1.14 User page attack 1.15 Michael Parodi again 1.16 petitiononline.com links 1.17 User:Boothy443 1.18 User:Witkacy 1.19 Resurrection of deleted page 1.20 Enviroknot back through TOR proxies 1.21 Willy on wheels cleanup in Special:Log/move 1.22 evil 1.23 User:Xizer 1.24 Edit war on Template:Infobox Pope 1.25 DotSix still removing comments 1.26 Insidious insertion of AOL template 1.27 Wikistalking Jimbo 1.28 Rohingya 1.29 Link removal/addition help 1.30 I need some help: Blocked IP requests "removal of any public reference" to it 1.31 Blocked User "DotSix" Using Sockpuppet to Evade Block 1.32 Www.wikinerds.org (talk · contribs) / NGK (talk · contribs) 1.33 User:ArmchairVexillologistDon (2) 1.34 Something needs to be done about User:Coqsportif. 1.35 Removal of Dispute Tags from Michael Dutton Douglas 1.35.1 Update 1.36 Permanent vandalising of my User Page 1.37 Ongoing edit war involving Lithuania-related articles 1.37.1 Bf-109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 1.37.2 How long this continue? 1.38 An imposter account 1.39 Kim Bruning 1.40 Another Mediawiki Bug? 1.41 Deletion log 1.42 User:IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch 1.43 User:Boothy443 is the assorted "IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch" usernames 1.44 Commercial spam -- Jamie Kane and Boy*d Upp 2 3RRs

[edit] General

[edit] Satire and WP:POINT

Saduj al-Dahij (talk · contribs) is pulling the stunt of posing as an incredibly pious uber-Muslim. His satirical bent is most obvious, and actually quite funny. Still, there has been a lot of tension at the Islam related articles lately, and this account is apparently an anti-Islamic user trying to ridicule his opponents by persiflage, so I do consider his behaviour blockable under the 'disruption' clause (after fair warning, of course). He will surely yell 'Islamophobia' at attempts to block him, consistent with his rôle, so I do not really know how to approach this. Other admins' comments on how to handle the case would be welcome. (oh, and see [1] for a revealing edit. also note that he has begun giving out tongue-in-cheek awards to real Islamist editors [2] (assuming Islamist (talk · contribs) is an Islamist, and not a slightly more subtle prankster)). dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, he's quite funny, so maybe it will help ease the tension; certainly a lot funnier than other strawman sockpuppets, like User:Alberuni's earlier User:Elitcher, or later User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid, which were just nasty. User:Islamist was actually a serious sockpuppet of User:Alberuni, and not intended as satire. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree he is funny, but I am concerned he may spur some more zealous users, upon whom his humour may be lost, into a blind rage. It's true that Alberuni is very hard to tell from a satire; imagine, if we got more of these pranksters, it would be very difficult to decide which are serious. Maybe we should just take him by his word and treat him as an Islamist extremist anyway. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Am I the first one, or has anybody else noticed that this user's name backwards is "jihad-la judas"? Har har. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think you just made the most singular and astute observation within this discussion. Good eye! I'm kind of on the fence about how funny this all is though. Allowing somebody to parody an ultra zealous whatever might get certain people all twisted up. Hamster Sandwich 05:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It really depends on how people take biting satire. I roll my eyes and move on. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious, but I think he should be blocked indefinitely as an account used for nothing but trolling. --malathion ^talk 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow "persiflage", I always love it when I find a new word to look up in the dictionary. I'm thinking we should adopt this as WP jargon for these posers. Almost sounds like a conflation of personal camouflage. I think User:Benjamin Gatti with his "support" of Ed Poor a la Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection, might be considered one of these. Paul August ☎ 15:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coqsportif

Continually re-inserting the VfD tag at Israeli terrorism, despite that the article's VfD just closed today; also insists upon mass deletions and Wikipedia self-referencing on the (obviously) heated article. After my last removal of the VfD tag, user engaged in unacceptable personal attack, referring to me as a "self-hater." I'm not sure what to do here, but figured this is the right place to comment. Shem^(talk) 04:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is a strawman sockpuppet. Look at his contribution list and note the similarities with this one but with messages and edits that give the opposite intended effect of the other. This comes after several similar accounts were banned, but were instead used for the purposes of reverting contributions of mine en masse. "Bee Hive", "Lamb Chop", "MaquisMesser", "Jay-Z". Notice that all of these accounts are familiar with the voting process as well as more basic things like the acronym "rv", though in this case there has been a more genuine attempt to appear newbieish, relinking to archived Vfds, leaving messages without headers and at the top of talk pages, etc. --TJive 04:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC) Also, see #Lamb Chop. --TJive 04:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

He has now followed my editing to an article on Australian Senator Andrew Bartlett (photographed on my User page); this is deliberate harassment. Shem^(talk) 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and it now appears that "Coqsportif" has been reduced to attempting the same reversions. Take a gander at the edit history of National Endowment for Democracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which is not only among the previous sets of mass reversions of my material but in this case he has also reverted completely unrelated edits by another user. Each incarnation is more disruptive than the last. --TJive 04:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

He is also disrupting articles like Israeli terrorism and Ron Paul to prove a point. --TJive 05:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Has likewise made the same pattern of insertions and changes to the same pages as this User [3], who has been warned on vandalism. Seems to be trying to deliberately provoke a response. nobs 05:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My edits stand up to any informed scrutiny. This section is now being used as a dubious basis for reverting every edit I make, without reason. I will not tolerate it. Coqsportif 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Coqsportif has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR at Harry Magdoff. WP:AN/3RR#User:Coqsportif SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This user also edited Robin Cook adding negative POV and weasel words and his summary gave the implication of positive POV. Certainly annoying, if nothing else. Secretlondon 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The username "Coq Sportif" makes reference to a French sportwear brand. The image on his user page can be seen as taking an old image out of context as to ridiculise French symbolism (the image is ridiculous all right, like for instance propaganda posters of the Second World War). It is very close to the sort of rethorics one can witness on sites like http://www.fuckfrance.com . Also, the image has been edited to read Va te faire foutre ("go fuck yourself"), which I strongly doubt our little friend here is unaware of. Hence my remark at the bottom of this page. I think that this, added to the nature of his contributions, hint at a disturbance-dedicated user account, which we might as well forcibly definitely shut down. Rama 14:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This user, at first glance, seems to share the same interests as User:Reithy (Ron Paul, Placentophagy, etc. [4], who hasn't edited since Novmber 2004. What that means or implies I leave up to those with a longer history here. --Calton | Talk 14:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to see if they have the same location etc before jumping to conclusions. We've had loads of US-based anti-French editors. It was quite fashionable at one point. Secretlondon 14:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Ron Paul may be chocked up to coincidence as the single edit was simply from a crude nationalist POV rather than the general, and extensive, fulminations in which Reithy engaged. Placentophagy, however, provides a point with some contiguity in reverting which may require a further look.

On the other hand, the initial set of edits have great overlap with those of Ruy Lopez, whose mentioned sockpuppets have previously been banned for their mass reversions. Specifically, "Coq" insinuated himself into not only a Vfd initiated by Ruy, but as well into the Israeli terrorism article where he attempted to clumsily reinstate a Vfd process and subsequently purged the information. The others consist of the same articles Ruy has recently been reverting, such as William Remington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), VENONA project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), I.F. Stone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Pol Pot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Harry Magdoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Elizabeth Bentley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and Robert McNamara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). One might question what the purpose is of this beyond disrupting the work of users, but if you turn your attention to National Endowment for Democracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), you see that this user, along with the first two above mentioned (and in this case indefinitely banned) sockpuppets, "Bee Hive" and "Lamb Chop" (see also: #Lamb Chop) continues with the same revert of NED. Once I undid this he reverted to form, inserting a statement which suggests quite an opposite opinion (and thus conforming to the standard "Coq" edit. When it came time for Satellite state (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (a history which shows one point of direct continuity between Ruy and a sockpuppet), however, "Coq" simply inserted crude POV claims that suggested this opposite perspective. The evidence is clear at the bare minimum that "Coq" trails the contributions of myself and Ruy, making disruptive edits. I would contend that what this shows is that this is the newest Ruy sockpuppet which attempts to bury its repeated reversions amid several other disputes which serve as red herrings. In either this or the opposed case however it is clear that this user is not new, is a sockpuppet of another user, and is intent on disrupting and mass reverting many articles at once. --TJive 15:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

But Ruy is a communist, and Coq a US nationalist. Why would Ruy have a sockpuppet with an opposite view point? Secretlondon 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Already answered above: TJive called him a strawman sockpuppet. --cesarb 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean User:Adam Carr says I'm a communist (which I have never said I was, Adam Carr on the other hand said he was in a communist group - I prefer for myself the old 60's term "anti-anti-communist"). As far as TJive's elaborate theories about who Coqsportif is - he says Coqsportif is a sock puppet of mine. Furthermore, it is not a typical sock puppet that would be created to get around 3RR, or do blatant vandalism and the like. He says I have created a sock puppet that makes lots of wild edits in "attempts to bury its repeated reversions amid several other disputes which serve as red herrings." I can do him one better. TJive has created this sock puppet to make it look as if it was my sock puppet. Being very clever, he makes it look like I tried to not make it my sock puppet, but in a way where it would look like it actually was my sock puppet. Plus he gets the added bonus of making all of those US nationalist edits on top of casting suspicion on me. Putting past the point that TJive is obviously a sock puppet - look at his first ten edits, it is obvious he is a sock puppet. I have been here for over a year. Ruy Lopez 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The only point of response that is necessary at this time is to note that there is significant evidence in favor of Ruy Lopez sockpuppetry (irrespective of the identity of Coqsportif) and not but an insinuation in Lopez's favor. --TJive 22:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to disrupt a good faith dispute settlement [5]. Persistent vandalism to Harry Magdoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), VENONA project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Elizabeth Bentley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), William Remington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Harry Dexter White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Harry Magdoff and espionage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and I.F. Stone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Same pattern of vandalism demonstrated as this user [6], who has been notified, warned & reported. nobs 19:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Secretlondon, this was already addressed. The primary purpose, generally, of a "strawman sockpuppet" is to attempt to show cupidity and ignorance from the opposite POV of what is held by the actual, living breathing person. The edits themselves serve to disrupt the pages in question with crude, POV language and continual reverts of material. The selections in question as I outlined demonstrate the same pattern of topics chosen. However, there is another single purpose which is a continuation of reverts which began under other sockpuppets for which it was the only point and action of the account--most of these have been banned. That is shown by the actions in the NED article, where the same revert was picked up by "Coq". In this manner a real purpose (and POV) is being demonstrated albeit hidden in a swath of others which all suggest the entire opposite. Hence massive disruptions of many articles where there is a prior user concern and where there is not. I expect that he is learning from the mistakes he made in revealing himself and will attempt a different tack of justification in his reverts the next time around. --TJive 02:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I find this all a little conspiratorial and I seriously require some evidence. The concept of a "strawman sockpuppet" is a new one to me. I notice that you've all been fighting on the same pages - maybe you are all sockpuppets of each other? For example Coq edited Robin Cook, Ruy (or any other bogeymen) hasn't edited that page. Why would Ruy's bizarre anti-alter ego edit that page if Ruy hadn't edited it? This feels like you are witchunting Ruy by making him responsible for editors with your POV whose modus operandi you find unhelpful. Secretlondon 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Secretlondon, I know you are on good terms with Ruy but unless you are prepared to explain what is otherwise a massive, involved, and tiring coincidence with the edit histories of five separate registered users all of which have chronologically contiguous obsessions over the same sets of articles and the evidence for which has been laid out here for you to survey at your leisure, your claim of "witchhunting" falls far short. --TJive 08:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

As one of the users who ultimately became rather closely involved in the Reithy/Chuck F foolishness, I'm virtually certain this is a reincarnation of Reithy -- the combination of Ron Paul, Placentophagy, and Liberal Democratic Party of Australia is simply too bizarre to be ignored. I see no reason to suspect sockpuppetry by Ruy Lopez, Strawman or otherwise -- Reithy was also more interested in stirring up trouble anywhere he could find it than in pushing any particular political ageanda. Seeing as Jimbo banned Reithy indefinitely last November, I see no reason to tolerate any more of his foolishness. RadicalSubversiv E 21:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly however it must be an elaborate coincidence for this user to initiate edits which follow a chronological path through four prior sockpuppets as well to make an identical revert and vote/disrupt the same sets of articles. If anyone cares to look through the contributions of the accounts in question and follow the dates to confirm or deny this they may, but little explanation is forthcoming. See also SlimVirgin's talk page. --TJive 04:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped editing, though I'm minded to block the account if it starts up again. There are too many complaints of disruption, and people are complaining by e-mail too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He now claims to have been a previous editor but not to have edited since 2003. See the section here. --TJive 08:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He's back, initially pretended his block hadn't cleared and he could only post on his talk page, so I locked his talk page, and lo and behold, he was in fact able to post elsewhere. He didn't e-mail me during the block, he says, because he didn't know how to. I don't believe him: I think it's because he doesn't want to risk revealing his IP address. There were other silly claims I won't go into. I've told him I'm going to block him if there's any more disruption, so if any of you are keeping a close eye on him, please let me know if the trouble starts up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He says he is going through old articles to figure out what his name was, and that he is none of the above users. --TJive 08:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Minutes after posting to my talk page and obviously visiting my user page, the user copied the Category:Wikipedians in Hawaii on my user page and copied it to his own. I removed it twice since I thought it was pretty obvious Coqsportif was engaging in some kind mimickry/mockery troll, but he claims that I'm vandalizing his user page. Today on my talk page, the user has admitted that he does not currently live in Hawaii but claims to have been born there. Out of curiousity, I asked him the name of the island and town just to confirm his knowledge of Hawaii, but I was greeted with silence in response. So, the user adds the category back to his user page, admits he doesn't live in Hawaii, and refuses to talk about the claim that he does. If this isn't trolling I don't know what is. --Viriditas | Talk 12:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding a category link as was done. Doing so is not "trolling". His "admission" was that Hawaii was not currently his primary residence, but that he owns a home there, was born there and will be returning to live in said home which his parents currently occupy. I understand that these claims (coming from someone who has made questionable use of Wikipedia) are likely untrue, however, if we went around stripping out anything in anyone's talk page that we felt they had not substantiated properly... well, at least WikiMedia's servers would have some reclaimed disk space ;-) -Harmil 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with removing articles from categories if they are miscategorized. Coqsportif admits that he doesn't live in Hawaii so I'm not clear why he's added the category, in this case minutes after commenting on my talk page. It looks to me like he's deliberately trolling for a reaction, much like the image he originally added to his user page. In response to his claim, I've asked him what island he was born on and he refuses to answer. I don't see why that question is so difficult to answer other than the possibility that he's making it all up. In any case, he got my attention after I told him I was ignoring him, so it was a successful troll. --Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is the end of the matter now but for the record I am happy to disclose my birthplace, my property ownership, my ancestry all of which demonstrate I am 100% Hawaiian. But I won't be answering to Viriditas who seems to be engaging in a form of trolling new to me, which is that you accuse someone else of being a troll and then puruse their every edit. I have no wish for interaction of any kind with Viriditas, I did not initiate any, I will not be seeking any. That doesn't sound like trolling but his behavior might well be. Either way I make no formal complaint and just wish the matter to conclude peacefully, it is obvious I started off on the wrong foot and I hope I can quickly fix that and get in step. Thank you to all those who addressed the issue of protecting my user page from Viriditas' edits, it is appreciated. Coqsportif 21:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Coqsportif has a total of 360 edits to date, ~277 of which do not contain edit summaries. At 11:53 on August 12, I added the {{subst:summary}} user talk namespace template as a reminder for this user. Approximately one minute later, at 11:54, Coqsportif removed the reminder with the comment, "remove trolling". [7] --Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the Wikipedia policy/guidelines that mandate user of edit summaries, I don't dispute what Viriditas claims, I'd just like to see for myself. Am also interested in what the policy says about wikistalking. Might be useful for him to read too. Coqsportif 05:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking? Pot, kettle, black, "Coqsportif." Shem^(talk) 05:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif, you have beeen "pointed" to the guideline twice, and twice you have removed it from your talk page with the summary, "thanks troll". [8] [9]. You've also done the same thing by asking users to contact you, yet you refuse to provide an email address. I think it's pretty clear who is the troll, here. --Viriditas | Talk 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Although the use of edit summaries is not an etched-in-stone requirement, it is generally accepted that using them is a Good Thing and it is a heavily encouraged guideline. It is considered poor form not to use them because it greatly inconveniences other editors—patrollers who watch Recent changes and editors who have an article watchlisted find a brief descriptive summary very useful in their work. Nobody will (or at least should) yell at you if you occasionally forget to add one, but we would all really appreciate it if you made the effort.

It is also worth noting that Wikipedia's policy on civility also applies to edit summaries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that after two polite reminders on the users talk page, as well as this discussion, the user is continuing to edit without filling out the summary field. --Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User has now blanked his talk page [10], as well as outstanding source requests for images that the user has uploaded, including Image:Lecoqsportif.gif and Image:Remington.jpg. --Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User is now spamming my talk page with nonsensical messages [11][12][13]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User is now trolling Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion in regards to Image:Gropecunt-Lane.gif, the second fake image that the user uploaded in addition to Image:Lecoqsportif.gif. --Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No image was fake, one was a cheese label taken from the web and the other a photograph I took years ago. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User has "welcomed" a new sockpuppet, User:Ray Lopez [14]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This should not be ignored. Shem^(talk) 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain how one recognizes a sockpuppet? I might also add when I saw Ray do the wrong thing, I counselled him not to. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one scenario: At 03:29, 13 August 2005 User:Coqsportif votes on a poll at Talk:Joe Scarborough [15][16]. In a nearly identical vote to the same poll as Coqsportif, User:Ray Lopez arrives and makes his first edit at 11:18, 13 August on Talk:Joe Scarborough [17]. Twenty minutes later, at 11:38, 13 August, Coqsportif "welcomes" Ray on his talk page [18]. At 03:59, 14 August, Coqsportif edits Talk:Joe Scarborough and removes a link to User:Stirling Newberry's blog, with the summary, "remove spam link" [19]. At 04:09, 14 August, Coqsportif claims to "remove spam" from a comment by Stirling Newberry on User talk:Ray Lopez [20]. At 08:04, 14 August Coqsportif is blocked for a 3RR violation [21]. Almost two hours later, User:Ray Lopez shows up, with the edit summary, "Removed Stirling Newberry's Spam" [22]. --Viriditas | Talk 13:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize that in "Ray Lopez"'s "vote" in the Scarborough article that he replaced a previous vote of Ruy Lopez? That makes it rather clear that regardless of the identity of either Coq or "Ray" that the latter is an impersonating sockpuppet which needs indefinitely banned. --TJive 15:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

User has violated 3RR on Gropecunt Lane by reverting five times. [23][24][25][26][27]--Viriditas | Talk 07:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Clear exception to 3RR here for two reasons:

• The image has been proposed for deletion, it was deleted from the article by Viriditas which in turn makes it an orphan which means it will be deleted. Rather circular, don't you think? In these circumstances, I believe what is going on is vandalism although I will leave that to others to judge.
• The image was initially deleted because it was said to be fake, I think that misunderstanding has been cleared up and now the image is being examined but not on any grounds that would justify its deletion. Viriditas' actions in deleting the image need to be corrected, which is exactly what I did, reverting vandalism is not in breach of the 3RR which is why I persisted with it. I believe I was right to do so. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a clear 3RR violation. Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif (talk · contribs) now appears to be openly using at least one sock puppet, I-2-d2 (talk · contribs), possibly to game the system. Here is a small selection of edits:

• 12:47, 16 August 2005, First edit by I-2-d2. Uploads Image:Usflag.jpg for use on talk page. Compare this to the last version of Coqsportif's User page which contained Image:Hawaii_state_flag.png [28]
• 13:57, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 adds Image:50728.gif to his user page [29].
• 14:53, 16 August 2005 I-2-d2 edits The O'Reilly Factor [30] and is promptly reverted for inserting unsourced POV. [31]
• 18:24, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 reverts to Coqsportif on CNN. [32]
• 18:26, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 adds "dictator" to National_Assembly_of_Iraq[33]
• 18:51, 16 August 2005, I-2-d2 reverts to almost full previous version by Coqsportif on George Galloway [34][35]
• 18:54, 16 August 2005, Coqsportif removes Image:Hawaii_state_flag.png and adds Image:50728.gif to his user page. [36] At this point, I-2-d2 and Coqsportif have virtually identical user pages.
• 19:18, 16 August 2005, Coqsportif edits Bill O'Reilly (commentator) [37] and is promptly reverted for inserting unsourced POV [38]
• 22:06, 16 August 2005, Coqsportif adds "dictator" to Saddam Hussein[39]

--Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Parodi and User:Aesculapius75

User:Aesculapius75 wrote this article, which he has indicated is about his father. Although I will not argue about whether or not his father is notable, Aesculapius75 insists on not only including a photograph of himself as a baby in the article, but an external link to his own, personal, non-notable amazon.com writings, and links his own name to Arun Gandhi in the page. When these links are removed, he reverts them and indicates that he will continue to do so. Zoe 18:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This can be a serious matter. If it's a question of inserting advertising links into article space, the recourse would either be an RfC on the article or a VfD on it (for advertising). If it's in user space.... Well, that gets complicated, but no one may use his or her user page for advertising. When vanity crosses over into advertising is a tough call. Geogre 04:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Aesculapius75's Talk page that he should stop adding these links about himself to the article, and have suggested he put them on his User page. If he continues, I have indicated that I will block him. Is this appropriate? Zoe 23:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArmchairVexillologistDon

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs) has returned and begun editing actively again. The arbitration case which concerns him has been reactivated. He remains subject to a temporary ban editing ban pending resolution of his case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision#Limited_ban_on_ArmchairVexillologistDon

"ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly."

Fred Bauder 19:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon has been warned but has persisted in breaking the tempban by posting at Talk:French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag, an article relating to both Canada and vexillogy. Homey 00:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

AVD also made those same edits by placing the link to the recently VFD's article into Flag of Canada and also edited Canada. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for disruption and harassment because he published an editor's name again today after being asked many times not to. Here's where he admits doing it. [40] I've left a note on his talk page saying I'll discuss the length of the block with him if he e-mails me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RIDCSP has already started making contributions .

Sir, I am writing to inform you that RIDCSP has already started making contributions . Thanks. User:222.133.52.110

Roger that, we have RIDCSP, repeat we have RIDCSP, over. --Golbez 00:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The message above was written by 222.133.52.110, who originally created the page User: RIDCSP, where RIDCSP stands for "The Research Institute for Development,Communication and School Partnership", a Cameroon organisation. There was a thread about it here before, but it has rolled off. The perceived problem was that it wasn't a userpage at all, but a (rather promotional) description of an organization, and we discussed whether the page should be deleted. Instead, I rewrote the text for NPOV, moved it to article space, and created its talk page to tell 222.133.52.110 that an organization can't be a wiki user, but s/he'd be most welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia as an individual. 222.133.52.110, you are indeed welcome, but it would be better if you created an account for yourself with an individualized name, a person's name--you can be as anonymous as you like--and a userpage that fits that account. Avoid calling yourself the name of an organization. Please click on the "talk" link in my signature if you want me to help set you up; that'll take you to my own talk page. The page User: RIDCSP is now just a redirect to the article RIDCSP, it's not a userpage--it's not "you". In other words, you have already contributed a good, informative article to the encyclopedia, you should be proud. :-) Bishonen | talk 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Himmla

Look at the page User:Himmla. I felt somewhat offended but I thought I'd gather some consensus before we do anything about it. Redwolf24 00:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on his other edits, he seems to not be the best wikipedia has to offer, but the content of the User page alone doesn't seem objectionable to me. Every one of those images are used in actual articles, several of them in one article. He didn't say "haha look at this". (Though the assumption is, again based on his other edits, that he's probably saying that).

Long story short: I'm sure he'll do something blockable long before we decide what to do about the pictures on his user page. --Golbez 00:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, if this diff is any indication. Let the userpage slide. I'll warn him about the vandalism on his talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the only five edits, it's safe to say this account has been created solely for vandalism. See this diff (vandalism on another user's page) and [41] (linking to a football player on a list of deities). Also, the username is very similar to the Nazi Himmler, not likely to be a coincidence. I have blocked indefinetely. Carbonite | Talk 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

And we may not have noticed him so quickly if not for Redwolf. I'm saying this so that Redwolf doesn't feel like we dismissed his concerns. :) They were the right concerns, just about the wrong edits. ;) (Though yeah, it was kind of a red flag to appear to be glorifying 9/11 like that). All the pieces of evidence fit in to place. :) --Golbez 00:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

So if a user is banned, is it then okay to blank out his user page? Dragons flight 01:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oh Im so offended :P Well the pictures there were out of context and it said Has no desire to learn English... etc. And to Dragons: I'm an admin so I'd just delete it. Redwolf24 03:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity check on sockitude of User:Gateman1997 and User:BillyCreamCorn

• Gateman1997 (talk · contribs)
• BillyCreamCorn (talk · contribs)

Gateman1997 admits to sharing a proxy with this chap. Gateman, a school deletionist, created an article Village Preschool of Saratoga. BillyCreamCorn, a user whose first edit had been just two days before, showed up half an hour later and listed it for deletion.

Thoughts? This is a relatively non-serious instance of sock puppetry, if thatis what it is, just a chap having fun at the expense of kneejerk school inclusionism. Still would be interesting to know if it is, because he's screaming blue murder about it right now. I've asked David Gerard if he'll run a check, too. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock Obesity

Can someone unlock obesity? It was protected against vandalism. Now it is nominated on WP:IDRIVE and it needs to be unlocked for this project.--Fenice 08:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've unprotected it. 10 days was too long IMHO anyway. In the future, WP:RFPP is probably the more appropriate place for this. Dmcdevit·t 09:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:J. Jones

Take a look at this Request for arbitration. I am quite sure J. Jones is another MARMOT sock, given his insult of Linuxbeak. I am very tempted to just revert his edit to WP:RFAr and block J. Jones indefinitely, but what do you think? Can I remove requests for arbitration which are obviously disruptive/bad faith/vandalism or should I let the arbitrators get a chance to reject them? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I got edit conflicted by that post; I brought it to the attention of Sannse on IRC and she has removed it. For future note: Her suggestion was to leave removals on RfAr to arbitrators. -- Essjay · Talk 13:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If Marmot wants to request arbitration and is currently blocked, then s/he can do so via email to any arbitrator. If someone else wants to do so on Marmot's behalf, then they can do so without the bad language and we'll have a look. I see no need to put up with attacks like those in this last request -- sannse (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:J. Jones as a sockpuppet of User:MARMOT. I see that the dealing with such socks has been discussed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, User:MARMOT's actions really border on comical. It's really pathetic watching him, seeing that he was blocked months ago. I mean... if he's trying to make me angry or upset, he's failing. Maybe he needs something in his life... like a job. Oh well, stupid people exist for the entertainment of others. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doppelgander vandal

I have blocked User:Funс (Fun%D1%81) indefinately as a vandal and imposter of of User:Func (Func). Hopefully we will not be seeing a lot of vandals creating UNICODE look alike accounts. --Allen3 ^talk 15:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a technical way to prevent the use of Unicode in usernames on en:? I can't think of a good reason to allow anything beyond the regular ASCII character set for usernames. Heck, there's no good reason to go beyond the basic alphanumerics. Has someone already filed a bug report requesting this change? This problem apparently affects any username containing the letter 'c'; I don't need to describe how irritating it could become. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of bloking non-Latin characters, I would recommend a table to map non-Latin characters that look like Latin characters to the Latin one before the actual account creation. In this case, changing the Es (Cyrillic) to C. Such a mapping function would prevent many possible doppelgangers while still allowing for users to use letters like Bet, Pi, or Ya that do not pose as doppelganger threats. --Allen3 ^talk 17:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How do you display the underlying UNICODE charachters, to be able to tell the usernames apart? Paul August ☎ 16:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess you could copy the user names to some editor which allows you to display the text in Hexidecimal, but is there some easy way to do this inside Wikipedia? Paul August ☎ 16:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the vandal only had a couple contribs, you can visit the User page and look at the address bar in your browser - if it says "Func", then it's the real Func, and if it says "Fun%D1%81" then it's a fake. - jredmond 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not in Mac Safari. I was really baffled. It looked like my user name, in every way. You know, others have brought this up before, and I would like to bring it up again: we really need a Special:Newusers list, just as we have a Special:Newpages. Func( t, c ) 16:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a Special:Newusers list would be a great idea; it would help us shut down imposters, doppelgangers and abusive sockpuppets right from the start.

The Cyrillic "es" issue has come up before: here [42] is where I posted about it about a month ago. On the two computers/browsers I usually use for Wikipedia, Cyrillic "es" looks just like "c", especially in Recent Changes, where we need to be able to spot the difference. Antandrus (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the "Newusers" idea. Paul August ☎ 17:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I also support this idea. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that exists a Special:Contributions/newbies, which does not work anymore since someone created an account with that name. The discussion was on the VP IIRC. (Oddly, I just checked and it works. Maybe it was fixed?) --cesarb 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This brings up a related question. About a month ago there was a proposed policy for preemptively reserving doppleganger account names. I thought it sounded like a reasonable idea at the time, but couldn't find it again when I was able to act on it. Anyone else save a bookmark to that page? slambo 18:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. -Splash 18:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. --cesarb 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, MediaWiki is back to merging separate edits. --cesarb 18:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• There was also a suggestion to disallow non-ASCII characters in usernames in the first place. There are a few legit users with strange names, these could be grandfathered. New users should then have 'simple' names. Of course this doesn't prevent them from doing the lower-L/capital-I trick, but it greatly reduces possibilities of impersonation. Radiant_>|< 08:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is probably a problem affecting lots of Wikipedias. ASCII only would stop lots of legitimate names and the vandals would find something else. Secretlondon 21:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many legitimate names would it affect here on en:? I can't think of any non-ASCII usernames among the regulars here, and vanishingly few cases in total. Perhaps I'm just not seeing them.... Of course the vandals would find something else, but I'd feel a lot better if I could be sure on RC that RickK was RickK, and that Func was Func. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, none. Of course, if such a non-ASCII ban were implemented, it should only affect the English wiki (and other wikis that request it) but for instance on the Japanese one it's not very useful. Radiant_>|< 08:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admins, Help!!! Func (talk · contribs) is not Funс (talk · contribs)

Um, I'm not sure how this is happening. I think the 'c' in this other Func's name may be some kind of Unicode or something. Please block and permaband this vandal account. Er, and please make sure you ban the correct account. :) I'm just "Func", this guy is using these characters: Funс

Thanks. Func( t, c ) 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to save anyone else going looking, this has apparently been done :-) Dan100 (Talk) 22:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There has also been a similar instance when somebody was posing as RickK. Maybe the same user. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement of User:JarlaxleArtemis's temporary injunction

For a second time, this user has violated the temporary injunction as detailed in his current ArbCom case. He apparently has no intention of honoring this injunction, so please keep an eye out on him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jarlaxle has violated his temporary injunction for a third time. He's apparently not going to honor the injunction. May I suggest a week-long block? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Does anyone have any concerns if I deleted all of these images? They are all unsourced. I'll leave this for 12 hours or so and if noone objects, into the bit bucket they go! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for these. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

and these. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Malathion may want to use these as a way of trying out his new gatling mop... Tomer ^TALK 08:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User page attack

Would appreciate if an administrators could look in at my user page and determine whether Viriditas is changing my user page with cause or whether it constitutes vandalism. I don't request any action other than someone have a quiet word with him about it. Seems a particularly unpleasant thing to do to change my user page without good reason or even discussing it first. Would welcome the resolution of the issue by an admin with some experience as I don't really want to make a big deal of it, just to stop it. Coqsportif 12:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop on his talk page. Tell me if this continues. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. Coqsportif 21:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Parodi again

I have blocked both User:Romer and User:Aesculapius75 for 24 hours for vandalizing this page yet again, although the two are making differnt edits. I've suggested to Aesculapius75, who is the subject's son and the creator of the article, that the vanity links to himself should be on his User page, but he refuses to agree, and has indicated that he will return as sock puppets to make the same changes if he is blocked. Romer just says that the page is an attack, although all of the information seems valid to me, and keeps reverting to a bland, non-wikified version despite the efforts of several users to edit the page to a valid Wikipedia-format level. Zoe 19:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] petitiononline.com links

Recently there was a request at meta for blacklisting this site because of problematic links being added to some petition regarding Elvis Presley. I did add it to the blacklist but am now unsure whether that was appropriate. I did a search to try to ascertain the extent of the problem, and there are 126 links to this site. They have been added by a wide variety of contributors. Since Wikipedia is not advocacy, I do not believe these links are appropriate and am removing all but the best-justified cases.

Anyway, I'd appreciate comments.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so I agree that links to petitiononline.com aren't appropriate. In my opinion you can go ahead and blacklist/remove them. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• What he said. The vast bulk of petitiononline.com petitions fail the "is it encyclopedic" test anyway. - jredmond 22:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Why did you remove [43] this section of the Ashlee Simpson article? About eight months ago, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and the decision was to keep that paragraph, complete with cited sources. --Carnildo 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I have now put it back. I was unaware of the discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Carnildo is misrepresenting the situation completely. In fact there is no consensus about it. I for one favored the removal of that paragraph. Everyking 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that because you disagree with that paragraph, there is no consensual support for it? Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes. Everyking 09:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

          No consensus is possible on deciding whether or not to remove a paragraph, because it's a yes/no question. If the concepts we're looking for are "majority" or "lone dissenter", then let's use those. Consensus on how the information in that paragraph ought to be represented is another matter altogether. (Disclaimer: this is a definition flame. I have not seen the paragraph in question nor am I aware of the discussion on it.) JRM · Talk 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said @ Talk:Spam_blacklist on meta, I think this link was beneficial to the Sherry Shriner article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boothy443

As per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 3#Category:Delaware River crossings, consensus was to merge Category:Delaware River crossings into Category:Delaware River. Boothy443 took exception to this, and reverted the changes that K1Bond001 had made. I warned Boothy that this was per consensus, and if he did it again, he would run afoul of 3RR. He did, so I blocked him for one day. Now a series of IP's have been recreating the deleted category and recategorizing the articles. I've blocked the first one, but I can't do this all night. Anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this besides protecting the articles? --Kbdank71 21:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At least this will spice up Boothy's RFC. Looks like the IPs are completely different; in fact, they're registered to different continents. So either this is hacking at work; meatpuppetry; or an honest third party involved. (from the history of [44], 200.x is registered to LACNIC (latin american/caribbean NIC), and 203.x is registered to APNIC (asian/pacific NIC). More specifically, the 200 address is Brazilian, the 203 address is Vietnamese.) --Golbez 22:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing they're open proxies. Anyone know how to tell for sure? This is interesting: [45] and our very own Administrator's Noticeboard comes right up in the hit list. Antandrus (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Witkacy

User:Witkacy is vandalising my Talk Page and just broke 3RR rule on Lithuania article. Bf-109 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

While Witkacy surely has his ways, I believe he is right in this issue. The problem is that Bf-109 (talk · contribs) shows a modus operandi bearing strong resemblance of that of Zivinbudas (talk · contribs), who was banned for one year and a right of revert on the spot was granted to all of the community. Also, the alleged vandalization of his talk page consisted entirely of pointing to the final decision of the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final_decision). Halibutt 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

"His ways" indeed. You're play so well with others.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 23:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection of deleted page

About a month ago, a nn vp on Jason Fitterer was deleted (q.v.). An article on the same guy has been restarted by 64.53.214.41 (talk · contribs). Someone might want to check out whether or not that's the same anon who wrote the original (now-deleted) article. He still looks just as non-notable as he did then (although this time we aren't blessed with a picture of him), I may be wrong, but this looks like a candidate for speedy... Tomer ^TALK 23:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's 80% the same as the pre-VfD version, the VfD version was deleted because of vanity (so any article on the same guy is not appropriate unless things have changes), and I can count 11 previous deletions (well, now it's 12 — deleted). And yes, it's the same IP. --cesarb 00:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Due to the IP's sheer persistence last time, I've preemptively protected the article, instead of using my usual "three recreations rule" rule of thumb. --cesarb 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enviroknot back through TOR proxies

Enviroknot has discovered TOR. What a clever boy! The list is here - the whole lot would qualify to be blocked indefinitely as open proxies per blocking policy. I am about to go to bed, could someone else please go through the list and make sure they're all blocked? - David Gerard 00:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't an attempt to autoblock open proxies (of the conventional kind) last time backfire because too many blocks caused a slowdown? It would be better to ask a developer before going wild on the blockip page. --cesarb 00:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice also that tor supports "policies"; it is possible that some nodes on that list blocked access to the Wikipedia servers, and thus should not be blocked. An up-to-date list of servers, together with policies, is at http://moria.seul.org:9031/. For instance, 130.89.25.10 is listed as not accepting any outbound connection, and it's on the proxy.org list, even though it cannot be used as an open proxy. So, there is no need to block it, but you wouldn't know by looking only at proxy.org. --cesarb 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking on #wikimedia-tech if there's a technical consideration. And if you have a better TOR list, that'd be most useful. Looking at the edits from some of the IPs, the trolls are discovering TOR big-time - David Gerard 12:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The one at http://moria.seul.org:9031/ is the best list you can find; it has all the information you might want about every tor server (not all of them are exit nodes, but you can verify it by looking at the reject/accept lines). The records on it are separated by blank lines, and the lines beginning with "router" have the IP address for each record. The records with no "accept" lines and a "reject *:*" line do not need to be blocked. As for the rest, unless they have an exclusion on Wikipedia's IP block or on port 80 (looking through the list I've seen at least one which can only be used for IRC), go on and block. I'm just worried about possible technical effects of blocking the whole lot at once instead of gradually. --cesarb 16:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Recently there has been a claim on the mailing list that Enviroknot wasn't who he has been alleged to be. Perhaps this whole matter has been mishandled and should be reconsidered? Is there any technical evidence we can look at? Everyking 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot is ElKabong is KaintheScion is all the other banned names you'll see on the block list. He was coming in through usually-matching houston.res.rr.com addresses, now is coming in through TOR networks - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There has been a claim, yes. I fear that it holds not even a little water, however. Perhaps, yes, it has been mishandled, but I find the possibility vanishingly remote. There is technical evidence, but it is not for public consumption (privacy policy and all that).

We have more important things to worry about than whether in blocking accounts thought to be used by one troll we instead did so on accounts of another troll, such as, gosh, writing an encyclopædia.

James F. (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? We can't even see technical evidence now? I just have to take you guys' word for it? Everyking 09:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you do - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

blocking open relays is proper procedure, never mind Enviroknot's identity. What 'claim' incidentiallly, that E-knot wasn't 'who he has been alleged to be'? I don't care who he is, apart from being a wikipedia troll. What does it matter if a troll is a sockpuppet of another troll? It's all the difference between blocking one troll, twice, or two trolls, once each. dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the question of whether this person is in fact a troll. I don't know. But I do know a lot seems to be pinned on these sockpuppetry allegations, so if they aren't correct that would seem to suggest it might be helpful to have a community review of the situation. Everyking 09:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

you are awfuly willing to accept as true the claims of a known troll.Geni 11:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Whether this person is in fact a troll"? What in God's name would you call a "troll" then, if this person isn't it? - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I know practically nothing about this person's editing, I can't say. All I was doing was basing my point on what I read on the mailing list. It seemed like something pretty important to consider when the question of Enviroknot came up. Everyking 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry. The guy's being quite the PITA and I'm getting overly terse about him. He started as a POV-pusher then decided he was clever and would run multiple names. He was spotted immediately, partly because he kept using his home cable connection (RoadRunner cable, DHCP but doesn't change very fast at all) but mostly because his editing style is distinctive (he doesn't just act like a dick, he distinctively acts like one), to the point where the AC sanctioned him. So he spawned ever more usernames, all editing in the same trolling and POVpushing style from the same few IPs, also trolling on the wikien-l mailing list and on IRC. Recently he discovered Tor and has been editing and IRCing through that (leading to frequent short blocks on *!*@*tor* on #wikipedia - Freenode policy is against long blocks on Tor). Whether it's one troll or two (it's one), the behaviour of either is obnoxious enough to block as needed in the opinion of me and many others - David Gerard 13:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, when somebody admits that they've been lying for months, it's not a good idea to readily assume that everything they're saying now is the gospel truth. --Michael Snow 17:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But there is the privacy issue to consider. Unless information on everybody's IP address is to become public, we will have to trust a small committee to do the sock checking. Presently that committee consists of David Gerard and Tim Starling. In this particular case, I see no reason to doubt their word. And besides, Enviro's behavior was unacceptable whether or not he was socking. Radiant_>|< 11:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I note the houston.res.rr.com addresses 'cos he's come in through those as an IP as well. His editing style is pretty distinctive - David Gerard 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Even without corroboration, I would be inclined to block all of those users. Their characteristic writing style is very similar, and extremely trollish. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the sockpuppets were very interested in editing each other's user/talk pages. They'd remove sockpuppet notices and rant against the injustice that these "unrelated" users were experiencing at the hands of the tyrant admins. The claim on the mailing list is almost certainly an attempt at retcon. Basically, A Nony Mouse admitted being KaintheScion and ElKabong and then lied through his teeth with this "social engineering" tripe in attempt to make people think 6 innocent users were caught in a witch hunt. Carbonite | Talk 13:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, actually the joke is on David Gerard. He just won't admit it; even though the proof is in his increasingly overreaching actions, he plods away, and blocks or bans anyone he disagrees with.

I created only two accounts, named KaintheScion and ElKabong. They were designed in a deliberate attempt to provoke David Gerard, using obvious violations of the rules and an exploit in certain routers and Windows XP remote admin software that allows a user to take a "local" IP address from a distant area and use it. Yes, I know and freely admit that this was a gross violation of WP:POINT but Gerard has never been known to listen to reason before, so drastic action was needed.

What I failed to consider was (A) how overzealous David Gerard and others in his cabal really are and (B) how opportunistic certain POV pushers on Wikipedia would be about screaming "sockpuppet" and attaching whatever the name of the latest Wikipedia bogeyman is to the complaint.

In short, I screwed up. Three months after the experiment, David Gerard is still on his witch hunt. Those in his cabal are eagerly helping him cover up his lapse in judgement because in doing so they can cover their own. At least six usernames that I did NOT create are banned. I have a hunch that some of them might be sockpuppets, since there are admins on Wikipedia who will freely advise blocked users to come back under new names as a "fresh start" and claim that as long as no rules are broken, they have no worries.

What is really funny is that from the start, I was doing my level best to create the next Alberuni. While I succeeded beyond my wildest expectations, I was also shocked when I saw that the name wasn't ElKabong (as I intended) but really the falsely-accused user named Enviroknot, whose name was tagged illegitimately onto an RFAR by POV-pushing users and who the ArbCom freely attacked without ever paying attention to the facts.

Sorry, Gerard. You can whine and complain, you can kickban users, you can remove them from the en-l mailing list, you can do what you want. You have been given power at Wikipedia, far too much power apparently given how corrupt you've become from your use of it. You know the wool was pulled over your eyes. I'm sorry I didn't stop it sooner but that is my own lapse of judgement. Just like everyone else here, I put too much faith in you. I really didn't think you would take it this far.

-A. Nony Mouse

For the same reason I believe nothing EnviroKainKabong says, I trust nothing A. Nony Mouse says either. Maybe we're dealing with one, two, or even three trolls, with A. Nony Mouse now pretending to be the former. But who cares? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Someone quickly clear this up: should we block this list or no? I think we should but are there any technical consequences that may arise?Sasquatch讲看 21:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just me but I found Mouse's rant very funny. Especially the part where he complains that people unrelated to him are also sometimes blocked... apparently he thinks he's got a patent on trolling :) Radiant_>|< 07:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • We also have to consider the Radiant/SlinVirgin definition of "troll": someone who gets in the way of an admin's POV pushing. - A. Nony Mouse
    • Oh yes, you are absolutely right! We should immediately perma-ban David Gerard, SlinVirgin (sic) and myself, and let you rewrite the encyclopedia as you see fit. Obviously you are way more intelligent than the rest of us. Radiant_>|< 13:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, no need to further feed the troll; every response made here will just result in more postings from somone with too much time on his hands. (See immediately below this comment, for instance. Can I join the witch-hunting thug posse, by the way? It sounds cool.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Putting your sarcastic and dismissive bullshit aside, you should look at how you act. Cotton Mather himself couldn't have wanted any more obedient a group of witch-hunting thugs than David Gerard has in you. All I've done is prove what was going on: that rather than behaving in a manner fit for wikipedians, you exploit anything you can to consolidate your hold on power and attack anyone who stops you from POV pushing. -A. Nony Mouse
        • Please avoid personal attacks, if you continue to make them your comments will be removed. Thryduulf 15:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you please look at the block log before blocking? Your 24-hour "sockpuppet" block ended up overriding my indefinite "open proxy" block (shorter blocks override longer ones). --cesarb 15:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willy on wheels cleanup in Special:Log/move

Could use a hand. -- Curps 16:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Found out how nasty that "Double revert in move log" bug is. Yikes. --Golbez 16:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong but doesn't the software prevent newly registered users from making page moves? (unless, of course, that vandal registered the account before that change was made). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The block prevents the newest 1% of users from moving pages. However, at the rate new accounts are being registered, it's simply a matter of registering an account and letting it age for a week. --Carnildo 19:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

...which lends further support for a Special:Newusers page (IMHO). - jredmond 19:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] evil

I just wanted to alert those who can block, or who track vandalz by thier IP's user:131.170.90.4 has vandalized evil here on 5 august 2005. thankz, Kzzl 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't "vandalism" - it was mistaken, yes, but it was not destructive. Also, that IP has not edited anything in almost a week (per Special:Contributions/131.170.90.4). - jredmond 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xizer

This user has called User:Dbraceyrules a "nigger" twice now. Once here and once on Dbraceyrules's Talk page. Dbraceyrules has indicated that he/she is leaving Wikipedia, and Xizer is continuing to taunt him/her. Zoe 23:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Also see this edit summary. Zoe 23:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The edit summary was not directed at anyone. "Nigger" was used like black people use it to call each other. Like, "What up nigga?" "Yo nigga let's go get somethin' to eat." As for calling Dbraceyrules one, I was joking around. He needs to get a grip and learn that text on the Internet should be taken about as seriously as a whoopee cushion. Also, I did not continue to taunt him, I told him not to leave Wikipedia because his contributions were appreciated. I also requested he stop taking everything so seriously. Xizer 23:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's all a matter of context. One black male in the 15-29 age range can call another of similar age whom he is friends with a "nigger" without being insulting. In any other situation, it's likely to be a deadly insult. --Carnildo 00:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

More to the point -- everything here is public. Crude ethnic slurs directed toward strangers is bad behaviour and is not tolerable in a community where civility is the goal (and the norm, despite how it sometimes seems.) If Xizer isn't a racist, Xizer should consider whether he wants to be considered one by the other strangers he will inevitably be collaborating with should he continue working on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't stand for this sort of crap. Even if it was a one time thing we shouldn't let it go, but Xizer seems to have a history of juvenile behavior. I'm giving him a little wiki-vacation to allow him to reflect upon his incivility. Gamaliel 07:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He's back as XizerX (talk · contribs · block log). I'm blocking that for a week as well. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 16:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe you continue to discourage legitimate edits to Wikipedia. I consistently start new articles and improve places where Wikipedia is lacking, yet you go and block me for a week, thus hindering the improvement and expansion of Wikipedia. I find it strange you block alternate accounts when they are being used to improve Wikipedia. Maybe you should stop being Nazis and allow Wikipedia to be improved. -Xizer (omg he got past the pathetic block again! wowz0rs!)

Xizer, I am prepared to accept that you are a young person who made a mistake rather than being a full out racist...but that is besides the point. You aren't making any friends here by taunting us concerning the pathetic block. I've looked over you edit history, and I see some really great additions to gaming-related articles, and we very much appreciate that, but it is important to try to work well with us, your encyclopedia-writing colleagues. Please respect the block, then come back with a better attitude. Func( t, c, e,  ) 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not block the sockpuppet account indefinitely? The sockpuppetry is completely obvious, and it was used to circumvent an existing block. --MarkSweep 17:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Xizer is being disingenuous. This edit doesn't sound like somebody trying to make amends. Zoe 19:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I made that edit after I tried to apologize to him. Also - he continued insulting me afterwards. For this reason I stated that he was the kind of editor we do not need.

We treat users with respect. You cannot possibly be allowed as a member here if you cannot. -- A Link to the Past 17:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Template:Infobox Pope

Yes, I am involved. I don't think it was right that a vote was held without announcing it to the wider community. I didn't vote because I didn't know about it! Anyway, would another admin look into this. Two admins are involved I believe (I am one of them). The dispute is over the style of the infobox - I want to use the infobox class, the other wants some sort of inelegant style that has a line down one side (!) Ta bu shi da yu 23:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DotSix still removing comments

Please see Talk:Truth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs): 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing other users' comments, claiming they are personal attacks. Will someone please take a look at this situation and block him? He has violated the three revert rule and is basically vandalizing talk pages. I don't think I should block him since I'm involved in his RFAR. He has done this before, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive38#DotSix_removing_comments. Rhobite 02:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

taken care of based on 3RR info over on the other page and his further actions on that page. Sasquatch讲看 07:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insidious insertion of AOL template

I just ran across something that looks rather disturbing. There's an anonymous editor (probably just one, but I'm not sure) who has been adding {{AOL}} to User pages outside of the listed ranges at Special:Blockip. See for example this edit [46] at User talk:65.182.7.34. Delightfully, the editor responsible is working from an AOL IP, which makes him rather more difficult to block. Keep an eye on the user pages which bear the AOL template; some of them might not be all that they appear. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

These AOL tags are being thrown up all over the place, including but not limited to Articles [47], Vfd discussions, Categories, Images [48], non-anon User and Talk pages, and anon and user Talk pages for IP addresses that belong to ISPs other than AOL. Many ip addresses are used... is it one person doing all of this? --Mysidia 04:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they all seem to be from the 152.163.100.0/8 and 152.162.101.0/8 blocks. Those are all AOL proxies somewhere in New York state. It looks like just one person, who happens to be a dick. There's also someone in the same block (presumably the same vandal) who has been adding nowiki tags to articles to screw up their formatting: [49]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So, just to make it perfectly clear: only IPs in the ranges listed at Special:Blockip get the AOL template? We know there are no others? Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 11:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't know. I recently updated Special:Blockip when I found a new range. However, anyone who does a whois query can immediately see where the address belongs to. In the case of 65.182.7.34, it's Amnet (I don't know exactly which Amnet, as there seem to be several organizations of that name). It is most likely a dynamic IP, but it's not AOL, and there's no indication it's a rotating proxy for which care should be exercised. JRM · Talk 11:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: try visiting http://65.182.7.34 and all doubt should vanish. JRM · Talk 11:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking Jimbo

There were a series of disturbing entries to Jimbo's talk page earlier today. I brought it up on IRC, and it was decided to block the offending IPs for one week. The IPs blocked were:

• 67.170.135.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 69.227.227.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 66.80.0.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 68.164.245.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 172.198.8.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Unblocked because it is an AOL IP. -- Essjay · Talk 09:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a note similar to this on Jimbo's talk page, and I am bringing it up here so there will be a record of what was done and why. Fellow admins: If any legit users are affected by this, please unblock them right away. (I believe the user may have been using an open proxy, but am not tech savvy enough to make that determination.) -- Essjay · Talk 08:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I saw semi-comprehensible rambling, which amused me a bit, and maybe some vague and strange threats, but it never occurred to me that anyone would consider it stalking. I don't see how you get stalking out of it; maybe I missed some part of it. Moreover, a block is just plain silly. The IPs weren't engaged in any vandalism. Blocks are useful for specific things, certain conditions; they aren't a cure-all. You don't just throw blocks at everything that vaguely resembles a problem. Everyking 08:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure of what is the best course of action here. On one hand, I really doubt that these are newbies experimenting with anything, and their contributions seem to be spamming Jimbo's talkpage. On the other hand, blocking them for a whole week without giving them a warning at least is rather harsh, and similar to the blocking policy they use at the Norwegian Wikipedia (One strike and you're out). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How does that work out for the Norwegians? --Golbez 09:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It actually works well in the sense that the Norwegian version is seldomly vandalized. Remember, on the Norwegian version there are probably only one or two administrators logged in at a time, and during the night there are probably none. They have other things to do than to keep watching out for vandalism. But the policy (actually it's just convention) does mean that newbies just experimenting may wind up being blocked and chased away, so it is definitely not a solution I recommend for the English version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just carrying out the decision as it was articulated on IRC. I raised the issue of whether the edits should be removed, and the eventual consensus developed was to block the IPs for one week. It was not a unilateral decision (as I noted in the first line) but rather a consensus decision as to how the situation should be handled. -- Essjay · Talk 08:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, that changes things. I am not an IRC person, but I probably would have advocated a bit more leniency. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

67.170.135.43 replaced an existing comment with spam and is unrelated. The other IPs produced the rambling verbiage that is the hallmark of Amorrow, some of it signed explicitly by him. See #User:Amorrow_and_Elizabeth_Morgan on this page. From the way the comments are phrased you'd be tempted to think Jimbo responded, but you'd be wrong; mr. Morrow seems perfectly capable of continuing a discussion on his lonesome. "Stalking" is a misnomer, though, and blocking is mostly useless. He's already been blocked. You can go and keep blocking proxies, but it's not going to do much, I'm afraid. JRM · Talk 09:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that anybody who goes through all those IPs just to make a few edits could probably keep going through IPs forever. Even though nobody was blocking him at the time, he was continually switching IPs in between rants. I doubt he'll ever try to go back to those IPs, and even if he had only one IP to use, I'm not sure the offense of rambling strangely on Jimbo's talk page is worth a block to begin with. Everyking 09:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that 172 one in the AOL IP range, where special:blockip says "keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less"? Dmcdevit·t 09:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. Essjay undid it himself, but he still gets a finger waggle. :-) JRM · Talk 09:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this has been pointed out on IRC and the IP unblocked. I find it funny how one person could be using so many IPs, most/all of which resolve to what seem to be home computers - could somebody explain? Zombies running open proxies? ~~ N (t/c) 09:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

They all appear to be dynamic. One AOL, others Comcast and Pac Bell, which only have dialup and cable. Seems like they're moving between them easily, and the long-term block was pointless. Dmcdevit·t 09:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I can't take credit; it was pointed out to me on IRC. As soon as I heard it was AOL, I went running to unblock. (I checked all the others, I don't know how I missed that one.) -- Essjay · Talk 09:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, consensus on IRC. You're not the channel and see what happens: people start agreeing with week-long blocks for dynamic IPs! Exercise in futility, folks. :-) JRM · Talk 09:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That should be "not on the channel". The sentence gets a distinctly unpleasant undertone without it. JRM · Talk 13:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As much as I'm enjoying the opportunity to be publicly flogged | ; - ) | the bigger question here is: Since the consensus is now largely overruled, should the IP's now be unblocked? -- Essjay · Talk 09:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Proper thing to do is check if all the IPs are really dynamic, reblock any static IPs permanently for running open proxies, and either unblocking or limiting to 24 hours the blocks of the other IPs. Since checking for static IPs is really a bit of a black art, we can probably skip that part (we can always decide to go with longer blocks if the contribution histories show vandalism). Right now we're talking about blocking dynamic addresses with no prior contributions for a week because some eccentric found open proxies. I'd say unblock them all and reblock only if we actually see something persistent from each single address, rather than someone who happens to be using those addresses. JRM · Talk 09:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Concur. ~~ N (t/c) 09:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do it now. -- Essjay · Talk 09:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Now, with the serious issues out of the way, please recommence the auto de fe. *assumes position at the stake* ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 09:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Now, now... as you were. You did something you thought would benefit Wikipedia, after discussing it with others, and promptly responded to feedback on your action. I've seen older hands than either of us ignore all three simultaneously. You've got it all wrong—witches are burned at the stake, not saints. Those are crucified or stoned. :-) JRM · Talk 10:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh... except that sometimes people get promoted post-mortem, of course. Like Joan of Arc. JRM · Talk 10:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rohingya

A series of accounts, all using the same broken English, all making the same edits, has been ganging up on Rohingya, posting vague incivilities on its Talk page, as well as on on User talk:Ragib and on my Talk page. It's pretty clear that they're sock-puppets; moreover, their edits are certainly disruptive, and in fact little more than petty vandalism. Could someone else have a look at this and give an opinion; my feeling is that all but one should be blocked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I got a notice about this from another user; I checked the IP range, and it's all from "Internet Services Unit" in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The person who brought it to my attention never said "range block" but kinda hinted that might be a good solution; I'm not in the dispute (other than to advise the user who asked my advice) but it seems to me a range block by someone who knows what they are doing (I certianly as heck don't) could be a resonable solution. -- Essjay · Talk 08:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

BAD IDEA!! All of Saudi Arabia's internet access comes through one proxy range (for ease in filtering), and that's the range you'll be seeing. Basically, blocking that range blocks the country. If you do need to do a range block, you need to keep it REAL short, make sure your Wikipedia email link works, leave a block message that apologises for the inconvenience, unblock promptly on collateral damage, etc., etc.

That said, I suspect at least some of those IPs are open or near-open proxies (having seen a variety of interesting editors using them). I have no idea which ones and would need to know more about their technical setup of the proxy range, etc. before being able to say more - David Gerard 11:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

See, exactly the reason I say "I don't know what I'm doing," because not only do I not know the technical aspects of range blocking, but I don't know enough about IP reports (like you get at samspade.com) to understand what exactly is being reported. However, while I don't think I conveyed it well, what I meant was, a range block of the range that is being used (which I think is fairly small) rather than a block of that ISP's whole range. Then again, I don't know enough about range blocks (I wish there was a tech-illiterate explaination of how range blocks work) to know if it's possible to just block XXX.XXX.XXX.13 to XXX.XXX.XXX.25 or whatever, or even if using .13 to .25 is indicative of being in a small range that is limited to .13 to .25. I certainly don't want to block all of Saudi Arabia or any other country for that matter! Having revealed my obvious lack of tech savvy, and seeing that there are greater minds than I on the situation *bows to David*, I shall now sit back and keep my illiterate mouth shut unless there is something useful I can contribute. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 12:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some blocking of sock-puppets has calmed things down a bit, for the moment at least. With regard to range blocks — I suppose that the procedure has been made so impenetrable in order to discourage admins from doing it. Would it be better to make it easier, but limit its use to a small number of admins (or, perhaps, bureacrats or other group)? --Mel Etitis (Μ&;epsilon;λ Ετητης) 13:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who has the technical knowlage to be doing range blocks is going to be able to figure out how to do them.Geni 14:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal/addition help

Apparently the user FWDixon has been fighting with an anon IP who refuses to discuss removing links to many Hardy Boys-related pages in a civil manner. I actually locked editing on five of these pages for a span of a couple of weeks, in the hopes that the anon IP would come by and leave a note about his behavior. He did not, and as soon as I unlocked the pages, the reversions started again. Now FWDixon has given me links to probably over 50 pages where the reverts are going on, and he is really desperate for help. I am going to be away at my university's resident assistant training so I won't have much time to edit, so can someone help him? Here is his message on my talk page. Mike H (Talking is hot) 15:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I need some help: Blocked IP requests "removal of any public reference" to it

Last night after what looked like repeated vandal edits to Battle of Jutland and others, and after several warnings on the IP's talk page the IP was blocked by me (my first!) and another admin. Later on that talk page he apologized and said he hadn't seen the warnings. Today I recieved the following email:

apologies from IP <82.40.129.146> would you be able to remove any public references of my IP address from this site i.e user chat page i dont want google archiving it i got carried away with editing and test it out i didnt see your warning message untill it was to late.

For what it is worth, I willing to believe him/her. Any suggestions what we should do about this, and how I should respond? Thanks for any help. Paul August ☎ 18:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

By the way I blocked the user for 24 hours at 01:22 this morning, and I can see the entry in the Block log, but not in List of blocked IP addresses and usernames, hows come? Paul August ☎ 18:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, only a developer can delete individual page edits, and they only do that in very exceptional circumstances (which this is not). This isn't a big deal, either - just tell him in the future to do his test edits in the sandbox. →Raul654 19:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true. Administrators can delete an article wholesale, then restore all revisions except the ones they want to see gone. This is a hack, finding the revisions is not trivial, and deleting a whole article certainly isn't, but it does work. It's true that any permanent deletion of revisions or articles, such that not even admins can see or restore them, can only be done by developers. JRM · Talk 21:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But this anon seems only concerned about public reference in the sense of his/her own talk page, "i.e user chat page i dont want google archiving it". Not about having the IP appear in article histories. Paul can trivially delete that talk page; I thought he was asking if he should. If that was it, Paul, I think you should. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Bishonen., that's exactly right. I was asking if I should. And having gotten your advice, I think I will. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 22:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User "DotSix" Using Sockpuppet to Evade Block

user:67.182.157.6, who likes to call himself "DotSix", is under a block for reverting talk:truth 9 times in 24 hours. He has resumed reverting it under two AOL sockpuppets: 172.196.117.124 and 172.198.122.213. If it is not possible or reasonable to block the entire AOL range 172.19*.*.*, could the block on his main IP be extended? By the way, this same sequence of events happened 5 days ago. (The block, the sockpuppets, the extension.) This person does not learn and does not care about the rules. --Nate Ladd 19:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.wikinerds.org (talk · contribs) / NGK (talk · contribs)

Bunch of problems here. At one time I thought we had decided not to allow web addresses as usernames, so there's that, though I don't see it in WP:UP.

The greater problem is that the user is adding a considerable number of links to www.wikinerds.org, a competing encyclopedia project. I have removed many already. These take the form of either: links in the external links section; or attribution in the article itself. In general it has been our policy that when copying material from another wiki, we include attribution information on talk.

It has been our policy not to link to external sources that contain material that we would rather have here, and I believe that the links being added fall well within that boundary.

I have left a note on the user's talk page regarding the links but await further discussion before bringing up the matter of the username itself.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall something about this on the mailing list a while back. At one point they wanted to host all our deleted articles untill someone gave them a sample of the stuff we deleted.Geni 11:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's back re-adding the links. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that any information he adds to articles that is directly from Wikinerds is removed immediately then. I have just deleted Erhard Ratdolt as a copyvio as we keep removing the attribution. I might also suggest that if they have concerns with GFDL violations that they cease and desist from contributing information to Wikipedia that is from their project. I have no problem with putting the sources on the talk page: there is nothing in the GFDL that I can see that would stop us from doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikinerds has filed RFC against Uninvited on this issue. Radiant_>|< 13:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:ArmchairVexillologistDon (2)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#ArmchairVexillologistDon AVD is tempbanned from editing pages related to vexillology, Canada or fascism. He is now violating that ban by posting on Talk:Canada. He has already been banned from wikipedia twice this week for violations. Since I am a party to the RFA against him I'm requesting that someone else ban him for this latest violation. Since 24 hour bans don't seem ot have dissuaded him a longer period may be needed. Homey 19:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Dan100 (Talk) 20:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

And promptly unbanned when I realised he was editing the TALK pages. I interpret the arbcom ruling as applying to ARTICLES. I cannot see why someone only editing talk pages should be blocked. Dan100 (Talk) 20:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly. (my emphasis)

The reason the ban extends to talk pages (and you can receive confirmation from User:Fred Bauder that it does include talk pages) has to do, I suspect, with AFD's behaviour therein. Homey 20:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I'm quite happy to block AVD for this if you feel uncomfortable doing it. He's here to cause trouble only and I honestly wonder why we're putting up with it. Let me know if you disagree, because I don't want to reblock if you're not happy about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you with your analysis of AVD, at all. I do feel that the editing talk pages isn't really enough of a reason to ban him. However, on balance, if an editor is not here to be useful they probably shouldn't be here, and he's had plenty of guidance (subsequently ignored), so I won't unblock him if you do it. Dan100 (Talk) 20:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm going to block him for 48 hours, but only on the understanding that I'm picking up where you left off, rather than second-guessing you. ;-D I interpret the injunction to include talk pages, and it also said (as I recall) that admins had some freedom to interpret what pages it included. I'm also going to protect his talk page for the same period so he can't use it as a platform during his block. He can e-mail me if he wants to object. Anyone who disagrees with the talk-page protection should feel free to unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia page includes Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that :-). Dan100 (Talk) 22:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has commented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#ArmchairVexillologistDon that he wouldn't tend to block for edits to Talk pages, though the injunction is a bit vaguely worded. I'd suggest that AVD can just be ignored on the Talk pages unless he starts making a substantial nuisance of himself—then he can be issued a temporary block for disruption. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. The wording of the injunction is " ... is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada ..." I've left a note for Fred to let him know that I'm interpreting the injunction to refer to talk pages too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something needs to be done about User:Coqsportif.

He's now followed my User page to another article, the well-sourced, extremely-carefully-NPOV'ed article on Michael Dutton Douglas. He's (again) simply making mass deletions, insisting that any mention of likely romantic relationship indicates an endorsement of conspiracy theories he's read elsewhere on the 'Net. This is not a "good faith" editor; it is a vandal, a troll, an apparent sockpuppet, and someone with the authority to do so should take care of him. Shem^(talk) 22:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He's returned to the Andrew Bartlett article he first discovered on my User page. Shem^(talk) 00:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

He's now making mass deletions from the Andrew Bartlett article, while also inserting unbalanced, POV material. He has insisted on using the word "alcoholic" in the introduction since following me there from my User page. Shem^(talk) 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

He has used PISSHEAD PEACENIK PSYCHO PURPLE PARTY LEADER as a source in an article he seems to know nothing about beyond Google searches done to benefit his harassment. Shem^(talk) 02:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, no original research. I know nothing about him other than what I read. You know the fellow (my condolences) so you should take care to ensure your contributions are POV (btw- I think they are fine on that article) Coqsportif 02:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• The attacks by innuendo on the First Lady in the Michael Dutton Douglas are hardly careful, they are quite the opposite.
• The source they refer to makes no such inferences
• I have not about the matter on the Net, I checked the book reference yesterday and was shocked to see it had been falsely used. I made the change after that. I think more attention must be paid to offline references like this, it's quite dangerous potentially. Coqsportif 00:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I quote from Shem's user page, a view entirely inconsistent with the Wikipedia rule that we must assume good faith:

I don't believe in assuming good faith. It goes against all conventional sociological wisdom to do such, especially on a project where the potential for promoting political agenda and bias is one of its greatest lures. I've seen more edit disputes here than I can count, including amongst sysops and astounding contributors (watching Adam Carr leave Wikipedia being my least favorite incident), and see no reason to assume good faith on any Wikipedian's behalf. Good faith will be assumed on an individual basis upon observation of reason for such.

I'm sure Shem's view is hearfelt but it's wrong and it's in breach of guidelines and it's presumably what motivates him to act so menacingly over a simple dispute over fact in one rather obscure article. Coqsportif 00:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, someone's mistaken Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia policy. Besides, "there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions." Shem^(talk) 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The bad action here is removing dispute tags which you have no right to do under Wikipedia policy, restore them immediately please. Coqsportif 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have the right to revert POV-pushers (sincere or no) and vandals under Wikipedia policy, though. Shem^(talk) 01:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia policy say you can remove dispute tags, you have no right to do it, and I request administrator intervention to resolve it. Coqsportif 01:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

We're on the same page, then; a desire for "administrator intervention" is exactly why I came to this page. Shem^(talk) 02:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

There you have it, we agree on something. Coqsportif 02:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif has been spamming my userpage with the {{test}} tags for the past ten minutes. Shem^(talk) 02:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As the Vandalism reporting process required, it's hardly spam. Coqsportif 02:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif Do not put vandal template messages on Shem's talk page. It's worse than spam it's harrasment. Shem provide the reference that Coqsportif is asking for. Sorted! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Coqsportif indefinitely for trolling, disruption, and WP:POINT. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock, but I feel he's had every opportunity to reform and yet nothing seems to change: his entire contribs list is a testimony to WP:POINT, and he seems to enjoy the disruption and the outraged protestations of innocence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Dispute Tags from Michael Dutton Douglas

• There is a dispute about the neutrality and facts and citations of the Michael Dutton Douglas article. I have read the book referred to and it contains none of the "facts" referred to. The clear inference in the article is that the First Lady killed an ex boyfriend because he was going out with one of her best friends. Even if true (anything's possible I guess), such an allegation would require the closest scrutiny and that's what I'm trying to do.

• I indicated that dispute by placing dispute tags on the article and initiating a discussion on the matter.

• Shem has twice removed the dispute tags without discussing the serious issues.

• I have not vandalized any article although I believe the removing of dispute tags borders on this. I encourage people to judge my good faith by looking at this issue seriously rather than to pre-judge the matter.

Coqsportif 00:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Coqsportif's claims of having read George and Laura to be false; this is simply further evidence that Coqsportif here is the sockpuppet of an experienced Wikipedian, seeking to disrupt Wikipedia via Wikistalking, Wikilawyering, and strawman POV-pushing. Shem^(talk) 00:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Shem, tell me the exact page which makes the assertions in that article implying the First Lady is guilty of a pretty serious crime. It isn't there. Tell me the exact page which says he was going out with one of her friends. It isn't there. Tell me the exact page which says she used to go out with him. It isn't there. If you really want I'll photocopy the pages cited and scan them and email to you so you can see for yourself. The article as it stands is quite terrible but in a sense that's not the issue. The issue is your removal of the dispute tags. Restore them and let's work it out in the Talk page but otherwise you are guilty of the disruptive behavior you so freely accuse others of engaging in. Physician, heal thyself. Coqsportif 00:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Snopes disagrees with you concerning the book you haven't read, and if you do have the book handy, by all means scan the pages and post them here on Wikipedia. The article makes no claim of crime, making clear that the incident was a tragic accident, and was written to be extremely careful with regard to potential POV-pushers. You're a vandal, and I'm treating you as such until a sysop takes care of you. Shem^(talk) 01:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I will go to the library on Monday and get a copy, no problem. I'd rather not post the pages of the book on wikipedia unless I'm told that's not a breach of copyright but will happily email them to anyone who wants that. Coqsportif 01:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I have removed the bulk of the article, as it was a copyvio from Snopes.com. I have also removed the dispute tags, because there's now very little material left in the article. I would advise the parties to read carefully the Snopes.com article ([50])–without copying it–as it seems to have a thorough and neutral treatment of the subject. I would also encourage the involved parties in this dispute to make use of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and our other dispute resolution processes. The Administrator's Noticeboard is not the place to bring article content disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I will do that next time. Thanks Coqsportif 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent vandalising of my User Page

I am a new user. Some User:Witkacy forth day is vandalising my User Page. Is it normal? Please protect me from that if possible. Thank you. Bf-109 06:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like he's accusing you of being a sockpuppet of blocked User:Zivinbudas. He should probably use the real template for that and start an evidence page/section to link it to (perhaps this one you just started) and post the evidence here. From a glance at your edits I would have to say that it's quite unlikely that you are actually a new user, having continued preexisting conflicts and jumped in making references to policies and so forth it's highly unlikely a real new user would know. DreamGuy 07:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I again ask to protect my User Page from vandal User:Witkacy. He continues to revert editions (Vilnius) without any explanations. Bf-109 14:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

And you revert the edits of others, even if all are explained. Halibutt 18:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing edit war involving Lithuania-related articles

[edit] Bf-109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user is a sockpuppet of Zivinbudas. Could someone please check his IP? (pls also take a look on Suspected sockpuppets of Zivinbudas and evidence) Thx--Witkacy 17:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How long this continue?

User:Witkacy several days is vandalising my User Page. He reverts edits of other Users without any comments - Lithuania, Vilnius articles. Does User:Witkacy have some privileges here? Is it usual order in Wikipedia? 85.206..... range is range of bigest Lithuanian i-net provider Lithuanian Telecom. If you have the evidences that I am somebody else, than block me. Or protect me from vandal. I aply 3d time and any reaction from Administrators. Is it normal order with the new user? Bf-109 18:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've protected Lithuania. I can't quite tell if this is a regular edit war or repeated vandalism. Whatever it is, it needs to stop. Would someone with knowledge of the background please comment? I'd say if it's vandalism, then the offending party should be warned and/or blocked and the page unprotected. --MarkSweep 18:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I was about to protect the article as well, seeing as Bf-109 let me know of the dispute on my talk page I took a moment to look into it. I'm a little confused as well, and there's a lot to read up on. Is there anybody closer to the problem with some wisdom to share? -- Longhair | Talk 18:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

After comparing user contributions, it was apparent that Bf-109 is a sockpuppet of Zivinbudas, banned by the arbcom for one year. I have blocked the account indefinitely. Dan100 (Talk) 22:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've unprotected Lithuania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --MarkSweep 23:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An imposter account

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%91ngela -- how can we block this account? Zoe 18:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste. I blocked it indefinitely. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 18:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier (in hindsight) to reject all non standard characters during username creation? (I bet this has been suggested before). -- Longhair | Talk 18:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It has been suggested, just recently even, after the "Func" impostor tried it with a lower-case Cyrillic ess. I doubt it would help, as a dedicated vandal will find another way.

It'd certainly restrict any vandal creativity to A-Z and 0-9. XOOPS uses this (optional) limitation with some success.-- Longhair | Talk 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a fan of the "vandal" template... just click the "block" in Αngela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and the appropriate impostor is blocked. (I've already taken care of that, though.) - jredmond 19:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

But how do you put the user's name into the template? Zoe 19:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Type {{vandal|username}} (split with a pipe). -- Longhair | Talk 19:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

???But what do I type in "username"? Zoe 22:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

You put in the unicode for the fake A as described in the first link of this section. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

ALl right, I'm apparently dense. I see nothing described in the first link of this section which tells me how to type in a unicode fake A. Zoe 19:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

It should work to (1) click on the given link (2) copy the username from the top of the page (3) put {{vandal|username}} wherever you want it (4) paste the copied username into the template. FreplySpang (talk) 19:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's not described, but: you use the Unicode for the fake "A" (Unicode = 0391, UTF8 = CE91) as in the first link "%CE%91". Cut 'n paste: Αngela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) looks prettier if you can do it, but {{vandal|%CE%91gela}} ==> %CE%91ngela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) gets you to the same pages. Or convert the Unicode 0391 to decimal (913) => {{vandal|Αngela}} = Αngela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (Look at this in the edit window: nowiki doesn't stop the "& # 9 1 3 ;" (without the spaces) from being parsed). - Nunh-huh 19:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both Freply and Nunh-huh, that's what I was trying to get explained to me. Zoe 19:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Bruning

I recently had reason to criticise the behaviour of Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) (in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk). A couple of days later, and I find that he's blocked me for twenty-four hours for this edit (the neutral votes had two struck-out votes counted in the tally, and I tidied that; it clearly made no difference to the result, and was also clearly correct). I can see nothing in the blocking policy that justifies his action, and coming so soon after our argument, it looks suspiciously like petty vindictiveness. Fortunately Carbonite spotted it and unblocked me. Have I missed something in the blocking policy? I don't want to take this further if his block was technically (if not morally) correct. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You were wrong to fiddle with closed RFAs. Kim was wrong to block you for doing it. Not a lot more to be said really, beyond the fact that I hope neither of you will do either again. Dan100 (Talk) 21:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that there is something more to be said, but I'll leave that for the moment and in this place. What, though, is an admin (or, indeed, any editor, supposed to do if a closed RfA contains a minor error like the one that I corrected? Does it have to stay? That seems odd, to say the least. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This was already discussed here and here, and Mel Etitis is clearly aware. Kim Bruning 22:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I had seen neither of these when I made my second edit. Secondly, and more importantly, you haven't answered my question. Upon which bit of the blocking policy did you base your block? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh? An extensive discussion with Dan100 can be found below. If you really have this burning need to start an AN/I discussion, you should at least read it, else what's the point?Kim Bruning 11:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a complete non sequitur. The comment to which I was responding didn't refer to what as said later in the discussion (though I may have misunderstood the non-English construction "this was already discussed"; the two references seemd to suggest that you were talking about what I'd read before I made my edit to the RfA). Moreover, nowhere in the discussion below is there any reference to the part of the blocking policy which you thought justified your behaviour. You seem more interested in (flimsy) point-scoring than in actually engaging with the issue.

Oh well. Kim Bruning 15:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

To make this clear; my belief is that Kim Bruning blocked me (and may have done the same to others) for a reason not mentioned in the blocking policy, for a tribvial matter, and that he did so because of a dispute. I contend that his action was petty vidictiveness, and that he's guilty of using his admin powers to settle a score. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh? I had a dispute with you? Not yet I'd hope. But you say you were trying to start one? Kim Bruning 15:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with editing closed RFAs. Sometimes people even add votes. In my view, such edits serve no clear purpose, but they're not disruptive. We have the history, after all.

Also, I would like to add that Kim blocked Adraeus (talk · contribs) several days ago for edits to the same page, though he did remove the block when asked to do so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on the kind of edit being done. If you don't leave a clue that you've edited, people won't think to look in the history and be deceived somewhat too easily. (see discussion as linked to above). But that is neither here nor there. I warned Mel Etitis, and we could have discussed or requested advice at that point then. Instead he chose to ignore the warning, reverted a revert, and only at that point did I block him for 24 hours. Kim Bruning 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot wrong with editing RFAs, as Kim has stated - closed RFAs should remain records of the state of the vote when the bureaucrat made their decision. Dan100 (Talk) 22:26, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask Kim not to block users outside of policy, please!

I see very little point in taking this further, but I'm sure some people will do their best to turn this molehill into a mountain... Dan100 (Talk) 22:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Strictly: he was editing other people's signed comments, and altering the way they had been counted in the tally. This is blockable. Kim Bruning 22:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

He was making the housekeeping edit of inserting a simple colon, which preserves the content of a comment that has been stricken, without having it auto-numbered in the list. This is routinely done in order to maintain RfA tallies, in many cases not by the person who made the comments. To say that this is "editing other people's signed comments", not to mention a blockable offense, is an extreme stretch, given that it's commonly accepted practice. --Michael Snow 06:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure! After an RFA is closed though, it might be better to leave a note, rather than make an edit that leaves you with different tallies. See the discussion linked to above for details. Kim Bruning 11:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

On one hand, for closed RFAs to be useful records of the state of a vote, it seems like it would be good for the numbers on top to reflect the actual vote tallies. On the other hand, there could be situations where the fact that the numbers on top were incorrect when the vote was decided on is itself important (say, if there was a discrepancy in the counting of support/oppose votes that caused a RFA to be unfairly accepted/rejected--although I would hope that closing bureaucrats count actual votes one last time by hand to be sure!) This was clearly something that should have been fixed before the RFA was closed; all things considered, it probably wasn't worth going against policy to fix after the RFA was closed. Possibly the correct thing to do in this case would be to not correct the tallies, but instead add a signed note near the top saying that they are incorrect, were incorrect when the vote was closed, and clearly indicating that the note itself was added after the vote was closed? I don't see how that could cause any problems. Aquillion 22:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I do check the support and oppose counts by hand and did in this case. Though I read through the neutral comments, the count of neutrals is of little significance and so I do not check it with any rigor. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I said here. (first link I provided above). Kim Bruning 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The blocking policy only specifies that IP addresses can be blocked for this, not usernames. If it is generally accepted that usernames can be blocked for such edits, then the policy page should be changed to reflect this. Dan100 (Talk) 22:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

*blink* Kim Bruning 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, "For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." Nice, it says both. :-/ Kim Bruning 22:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What rubbish wording that section had - I've fixed it to avoid future confusion. Dan100 (Talk) 23:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous dispute. Kim, you are making a fuss out of nothing. Mel, you might have found a better way round this, taking into account Kim's point of view. Does anyone really believe that Mel was acting in bad faith? This block was unnecessary and needlessly provocative. Kim probably shouldn't have done it anyway, given the previous happenings. In addition to this, blocks are meant to deal with problem users. Mel most certainly does not fit this category. Let's have a little regard for one another before chucking blocks around. [[smoddy]] 23:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I politely warned Mel first, and we might have discussed then. He ignored me though :-/ Kim Bruning 23:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

To me that means "Post on AN/I and ask for comments". Blocking an admin is rarely cut-and-dry. Perhaps never. Asking for advice can never be a bad thing, and I am confident that Mel would have discussed matters here. [[smoddy]] 23:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh? I'd never post on AN/I! Tarring and feathering people like that? I think I'd prefer to be blocked for a week. Kim Bruning 23:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

FairProcess, to quote Sam Spade :-). Or that may have been tongue in cheek. Either way, I'm tired. [[smoddy]] 23:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I followed that pretty well. Check the links I provided. I'm not sure what FairProcess has to do with AN/I though. Kim Bruning 23:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel is a problem admin, whcih according to some makes all the difference. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that comment was aimed at me (it may have been, it may not have been, as I just added to that page), but I will reply. Treating well-established users differently to new users is not necessarily evil. If we have established that someone is a good faith user, and Mel is (or show me evidence to the contrary), then there should be no need to block except in a specific policy violation, where the admin is not involved and the change is actually significant. This is trivial. All it does is inflame. [[smoddy]] 23:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, we largely agree, esp. on the page in question. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, now long since I've reverted to the last version by Mel Etitis (with whom I rarely agree on anything), I find this discussion. I hope I don't get blocked for reverting it. In this case, Mel's call was correct, if not his actions (nor mine, oops!). Perhaps as a compromise we can ask whoever closed the VFD (I don't feel like going to look right now) to go back and review the case and fix the NEUTRAL vote formatting, and correct the vote count accordingly, and redeclare the vote closed. I don't mind being reverted for this purpose. Tomer ^TALK 06:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, tell you what, how about leaving a clear note at the top of the page, saying that the neutral count was off by two, that way it's easy to see what change was made. See also the discussion linked to um way up there by now, where this was already all covered (though in rather less bytes ;-) ) Kim Bruning 11:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

♪ Memories. ♪ El_C 10:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, why isn't there a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kim Bruning? I was surprised not to find it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, this page hasn't always used subpages. Now you also know why: because it makes finding things in records a lot harder. Here is an appropriate revision. JRM · Talk 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Mediawiki Bug?

I just made this edit, so why does it say that FDuffy made it? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediawiki merges edits. If the content of your edit duplicates that of FDuffy's, your edit will not be saved, presuming you pressed "edit" before FDuffy saved. [[smoddy]] 23:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How likely is that to occur again?

What's the risk of a vandal's edit getting merged into mine and me getting the blame for it (or the reverse I suppose)? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It only merges if it's duplicate, so if you get blamed for something you would have had to have done the exact same thing and thus deserve the blame. DreamGuy 01:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion log

I would find it useful to be able to enter a comment for in the logfile when undeleting anything. E.g. a link to the relevant VFU discussion, or whatever else may be useful. Any thoughts, comments or objections on this? Should I put it in Bugzilla or is it already there? Radiant_>|< 00:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that. Since restoring a deleted page is basically reversing another admin's decision, I often have felt a need to justify my actions. I find that if there is a speedy tag that comes along with the restoration, I can provide a justification in the edit summary when removing it. But in general practice I would like a reason field, even unprotecting has one. I can't imagine it's the first time this has been brought up...? Dmcdevit·t 01:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Radiant, un-delete comments are good documentation and and can reduce misunderstandings. --Duk 16:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For the time being, would a null edit with an edit summary do? It'd put it permanently in the page history, but there's nothing overtly wrong with that. -Splash 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Certainly. But I'll ask Brion Vibber if something can be done in the long term. Radiant_>|< 18:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch

For your information: This user has created the following socks after Tony Sidaway blocked the account for an inappropriate username [[51].

• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

All of those socks above are now blocked. It should be noted that some users who commented on User talk:IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch wrote that thet didn't mind the user name. But in my opinion, this user destroyed any chance of being unblocked by creating those socks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a classic case of a badly handled situation right here. The user name doesn't bother me, but I suppose it should have been changed; as it happens, the user was blocked, probably was outraged, tried to start new accounts and got blocked time and time again. Now we may lose this person's good editing. To top it off, Zzyzx is trying to give him the impression that he has dug himself in a hole he can never get out of. I think we should unblock the original account and give the user some time to think it over. Everyking 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that someone who shows up and signs in with that user name is on the verge of becoming a contributor of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose if only they are treated with due respect. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A glance at the contributions seemed to indicate this was a good editor. Everyking 05:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the username refers to pop culture (see Wayne Brady and Chappelle's Show). I see the offence it may cause others, but I'm not offended. In the words of the blocking admin, "Have we become such grundies?"-- Longhair | Talk 05:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than an ouright block, perhaps a suggestion to change usernames be made first? A problem I see is that there's no quick solution to attribute edits to a new account, giving those who should move to a more suitable username a more difficult decision to make. Blocking outright when the editor is doing no other harm is kind of heavy handed. A kind suggestion might have seen another outcome entirely. -- Longhair | Talk 05:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think you can convince him, contact his latest account: IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch103 (talk · contribs) (NB: do not block for the time being). --MarkSweep 05:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems the damage has been done. 103 and counting. I doubt this would have happened if a polite suggestion to tone down his identity were attempted. -- Longhair | Talk 05:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• "P.P.S. as for your user name, someone may deem it innappropriate. I wont as I get the Chappelle ref. but just saying watch out. Redwolf24 20:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)"
  • This seems polite and to the point, in my opinion. From the users original welcome by Redwolf24. Hamster Sandwich 05:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Being warned to 'watch out' is a long way from having your right to edit blocked without a chance to change a thing. -- Longhair | Talk 06:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I find the name offensive and would not have hesitated to block (although I would've left a note explaining this and suggeting using a better name). Someone hinted that it's an in-joke - well, not everyone is "in" on them, are they? Dan100 (Talk) 08:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You wouldn't have hesitated to, say, suggest the user think about a new user name, and give them a while to consider it? What on earth is the benefit of this hardline approach? All we do is risk losing a good editor. Everyking 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Everyking and, given that the user's misbehaviour arises from an over-reaction to an admin error, I think that it would be appropriate for Tony to apologise to the user for that error. This is not to condone the subsequent misbehaviour. —Theo (Talk) 10:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Would we allow the username User:Springtime for Hitler on the grounds that this too is an in-joke that should offend no one? Or in the Dave Chappelle and Chappelle's Show vein, would User:Piss On You or User:The Niggar Family qualify as an in-joke?

The fact that this user is willing to stubbornly create so many socks doesn't bode well for the first time he gets into an edit war with someone. The suggestion that Tony should apologize is absurd; he was routinely following existing policy as per Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. -- Curps 15:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the attraction in unblocking a user who has demonstrated so ably that they cannot behave? The user remains completely free to create another account with another name: we won't know it's them if they just get on with good editing. -Splash 16:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The standard template is pretty friendly, although the act of blocking is in itself necessarily pretty hostile. It's a fairly urgent matter, because once an inflammatory username is in the edit history it stays there unless and until the edits are transferred to a new username. I acted quickly in this instance because the name was particularly inflammatory. An editor blocked in this way, solely for an inflammatory username, is always welcome to keep editing either anonymously or under a more suitable username.

It seems that this wasn't a good faith incident, either (see David Gerard's note on socking) but we couldn't have known that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, the case is closed now, I suppose. But for the record, I do not believe that usernames of this sort should be blocked on sight. You should open an rfc, and give the user a chance to listen to other people's opinions, and to change the name voluntarily. The only things that should be blocked on sight are outright obscenity and racial/religious slurs. Since this case was bad faith anyway, I don't think you have done any harm, though. dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

So is there a line you would draw? How long should we allow User:FuckYou or User:KillGeorgeBush to edit before they get blocked? Zoe 23:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've certainly tolerated User:Yuckfoo for a good long time. —Cryptic (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I blocked ShootDaNiggaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) last night without discusssion, and I'd do it again. Zoe 19:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any situation in which a legitimate user would choose a username that includes the phrase "smackabitch". This name was intended to offend and I believe it was right to blocked on sight. With these types of names, we're well beyond assuming good faith. Carbonite | Talk 19:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Add IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Zoe 21:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boothy443 is the assorted "IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch" usernames

Spotted this while sockchecking Alberuni (who evidently runs on Xenu's Eternal Battery). Boothy has been running at least half the WayneBrady accounts, and the other half are dialups through the same provider. I just gave him a 48-hour block for massive vandalism, and it's not like he doesn't know what vandalism is and isn't - David Gerard 17:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial spam -- Jamie Kane and Boy*d Upp

These articles have now been well-established as having been created as deliberate acts of commercial spamming of Wikipedia -- so-called "viral marketing" in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Both are currently proposed for deletion on VfD with overwhelming majorities in favor of deletion.

Leaving the articles up for the duration required for a VfD vote would be to play into the hands of the spammers, whose entire purpose in creating them was to garner "buzz". Therefore, I request that both articles be speedily deleted.

In addition, because the creation of these articles was a deliberate, premeditated act of spamming against Wikipedia, I ask that the creator be blocked indefinitely. It appears that there's IP address evidence that these articles were created by someone within the BBC, the organization whose work is advertised in the spam. This means we should be concerned that this spamming offense was done with the approval of the organization. I don't think it would be too outrageous to block the IP address space of the specific BBC office responsible, unless & until they're ready to explain their actions and apologize for committing this offense against Wikipedia. --FOo 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Contact the Foundation with all details you have - Jimbo and Angela both have good contacts within the BBC, and their contacts would certainly be glad to pass on some red-hot barbed wire clues to the perpetrators. (The BBC is a civil-service organisation, and most of the workers are quite dedicated and doing what they do for the public good, since they certainly aren't well paid ;-) You can be sure the perps will have a less than happy time.) - David Gerard 18:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

why make such a case of it? "spam"? Spam is adding hundred links to your online pharmacy store to random articles. These are plain vanity articles, or nonsense, if you like. Nothing like "spam". I don't see a reason to deviate from vfd-as-usual here. dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Spam? Yes, spam, as described on Wikipedia:Spam: "advertisements masquerading as articles"; "solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual". A vanity article is when someone writes about what a cool person they are; when they do it to drive traffic or attention to a commercial operation, that certainly is a form of spam, according to the definitions in our guidelines. --FOo 18:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

More spam than vanity, but I'm with David Gerard here: we certainly should contact the BBC, tell them that they have abused our site, warn them, ask them to desist, etc. but this does not call for an immediate ban. We don't usually ban people for a couple of spam edits, why should the BBC be treated more harshly, especially since there is a fair chance that if requested they will change their approach in the future. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

do we even know this is "the BBC"? Sure, the IP is from there, but would we accuse "the BBC" if somebody vandalized the George Bush article from a BBC IP? No, we'd just assume that it was a random employee and issue a temporary block. How do you know that this is from higher up? The undertaking seems altogether too stupid to be some concerted management-backed campaign. I say warn-&-block the IP, as usual. dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have written a detailed apology on Talk:Jamie Kane. Once again I assure you I do not work for the BBC or any related organisation. I saw this advertised on http://www.popjustice.co.uk and I thought it would be funny to make an article on it - a poorly written artilce I may add. I am sincerely apologetic and will not do anything as foolish again. I have start to contribute to other pages just like my edits at Anthony Crank. I request a written warning and I would be happy to be monitored as I edit in the future - However I swear on my grandmother's grave I do not work for the bbc or related company. Btw another user has admitted to creating Boy*d Upp (see Talk:Jamie Kane). Jon Hawk 21:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is overreaction. Just this week I rewrote and removed advertising copy from a whole load of far more egregious television company advertisements in Category:Television shows in the Philippines that outright exhorted people to watch the shows. [52] [53] [54] Several other editors also jumped in and improved the articles. It was done without fuss, without VFD, and without involving the Wikimedia Foundation to go and berate ABS-CBN. Uncle G 01:01:18, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

Please consider the request for administrative action withdrawn, since it seems clear that the community and the editor responsible are quite capable of dealing with it -- and the problem wasn't nearly as bad as it seemed earlier. I have to say, though, that we do need to be on the watch for "viral marketing" vandals on into the future. --FOo 06:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There's still the matter of the sockpuppet account. Jon Hawk is almost certainly a sockpuppet. Is there any way we can check his IP against other users? This whole thing still smells very fishy to me. I think accepting Jon Hawk's explanation at face value is naive. True, he may be a "British student", but marketing companies love to hire college students to do their viral marketing dirty work. I wouldn't be so suspicious except for the fact that his first day of editing is textbook sockpuppetry. First he creates a trivial legitimate article which he later points to as evidence that he isn't a vandal, then he creates the fake article, categorizes it (with proper name sorting), and links to it from other articles. Once the hoax is exposed, he manages to find the administrator's incident noticeboard to comment on the issue and defend himself. Clearly he has significant experience using Wikipedia. Personally, I think some marketing company found a college student with Wikipedia proficiency and hired him to test the waters for them. This exact scenario has been bandied back and forth in the blogosphere for a couple months now. Not sure there's really much we can do about it though. Although I would like to find out who Jon Hawk is a sockpuppet of. Kaldari 15:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can learn how to edit Wikipedia before beginning though. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just sceptical that there's any real point in exposing who Jon Hawk really is. It's what he does that is the problem, not who he is. Grace Note 01:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RRs