Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive389

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Global warming

Some jerk moved this to Global warming hoax. Could you undo it and ban the idiot? 71.174.111.245 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Already been moved back, and I believe an admin will be handling the block in a moment's time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We're keeping a eye on him. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He got blocked for vandalism / edit warring on another article. I reviewed the unblock request, but he reverted my decline of the unblock.[1] Somebody else deal with this please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With a history like that, one week was lenient - he should count himself lucky. Block reviewed, unblock firmly declined. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... 5 blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, plus several current episodes of vandalism... phony warnings ([2])... abusing the unblock templates... I hate to be the grumpy old guy in this esteemed gathering, but I'm going to extend this to 1 month - there's a lengthy pattern of problematic editing here, and the next block should almost certainly be indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Taiketsu (talk · contribs) has caused problem in Pokemon-related articles and, to a lesser extent, Yu-Gi-Oh (where he spent quite some time edit warring with me under the impression that English Wikipedia is American Wikipedia). I think we've tolerated his presence enough. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a last chance. If problems resume after the block expires, let me know or come back here and I'll extend the block to indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this block not indefinite? Raul654 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because, as I've been told elsewhere, I'm getting soft in my old age. In all seriousness, an indefinite block would certainly be justifiable, and if you want to extend it I'd be fine with that. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Spellmanloves67 is making personal attacks and being vulgar

There is an ongoing problem with Spellmanloves67 . These problems have already been reported WP:AN#Spellmanloves67, one article WebCT was locked, and Spellmanloves67 is also reversing other valid edits that I've made on other articles. One of these is for Capella University in which I updated statics.

Spellmanloves67 is now engaged in calling names talk:WebCT#Page protected and has created a vulgar page : Wikipedia:Don't be a dick.

Spellmanloves67 seems to be on some type of personal vendetta and has continually blanked his own talk pages because he has been warned many times in the past for being abusive to others: here are a few examples:

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 1]

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 2]

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 3]

I have made numerous attempts to communicate politely but he is consistently hostile. I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.Sxbrown (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, users are allowed to blank their own user pages anytime they would like, for any reason. Also, Spellmanloves67 did not create WP:DICK, it's been around for a while. Redrocket (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. In this case, I have tried to discuss the issue with Spellmanloves67 on his talk page but he keeps removing it. It also seems very inappropriate for Wikipedia to permit the vulgar page. Sxbrown (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And sometimes, you just have to remind people not to be a dick. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would really like some help on this one. Thanks. Sxbrown (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Igniateff is Joshuarooney

Igniateff

Joshuarooney (talk) was someone who tried to get TharkunColl and myself blocked from wikipedia not to long ago.

If you check TharkunColl's talk page you can see most of it play out. Essentially TharkunColl got in a little trouble for a picture, and Joshua blew it up into something quite bigger, even to to point where he was able to convince many Admins to take part with him in a witch hunt, even convincing them he himself ran a Check User, and getting TharkunColl and myself temporarily banned. However eventually the admins were made realize that no check user request was ever run by Joshua, that Joshua himself was sock-puppet, and that I was in fact not one. Right after these events I posted in the RCU page that righted Tharkun and myself "owned". I was pretty upsert at the time (still am a little) and I just felt i needed to say it.

After that had all passed Igniateff shows up, and posts in my talk page and gives birth to a whole new ruckus, just view my talk page for details. Here are the reasons why I believe Igniateff is Joshua.

1. Brought up an old comment: If you check the talk page, he was reprimanding me for something I did quite a few days earlier, warning me not to 'troll' somewhere, that I obviously was not trolling, or had ant intention to return to.

2. Threatened me: For those of you who looked at what Joshua had said to thark and myself, he did quite a bit of threating, as to our consequences. On my talk page you can see Igniateff immedtiely threaten me with a "Final Warning" followed by "reblocking with no chance for rebate". Such threats are within the character of Joshua.

3. New Account: His account was created right AFTER JoshuaRooney's account was blocked. In none of his mannerisms does he act like a new members, for instance digging up old RCU's and giving other members warnings about them. Then threatening the member with blocking, and posting an ANI on it. All of which do not add up to the actions of a new member. (Account Created AFTER JOSH'S was disabled, and gravitated TOWARDS THE OLD RCU)

4. Admin Attack : Previously Joshua's strategy had been to round up Admin's and convince them they needed to punish/block us. Just as before he did the same, finding admins to come get upset at me at my user page, one of which very nearly blocked me again, thus doing exactly as he planned. What can I say, he knows how to manipulate the admins? Also on my talk page you see him mention how he has "Two admins" on his side, again alluding to his conscious efforts to recruit and subvert admins against his targets. (Last time he tricked them into blocking me..)

5. English? : Not one of my stronger points, but like Joshua, he is also from England. There are only so many people in england..right?

Those are my main reasons why I suspect him as being Joshua, I feel the evidence, especially in consideration of when his account was created, is at least enough to give cause for further exploration. ShieldDane (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you believe that (1)Ignaiteff is the new username of the blocked Joshuarooney, (2) that he has continued the behavoir that got him blocked to begin with and (3) he should blocked again. Am I understanding correctly before I investigate?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's in the affirmative. ShieldDane (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this assessment. It's likely in my opinion. Rudget. 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to keep him from creating vast Admin armies to attack me? As much as i like being yelled at for 3 days before anyone listens to my side...I'm sorry, it's just this kids tactic is to get admins to come down on me, and so in general all i ever see are admins showing up to do just that. So what next? Do we check user, does this count as sock puppetry? ShieldDane (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser Confirmed. Unfortunately his school is already vandal-blocked allowing registered users to edit but not create new accounts, but he can make new accounts at home where he has a large range that would be a problem to block effectively. Of course he's not an admin no matter what he says. Hopefully any admins who respond to his complaints will investigate more thoroughly next time. You can point out in your responses that you have been targeted and point to this thread and the previous checkuser findings. Thatcher 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So is that a no to blocking? ShieldDane (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Igniateff is blocked. The only way to prevent him from creating more accounts would be to block at least 200,000 customers of a major ISP. Thatcher 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

199,999 more to go? =DShieldDane (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus

User:Ottava Rima has decided to mass-edit articles to replace the word portmanteau with "blend", based on his interpretation of the word's definition. When it was brought to his attention that the Oxford English Dictionary allows for the usage common in Wikipedia (rather ridiculously common actually) he stated that "the OED makes mistakes and makes them often". After being asked to stop until he'd discussed the matter, he has continued making the same change to another 30 or so articles so far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word blend includes terms considered "portmanteau" words. But to be a portmanteau word, the words have to have syllabic overlap in order to contain the original syllabic sounding of the two former words. This is explained on the page for blend. If people would bother to look at the page, which it has been brought to their attention, they would see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Further mistakes - some people use "portmanteau" for "compound words", which are clearly not the same. Others have used words that combine acronyms as portmanteau words, which goes against the definition of portmanteau words also. Some people have included puns, which are not portmanteau words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We understand what you think the distinction is. Unfortunately the OED and other reliable sources don't agree with you. (It's particularly ironic that you keep changing "brunch" because the first known use of the word in 1896 described it as a "portmanteau word"). Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you haven't proved that the OED doesn't agree with me. You claim it does, without citing evidence. The word is used incorrectly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The point was that you were politely asked to stop and convince other editors that you were correct. Instead, you chose to dismiss several different editors entirely and continue to make said change without having deigned to respond to the argument that there are reliable sources which concede that the looser definition is acceptable, other than to dismiss them as being wrong.And your edits have been over a large number of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By "politely asked" you mean that I was asked by you to stop putting in the correct terms? You did not ask for such evidence. You started a revert campaign. There was nothing polite about your action. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd "proved" quite conclusively what the OED says with several quotations at Talk:Portmanteau#This Page is Wrong. I'm not sure what other evidence you're looking for. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By "proved" you cited the OED citing an instance in which a college student used the term portmanteau, whereas, college professors and linguists commonly accept brunch as a blend, according to Blends ] and many other sources I can provide. A college student does not prove the proper use of the word, and does not contradict how linguists use the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Punch (magazine) that called brunch a portmanteau in 1896, not a student. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the condescending tone produced forth by the above people who are unwilling to provide evidence and look up the definitions, here is some more support, from real linguists like myself, on the issue: [3] I suggest all curious about this please read. I have more sources on the issue if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, multiple editors have disagreed with you. This is the time to stop and work out your differences. Continuing to edit war over your changes and make mass changes based on your interpretation isn't the way to go and down that road lies a block for disruption. Please use some dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Three points on this issue - one, there is no place to deal with "consensus" on such errors, as they are definitional in the same way there are people who correct spelling. Two, editors who are taking offense are not a majority, and are mostly those who are personally involved and probably feel offended that their individual pages have been edited. Three, there have been other editors who have supported me, and admin who have approved of my action before this. The term is as I have cited above, and will not change. There is a linguistic difference that people mistake. Some are even confusing compound words out of their zeal to put forth a word they do not understand. Please read the link I provided above and go through the pdf. You will learn a lot about blends. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First - yes, Wikipedia works by consensus, you do need to deal with other editors here and on this issue specifically. Second, doesn't matter if its a "majority", for the record, I personally disagree with your actions as well. Third, sounds like the start of a good discussion and like I said on your talk admins cannot "approve" you to make edits, they're just editors like everyone else.

Please stop assuming that I don't know what you're talking about, I do and in fact, know a lot of the history behind the literary versus colloquial use of the term. I'm not sure if you realize, but you come across a bit condescending when you keep asking others to read that paper. I think you're missing the fact that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for experts -- there is more than one use for the term, regardless of whether linguists turn purple at the suggestion or not. Shell ^babelfish 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to link colluqial terminology when dealing with definitional aspects to various pages. And I come off condescending when I ask others to read a source when it was claimed that I don't have one? I believe you entered into an absurdum. I suggest you read the progression of events and note the timing of each, before you make said accusations in the future. Being an expert or not does not mean that incorrect terminology is acceptable. When people use "portmanteau" for a compound word, that is blatantly wrong, and that is not about colloquialisms or not. There is a black and a white when it comes to such distinctions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we disagree about a lot of things here, but regardless, the entire point of this thread and my comments was to point out that you need to stop and talk to other editors and stop edit warring. Thank you for joining in the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I must point out here that WP:BOLD verifies my right to act in the way I did, and the edit warring came from others who reverted me without making sure that my reverts were correct or not (which many were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct, especially when differentiating between compound words and those which aren't). Now, since you refused to accuse others of edit warring, I don't think you have the right to claim any impartiality, which would negate your whole purpose of being here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to say who might be right, so I cannot comment on the issue itself. But: While there's nothing wrong with being bold, that does not give you the right to keep reverting. You've been bold, you've been reverted, now it's time to discuss the proposed changes. That's the circle of life BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Conti|✉ 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's still doing it!! To whom does one turn at this point? Pilch62 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN3. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User making false racist allegations

Kevin j (talk · contribs) is accusing admin Theresa Knott of being a white supremacist and refuses to remove or retract the allegations in spite of being warned by an admin. Can some further action please be taken. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of false allegation, and Kevin knows it is a false allegation. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not explicitly calling her a racist. He's drawing a rather odd, inarticulate comparison between TK's treatment of him and the treatment of blacks by white supremacists. Racism is not the issue. The more pressing concern is that this user is being a generally disruptive pain in the ass and that very few of his recent edits have been remotely constructive.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They've now been blocked. Hut 8.5 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

I don't know if this is some kind of WP glitch or if it's my computer, but a user edited this article (a very good edit I might add) and now most of the page is missing, although the IP didn't remove the information. This is what the article looked like before the edit and this is what it looks like now. Is anyone else seeing this or do I just have too many blonde highlights and am missing something. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come upon this a couple of times before. The editor did not format their reference properly (ie left out the < > symbols in a couple of spots) which causes everything to go blank after this spot. I have fixed it so this can be marked as resolved except for the fact that I don't know anything about this subject so I think that someone who does should fact check the info added for accuracy. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. Yeah, that was the problem. I didn't notice it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silvia Lancome

I stumbled upon an edit war going on with the Silvia Lancome article with charges of sockpuppetry and vandalism between multiple users over several days. Not sure what they are bickering about since the disputed changes seem minor to me. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam who was banned indefinitely in November 2007 and who has been flouting their ban ever since through their use of numerous Sockpuppets (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beh-nam/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam) and IP's from Toronto, Canada is editing using the IP 65.93.219.52 and has used this address to warn his acquaintance Anoshirawan not to edit war. [4] I've been reverting Beh-nam's edits per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits (including Silvia Lancome) is it possible to issue a block to the IP address. In future when he edits using an IP where is the most appropriate place to bring it to peoples attention to get them blocked here or somewhere else. - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Ass" and "Fuck you" attacks

In the edit history for the Cannibal Corpse article, user 142.163.159.219 (who is suspected to be the signed out IP of user Jumanji656) today called me an "ass" and said "fuck you" as I reverted his inappropriate nonsense. He keeps dropping trivia and quotes in various articles, including this one, without proper reputable source or formatting. Please investigate the personal attacks and ban if necessary. Thank you. Logical Defense (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user to remain civil. I think that's all that's required at this stage. If he continues, he can be blocked. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missions dilemma

Resolved. 76

There is a user named User:Mdhennessey who has made it his mission, so to speak, to insert a paragraph [5] into many articles about the San Francisco missions, concerning the Asian-American land bridge from 13,000 years ago, with a citation that is simply the title of a book that makes an assertion that there was major impact on the native peoples, without exploring that theme. That sounds at first like a simple content dispute, but it looks to me like he's trying to make a point of some kind, which is against the rules. The other rules violations I'm concerned about are (1) moving everyone's talk page comments from one talk page [6] to another Talk:Spanish missions in California without the editors' consent; (2) insisting that anyone who disagrees does so from ignorance or "soapboxing"; [7] and (3) lecturing others about the rules [8] [9] while seemingly ignoring them himself. I'd just like to know if the user is within his rights or has overstepped the bounds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you the time and trouble of dealing with this issue; Wikipedia just lost me as an editor. Issue resolved. Good luck! Mdhennessey (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I take the above quick surrender to be an admission of guilt, and as license to revert his addition of that largely irrelevant paragraph from the various articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it as an admission of nothing, other than an indication that I will not devote any more of my time responding to one unfounded argument after another. And so far as editing the various articles goes, "You own them now." Mdhennessey (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I take the above as well as this stereotypical drama-queen "I quit" statement [10] (which I safely characterize as drama-queen stuff since I did it myself once and was called on it) as further evidence of his unsuitability to be a wikipedia editor at this time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I will refrain from further reverting the user's seemingly pointless paragraph until a reasonable time for someone to comment here, besides the bickering between the two of us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What you did or did not do previously has no bearing on anyone else, ESPECIALLY ME. Wikipedia would be far better off without you and your "drama queen" attitude. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough! Your dispute is apparently over, so stop antagonising each other or you'll both be blocked for incivility. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You may mark it as resolved, if you wish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c), {and ditto to Tango's post) Both of you quit it. B.Bugs, go read WP:BITE and WP:AGF. You don't get to tell other editors that they don't belong here, period full stop. You've been here long enough to know better. Take this to your talkpages, or just leave each other alone. Content problems will get fixed. You've made your point. Stop antagonizing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now just hang on a moment. First, this was not a newcomer, he's been here nearly 2 years. Second, another editor first raised the complaint to him, and he stonewalled the other editor and me. Third, in the past when I've had issues, I've been told this is the place to take it when the issue is not getting resolved, rather than continued edit warring. Taking things to WP:ANI and letting other eyes judge the dispute is supposed to be the proper way to do things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I was deleting your post or that your post was bad. I'm saying that you telling another editor that they shouldn't be here was bad. I clearly said that the content issue would get fixed (they always do eventually. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that comment was below the belt. I was comparing his approach to where I was at awhile back, when it was questionable whether I was suited to be a wikipedia editor at that time. What I learned from that experience is that at some point, it's better to take it here rather to continue to go around in an endless loop... and to take it here sooner than I used to be willing to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in all seriousness I think blocking is warranted and would send the appropriate message. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't issued to "send appropriate messages", but rather to prevent damage to Wikipedia. They can be issued for disruption, persistent vandalism and harassment/stalking, but I think B.Bugs will be leaving this issue alone. No block necessary, or warranted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I would still like to know whether it's within the rules for an editor to move the comments from one article's talk page to another article's talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I want to answer one question the other editor had as to why I had any business getting involved in this article, since I clearly know nothing about the topic. Well, it's because I was doing some work on the Mission Reds baseball team, and I wanted to find out more about the Mission District, and ended up on the Mission San Francisco de Asís page. You just never know where the exploration threads will lead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Bugs, that's one of the best things about Wikipedia. I've learned more minutia clicking on Wikilinks than I ever thought. Sometimes I find myself fixing typos in articles I've never heard of (and won't remember). And you are well within your editing privileges (and so is Mdhennessey) to add/fix/remove/update/expand/nominate/source any article you want. And you are well within your editing privileges to remove/repair/delete anything too. That's the beauty of a wiki! Just know (both editors here) that you need to back up your "stuff" with sources and to try not to take offense if someone challenges your work. That is within privilege too. 100% of articles have talkpages for this reason. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(marked resolved)

[edit] User Arsenic99 appears to be violating his ban

Resolved.

Edits reverted, Arsenic99 blocked 24 hours.

Arsenic99 was recently given a six month ban from editing, quote, "any articles or talk pages that, reasonably speaking, relate to the Armenian Genocide". Since then he has been making edits to the List of designated terrorist organizations article: [[11]], adding material that relates to the Armenian terrorist organisation ASALA.

To quote from the Wikipedia entry on ASALA, it was founded "to compel the Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its alleged responsibility for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, pay reparations, and cede territory for an Armenian homeland". It would thus appear that Arsenic99 is adding and editing material that relates to the Armenian genocide and that the editor is violating his ban. Meowy 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that Arsenic99's edits in that particular page appear to be very POV and antagonistic (in contrast to the neutral descriptions of all the other organisations and groups listed in the entry). While the actual content can be dealt with in the entry itself, the intent of Arsenic99 when making those edits is relevant to the issue here. Meowy 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted all of the edits he'd recently made to the article (just to make sure I got everything), and blocked him for 24 hours. I also informed him that his six-month discretionary ban has been reset. Other admins, feel free to review ... Blueboy96 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block him myself - good call. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time, if you could log this and similar blocks at WP:ARBAA2. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm absolutely seething...

Resolved.

...about my block. We have an admin chucking out hard rangeblocks and failing to respond to talkpage messages about innocent vicims. Other admins seeming to think it's more important to check with the blocking admin than unblock even though they had already given permission to unblock via the block template message in the event of any problems. Not to mention the fact that the fact that the blocking admin is apparantly also an Arbiter acting as some kind of inhibiting factor when it came to undoing it. Process and bureaucracy trump any kind of common sense once again. Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked, so I don't know what you're talking about. If you're complaining about an IP block, you need to specify the IP address. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was silly for anyone to wait to hear from the blocking admin in this case. However the problem has already been solved, so I don't see that there's anything left to be done here. Friday (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unforunate that you were autoblocked because the IP you were using was part of a range hard blocked due to extensive vandalism, but I can assure you that FT2 would not have wanted to trp innocent users. I suspect he was acting because of checkuser evidence. All is sorted now, and you were only out of action for a short period of time - call it a well deserved break :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just got passed this one. Apologies - my day has been dealing with specific issues and my usualy days work; I've not caught up on messages for the last while. Basically, you caught by a hardening of an anti-vandalism block of a persistent vandal. If you take a look [12] you'll see exactly how much activity and how persistent has gone on in that range and how many people have tried to address it. You are one of very few legitimate users using it - the block message was specifically tuned in case any legitimate user were accidentally caught, they would know how to get it quickly reversed. At some point during the day a user messaged me to pass on your problem, and I told them on the spot when I saw the message that I was fine if the range was actively being used by a decent user, to reverse the IP block back to soft. The rest is courtesy and forethought; blocks on IP ranges by checkuser aren't verifiable by most administrators, so especially with those, one would usually ask the blocking admin what was up. In this case one might reverse it as Friday says, or ask... both views are widespread.

For what its worth, my apologies for the inconvenience. If you look at the block log link, I think you'll agree that a great many administrators have tried to handle it over time...

My regrets again, and if you ever do change IPs so you dont use that range can you let someone know?

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Sorry if I came off a bit OTT - if I have a failing it's I have a ferocious temper and sometimes let that get the better of me. You've been far more polite than I deserve :) Exxolon (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need help against an anonymous IP

Resolved. blocked both parties for 3RR violation--Tango (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area&action=history Please help against this IP, thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is marked as resolved, but it might not have been a good idea to point them both to WP:DR as well? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggested on their talk pages that they use the article talk page to discuss it - that's the first stage of dispute resolution. I don't see any real need to start talking about the other stages until they've at least attempted that one. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

Seeing a couple of threads above, it may be worth noting that the OTRS posse has been taking advantage of a slow email day to work at the backlogs; at least 100 tickets ave been handled in the last 48 hours, many of them BLPS going back up to two months. So there may be a flurry of "WTF?" activity. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a threat?

I could use a bit of help here: User :Kmnicholas has been repeatedly creating a page about her company, ISM Boston. Now it looks like a threat has appeared on Talk: ISM Boston. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You must mean the bit about "Further deletion will result in press activity both digital and print with the deleting person's details being published. You MUST contact the original publisher and discuss the matter before taking action. This is a legal requirement." Looks like WP:HARASS, WP:LEGAL, and a couple of others all rolled into one. Raymond Arritt (talk)

I do. Perhaps someone else could take it from here? I've deleted the article a couple of times. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely--and the page has been deleted with a sprinkling of WP:SALT. Blueboy96 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need an Admin deletion

Hi all, can I get an admin deletion of a revision to a talk page? I have made an oversight request, but have no idea how long that takes, and I think this needs to be done pronto. Please email me for details as to which talk page and revision, if necessary. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

or leave note on my talk page, and I can email. thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them - please double-check to make sure I got the right ones. You may want to email requests for oversight - they're usually pretty quick on the trigger - and let them know that all 4 deleted diffs can be oversighted. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acepot and company

I wasn't sure what to do with this situation as I have not run into any socks before and the user seems to have stopped for now.

Acepot123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was vandalizing Julius Caesar's talk page and received a final warning, and stopped, so no block. He then started up again with Acepot292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I gave him an immediate final warning with a link to Acepot123. Acepot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was then created and the user placed a Julius Caesar related question on his talk page. I left him an only warning message with links to the other two accounts and there hasn't been any vandalism since.

I am not sure what to do with the situation from here, the vandalism seems to have stopped, so I figured I would post this note just as an FYI. KnightLago (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked all three accounts as vandal-only sockpuppets. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP making abusive comments on ANI and elsewhere

87.113.8.101 (talk · contribs), 87.113.64.63 (talk · contribs), 87.114.3.85 (talk · contribs), 87.113.8.101 (talk · contribs), and 87.115.1.132 (talk · contribs) are all almost certainly the same person, and have been making obscene and abusive and insulting remarks to me in the above discussion on OM ([13], [14], [15], and [16]) and vandalizing my user page ([17], repeated at least twice in later diffs). These anons are likely either socks or meatpuppets of someone actually involved in the dispute; [18] is particularly suspicious. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked one but he claims to be using an open WiFi port. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's 87.112.0.0/14, one hell of a range. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The range isn't as big as you assume it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going by what the Rangeblock calculator was telling me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

193.35.134.151 (talk · contribs), who has also just vandalized my user page, has recently posted on User:Fredrick Day's talk page, as you will see in his contribs. Sure, it's an IP, and it's POSSIBLE that it's just a coincidence, but when you combine it with the fact that in a diff I posted above the anon had commented on Fredrick Day's talk page just tonight, it's quite likely that this individual is either Fredrick Day himself or an associate of his. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

87.112.67.165 (talk · contribs) Yeah, the anon is now going around stirring up further trouble with blocked/warned editors and making other random insinuations. Shell ^babelfish 02:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalbot threat.

I noticed that an anon [19] had threatened to use a different IP address along with a vandalbot, which is a very serious threat. I wasn't sure what to do, so I am bringing it up here. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell him to join the queue. (IP blocked). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robby Zeller

Resolved. blocked

User:Robby Zeller continues to create inappropriate wiki articles after continued speedy deletions and warnings.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours & advised to read WP:N. All pages deleted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Madblast

I am disturbed by what this user is doing, so I'm listing it here for discussion or action by a more experienced vandal fighting admin. I came across this user while speedy deleting the article The Naked Brothers Band (band), which for non-admins contained the text <center><font size=19>MCR PORN?</font>. I reviewed the user's page to find the image Image:Oasis fag.JPG with the caption "this user loves shit", which I promptly speedy deleted as an attack image. Looking through the user's contributions, I see many screen shot images that are not being used mixed in with some positive contributions. The user has many warnings. Should this user be blocked for attacking and, if so, what length? It's time for me to get to bed, so I defer this to consensus/boldness. Royalbroil 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Added speedy rationales to several of the pictures they've uploaded over the last week, which include nonsense, copyvios and attack page pics. Also requested speedy on several unlikely typos.Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Justpassinby

Resolved.

I'm requesting the assistance of an uninvolved admin with an obvious tendentious editor in the article Jon Courtney: WP:SPA Justpassinby (talk · contribs), who evidently also edits as Joncourtney (talk · contribs), 78.105.130.169 (talk · contribs) and 86.141.25.254 (talk · contribs) (see former SSP report and ongoing SSP report.) This is not an ordinary content dispute, but ongoing, immediate and active disruption. This individual has an openly stated bias against the band Pure Reason Revolution and this article, which he nominated for deletion and which I closed as keep by consensus. (I had no familiarity with the user or the article at the time.) After he left a warning on my talk page that by closing with that reading I was causing an edit war, I went to the article to see if I could prevent that. I discovered there that he seemed to object to promotional, poorly sourced text, so I revised the article in an attempt to address those concerns. Rather than appeasing him, this evidently enraged him, as he spent the next little while vandalizing the page, including this edit under his primary account and this under one of his suspected socks, evidently pretending to be the subject of the article objecting to the page. Now he is blanking sourced content under misleading edit summaries (in spite of being advised that doing so leaves the block quote without a source) and blanking neutral reliably sourced material under alleged BLP concerns. He has rejected all reasonable efforts of communication at his talk page in regards to this issue and, I note, in others--including repeated requests made there by another editor that he stop signing contributions to article space. He responds with personal attacks and accusations of bias. He refuses to avail himself of the dispute resolution methods of addressing the article which I've pointed out to him (at first he did not explain why he did not choose to propose a merge, see deletion review or go to the WP:NPOVN. Now he says it is because I am omnipotent.) He has previously been blocked for disruptive editing at the band article Pure Reason Revolution. He has also previously been reported at ANI, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An obvious problem editor, but what is it you need help with? Do you feel you're too involved in content disputes with him to block him, or do you think that another admin might have more luck than you in convincing him to abide by policies and guidelines? Because it doesn't look to me like either is true. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note this recent diff, his most recent. I'd be prepared to AGF there until he gives us evidence that doing so was unwise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for weighing in. :) He has made it plain that he does not regard me as an uninvolved administrator in his response to my warning over edit-warring on Pure Reason Revolution, here. He has already accused me of "abuse of...admin privileges" in that thread for working on the Jon Courtney article at all. Since he seems to have had a history of viewing disagreement as personal, I would prefer an uninvolved admin to issue any necessary blocks just so as not to feed his belief that he is the target of admin abuse. Anyway, I hope that the latest diff at BLP does reflect an honest change of opinion on the matter, and I'll bring it back here if disruptive behavior persists. If others feel that it would be more appropriate for me to block in that case, I will. Meanwhile, I will restore the sourced information recently removed from the article. Thanks again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression that anybody who blocks him will just be a puppet of yours or a cabalist or somesuch anyway - I'm not a big believer in letting blockees decide who's sufficiently unbiased to block them. Anyway, hopefully no block will be necessary, but keep us posted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All right. I guess assuming good faith is a mistake, then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Other admins, feel free to adjust per your best judgment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had to note how well you called that one. From the unblock request: "opinion has been swayed against me by a 'mafia' of fans of Jon Courtney". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I didn't predict that term. But I sure am a big fan of Mr. Courtney - especially Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black), Helpless, After the Gold Rush, and Like a Hurricane. No, wait, I'm thinking of Neil Young. Point being, though, that don't nobody mess with the family. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban?

←Thanks. Given this user's self-professed conflict of interest with regards to neutrality on this article and those related to Pure Reason Revolution, would it be appropriate to consider a topic ban? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is basically a single purpose account that is, in pursuing its single purpose, being tendentious and disruptive. So on the one hand, you could say "well, it's only being tendentious and disruptive in that one topic, so why not topic ban?". On the other hand, you could say "it's being tendentious and disruptive in every topic it edits; if it doesn't shape up, ban it entirely". I probably tend towards the second view - that he's on a short leash once the block expires and is getting progressively closer to an indef block - but if you think a topic ban might help, I'd probably go along with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that this has been a single purpose account. I suppose my question about a topic ban is primarily to give him another chance to demonstrate good faith if he so desires, but only on unrelated articles. I think given this user's history and how quickly the user goes from this and this to this that it's reasonable to assume the user either cannot or will not contribute constructively to those articles. Enough is enough, I think, unless the editor can demonstrate through sustained contributions elsewhere that he has some legitimate interest in content building on Wikipedia and is not just here to voice his dislike for this band. In any event, I think a short leash is a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the user's response to being blocked, I'm inclined to support a topic ban after all. I have virtually no confidence that he can be a useful contributor in that area; I suppose we might as well give him a chance to be useful elsewhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope that others will choose to weigh in here, particularly given the user's edits to his userpage while blocked in his unblock request and his subsequent note about the administrator who declined it. I see no reason to believe whatsoever that this user will contribute constructively to these articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor is continuing to disrupt the articles while blocked under an IP. He identifies himself here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've indeffed this editor for abuse of multiple accounts, including impersonation of the subject of a BLP. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be tagging this one resolved, then. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Kurt Krenn

Resolved. New stub per WP:FORGET is vastly better referenced.

I've just had the conversation below with User:Doc glasgow but it seems we have not been able to reach consensus. I firmly believe that the fact that Wikipedia is—and will always be—work in progress should be taken into consideration whenever someone comes across an article that is not yet perfect. In this case, references seem to be missing. However, speedy deleting the article does not help improve Wikipedia as the text is now only available to a small minority of admins. <KF> 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I have just found out thanks to your message, you have deleted the Kurt Krenn page. What is going on here? I couldn't find any AfD discussion. <KF> 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article as is contravened our policy on biographies of living people. The policy requires that all negative statements are referenced from reliable sources, this biography was full of them and wholly unreferenced. You are welcome to recreate a new article which complies with the policy.--Doc^g 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly no case for speedy deletion. There are people all over the world whose biography is full of "negative statements" because they have done a lot of negative things in their lives. You might have put an "unreferenced" tag on top of the article or put it on AfD, nothing more. Please recreate it and do one or the other. Best wishes, <KF> 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy allows, indeed mandates deletion. The problem is not negative statements, it is negative statements without referencing. Such things must always be removed from wikipedia.--Doc^g 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you got a bit carried away. Where does it say that "policy mandates deletion"? Let me repeat my request: Please restore the deleted page and all of its edit history. Only afterwards can you do any of the following four things: (a) add an "unreferenced" tag; (b) provide the missing reference(s) yourself; (c) add an AfD tag and create the corresponding AfD page; or (d) remove those passages from the article which might harm Krenn. All the best, <KF> 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to decline your request.--Doc^g 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KF, everything was according the policy. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KF, without prejudice. The proper place to contest my deletion is deletion review.--Doc^g 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote the specific passage from WP:BLP:

"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)."

There are legal reasons for this policy. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started a stub, which, KF, is surely a better approach than going to DRV (which is the right forum, indeed). Nobody is saying we shouldn't have an article but it needs to be a fair article that doesn't violate BLP, is verifiabl;e, etc, and from what I can gather none of that was in place before so likely a good decision. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good call. WP:FORGET should result in a better article overall, I hope. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, thanks for starting a stub on Kurt Krenn. I don't know if you have read the deleted article, but now that I've reread it I cannot for the life of me understand why it allegedly is a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages"." Krenn is not attacked in the deleted article. The page serves the usual purpose of a biographical article and does not "disparage its subject", let alone only disparage it. The only shortcoming of the text is the absence of one or two, maybe three, references.

The Sisyphean task that has just started is to start from scratch without the help of the deleted text. My guess is that sooner or later a Wikipedian or two, supported by some casual browsers-turned-editors, will come up with very much the same article again—just because there is nothing else to report about Kurt Krenn. Personally, I hate people working against each other, but if you are all happy with it, so shall it be. Happy Easter! <KF> 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the deleted article, so sorry if I implied something that's not true. In any case I am not too surprised that an admin who doesn't follow Austrian and German news deleted it if it wasn't very well-referenced. It's extremely rare for a religious figure to be that controversial, after all. Was the article a translation of de:Kurt Krenn? That article definitely doesn't satisfy our requirements here, even if we would allow sources in German. Happy Easter! --Hans Adler (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can read the deleted article. It was a mess of innuendo and lacked sources. The new article is already substantially better and (obviously) better referenced. I am marking this resolved, as the outcome for the encyclopaedia is self-evidently correct. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a kiwi sock returns

Resolved. Sock drawer, please meet my pet Magmar. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could folks please review Thatcher's comments at User talk:Thatcher#the checkuser template re;

• Samneric (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) and
• Vickiemc (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

who likely need to be blocked as socks of (most recently)

• Jon Hobynx (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

See also Thatcher's comments at the end of;

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R:128.40.76.3

I encountered Samneric at Martin Banwell which is an academic's bio that an earlier sock messed with, i.e.

• Former User 5 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked both and tagged them as socks of R:, as per the CU. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jéské. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Resolved.

Would someone mind following up on the IP I reported at AIV, 1 hour ago. Other vandals have been reported and blocked since then, yet the one I reported remains. Before anyone says the IP is "stale" that's because of how long ago it was that I reported. I'm not sure why this one has been overlooked. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Luna took care of this one [20]. Dreadstar † 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User:ViperNerd using sock accounts to vandalize articles and circumvent 48 hour 3RR block.

User:ViperNerd is using another one of his socks [21] to continue to vandalize and harass editors. The sock policy suggests that the block clock should be restarted or extended, would that be appropriate here? He was blocked yesterday, but the block essentially doesn't exist because of his use of these other IPs. Edgarde has already initiated a Sock investigation, and I added the new IP to the list of suspected socks. Any help here would be appreciated. --CobraGeek (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL expertise needed...

User:Bole2 has copied the contents of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror V and pasted it (after various botched attempts) into Wikipedia:Peer review/Treehouse of Horror V/archive3. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this is just fine or is it in any way an infringement of GFDL? I seem to recall that people's edits should be attributable to them and in this case, those edits are no longer traceable to the editors in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a GFDL breach yes. But so are rather a lot of the merges that take place on wikipedia.Geni 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely against GFDL as the attribution is now entirely wrong and in breach. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful Formosa

While this new user, Beautiful Formosa (talk · contribs), is suspected to be a sockpuppet of puppeteer Nationalist, he/she has been warned by another user and myself plenty of times for adding content without citing reliable sources.

He/she has been adding unsourced content to the article of Chuang Kuo-rong, which he/she created, violating WP:BLP and WP:OR. After I did some cleanup to the article, BF reverted my removal of unreferenced statements with an edit summary of Stop green washing Wikipedia. After some putting some notices/warnings on BF's talkpage, he/she reverted my edit did not put any edit summaries after the final warning was given. I think for a new user, this editor is a little too aggressive.--Jerrch 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User offering to pay for an article

Resolved.

User:RobRoth just offered to pay User:Tae04gu to post an advertising article for him. (diff) Rob recently got off a block for repeated re-creation of a speedy-ed spam article. Could someone with a mop have a chat with Rob? Justin Eiler (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. _GB^T/C 18:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Reaves message on my User Talk page

[22]

Also, commenting at an archive is pointless. I'm not sure I understand how you ever became an admin. John Reaves 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caltrop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He linked to the AN/I archives: He does have a point in that commenting on archive pages is pointless, as nobody's going to read the comment. Perhaps you should revert your edit there and post it somewhere with an active discussion instead? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are here...take a look at that archived discussion. Caltrop is doing it again. Moving his talk page where no one can find and mucking with the history. This is bewildering behavior for an administrator. John Reaves 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Reaves here. Moving the edits to an other page, then deleting the history, effectively making the search for a specific diff tedious is not an acceptable use of admins tools, in my opinion. (I might be missing something, I have no admin rights on this account). This is not a question of good faith or not, you are effectively doing something that you were told was not ok. The policy states that removing comments is ok, not that deleting the page to avoid scrutiny is. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John says he's moving the pages... does that require admin tools? Avruch ^T 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post this here Caltrop? Am I out of the loop on some history here? Is John Reaves not supposed to be on your talk page? Was his question hurtful? I ask out of ignorance; I don't get it. :\ --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link you refer to on your talk page states that "warnings may still be viewed in page history." That link is simply referring to removal of comments, not deleting pages entirely so the archives are not visible. Enigma ^msg! 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Would it be appropriate to move his pages around (over redirects or deletions, and then restore the "current" talk page without deleting the redirects) in order to create a proper move history from his talk page? Or perhaps make a null edit naming the current location of his talk page? Anyway, if he doesn't understand that what he did destroys history even if it doesn't destroy any actual information, desysoping seems an appropriate remedy for misuse of delete, even in his own talk-space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego has already fixed this guys screwups once, he knew that what he was doing wrong and against policy. John Reaves 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the history back. Hopefully he'll take a hint this time. John Reaves 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't, I think there would be grounds to consider removing his bit. This suggests he hasn't used his admin tools for anything but disruption at his own talk pages and archives since 27 August 4 October - several of the deletions appear to regard matters which *should* be open for scrutiny. Orderinchaos 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

4 October, actually. -- Naerii 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, you're indeed correct. Orderinchaos 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy has been editing since 2002 and in the absence of of any abuse of admin tools - you know, like blocking innocent people or whatever - I'd be inclined to ignore it and move on. -- Naerii 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undo by user MezzoMezzo in Islamic Music article

The User:MezzoMezzo has undone my referenced addition to the article Islamic music calling them not true factually and historically (see this) and according to article's talk page, this user has done this act upon new additions before. Please do the necessary acts. Regards, Dany (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though the user is violating WP:3RR on top of removing references. This kinda smacks of WP:OWN, although I don't like making such accusations directly to users. I would drop a note on their talk page and the discussion page about the reverts. If it continues, warn about 3RR. Also, it couldn't hurt to go to WP:RFC/U. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what exactly is being spoken of, I haven't even come close to violating the three revert rule on that article. Furthermore, Danrah's insertion was blatantly POV and the references were from a fringe site presenting "facts" which were not historically true. The site also uses the term "Wahhabi", which is a religious slur, to support a straw man argument. I am actually quite appalled that this user brought this here without even attempting to discuss the issue with me, and I am just downright confused as to where this accusation of a WP:3RR violation is coming from. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is MezzoMezzo's view that is not factual. Islam permits singing under the condition that it not be in any way obscene or harmful to Islamic morals. Having said that, this is not the place to resolve the content disputes.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo has undone my additions again. (see this )Dany (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ip disruption

There are Ips going around replacing core wikipedia namespace pages (village pump, ANI, AN, etc) with "hello" and then a random number of some sort. They seem to be coming back every time they are blocked too, an example is provided here [23], and here is another [24], [25] newest version so far. Thoughts on this? AndreNatas (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious solution: hit the fucker with a range-block, surely? Don't have the technical ability for that myself, but someone online must do. Moreschi (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the Canadian 172 vandal, with a new MO. How I've always wanted a range block for AOL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Back again, they also seem to be using a vandal bot by that speed [26]. AndreNatas (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, just multiple tabs works as well. Can't rangeblock? Then all I can suggest is RBI. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an admin) Wouldn't a rangeblock to all of 172.xxx block every single person on 172.xxx? How can an IP use bots??? Should they just be blocked on sight? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions for the 172.128.0.0/10 range (AOL), and there's a large number of positive contributions by non-vandals just today. A rangeblock would be quite inappropriate, given the sheer numbers of non-vandalism edits. Also, for AstroHurricane001, they mean bots as in "automated programs" not user accounts with the +bot flag set. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:S7740 is going through other users's Talk and Talk archive pages and deleting his/her comments

S7740 (talk · contribs) is claiming copyright to all Talk page comments they've added and is deleting all of them from everybody's Talk pages and Talk page archives. Corvus cornix_talk 03:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see that I don't have copyright to my comments, but didn't realise it was such a bad thing to remove them. I don't really see the problem, as it is not forbidden.--S7740 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is not considered appropriate behavior to remove your comments see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. Jeepday (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, you do have copyright to your comments, to the extent that they are eligible for copyright protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't state that it is not appropriate or prohibited to change or remove your own comments, but merely suggests some guidelines for doing so.--S7740 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is considered extremely rude to do so, as 1) it disrupts the continuity of the conversation in question, obliterating needed context, and 2) other people may use those comments as reference in future situations. Unless your decision is to forgo common courtesy in favor of pointless control over your comments, then it is best to leave them intact. —Kurykh 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you might consider it rude, but I'd rather you didn't state your personal views about what constitutes 'common courtesy' as fact, and recognise that in a global community such as this, other viewpoints than your own exist. Please do not also make assumptions about what is pointless or not, as this kind of assertion presumes that you alone have the right to decide if other people's actions are justified. Which would seem to be an arrogant position to take.--S7740 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to suddenly remove my comment above for no apparent reason, rendering your response as a statement coming out of the blue, would I be doing you a disservice and making you sound foolish? This type of courtesy is not as subjective as you cast. I may be primarily speaking for myself, but from the comments by others above, I can sense that there are others who agree with my statements. You need not condescend to me about the existence of differing viewpoints, as I know full well they exist, or else we won't be here discussing this matter. —Kurykh 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments of my own that I deleted had no replies in existence, therefore your point about context is irrelevant and presumptious, and you are merely interjecting in a matter which you have insufficient background information. It was not my intention to appear condescending toward you, but merely to make you aware that you were stating personal views in a way that implied them to be inviolable truth. --S7740 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have a reason for removing your comments from pages? Mr.Z-man 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that, for being released under the GFDL, anyone can restore them all, and therefore what you are doing is futile? Without a valid reason, it may be seen as disruptive. By the way, you own the copyright to the comments you had done, but you have licensed them under the GFDL. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several. The matter was closed and I wanted to move on from it, plus there was no context anyway, amongst other things. But I don't feel I should have to justify my reasons anyway, because I wasn't breaking any kind of rules, except I suppose the unspoken rule of wikipedia amongst some who lay in wait here to stomp on every new edit, which is to make up the rules as they go along, according to their own prejudices and convoluted pedantry.--S7740 (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Rey, I know it's futile, and I'm not doing it now. I only did it once on one page, and a couple of times on another, because I didn't realise that I was being instantly reverted and therefore tried a few times because I thought something wasn't working. The title of this thread is misleading because it gives the impression that I'm making changes in a big way here and am constantly doing it, which is just not true. In fact the thread title actually sounds like something a child would scream out to a teacher in class to get someone else in trouble. Regarding futility, I've now come to realise that attempting to make any changes at all here in this pedant's paradise is a really rather futile exercise in frustration. --S7740 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just a system of traditions that we aren't very good at writing down. Now that you've discovered a problem, feel free to help us solve it. — Dan | talk 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments in question are (for the most part) located here for the sake of posterity. S7740 feels his comments are not part of the larger discussion. I disagree: part of this sort of community is the dialogue that takes place in building this encyclopedia. Yes, that's hopelessly Utopian of me. In the end S7740 had initially attempted to insert some information into the written history of an article. When two editors challenged this, he became belligerent (and, dare I say, often pedantic) in his frustrations: Wikipedia simply wasn't doing what he wanted it to do. We were all at fault. We moved too slow. We were pedantic. When he didn't get what he wanted, he simply tried to erase his presence here. I guess some people are just like that. What can you do? freshacconcispeaktome 13:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Kurykh's view of courtesy here is very widely shared.DGG (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could I get some help with User:AeturnalNarcosis concerning fair use of album covers?

AeturnalNarcosis (talk · contribs) is adding album covers with fair use rationales only for the album articles to the article about the band. When I repeatedly try to explain to him/her that that's not a valid use of fair use images, the user replies with incivility [27] and [28], for example. Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I could use a hand at Ashley Alexandra Dupré‎, where Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) persists in inserting an album cover image into the article to illustrate the subject. ➪HiDrNick! 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that's probably a slight mischaracterization, as the image is being used in an album infobox as album cover art, not to identify the article subject. Nesodak (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a picture of the article subject! ➪HiDrNick! 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And? It's not being used to identify the person, it's being used way, way down in the article to ID the album in an album infobox. Nesodak (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The conversation is taking place at IfD here, which is probably the most appropriate place for it. Nesodak (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawp harassing edit at Eridani Edict

Eridani Edict is non-notable {{honorverse}} thing and I removed a one-off redlink to an even less notable bit of fancruft and suddenly a vandal shows up and undoes my edit. I reverted and two IPs showed up to play an undo with a bit of vandalism followed by 2nd IP removing just the vandalism game. This is so Grawp. Seen it many times.

• [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp

For the past week throw away accounts and IPs have been undoing many edits of mine to "Honorverse" stuff. I request review of all this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello upon reading this thread and looked at the article, he's just been at it again, reverted it though. [35]. AndreNatas (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we're live - this is ongoing. Thanks, and Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp is currently attempting to remove this ANI thread with an ideal number of Ips, I think we should Sprotect this page. AndreNatas (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Perl (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• So how about someone semi-protects Eridani Edict? This has not stopped. The diffs above are far from all of it; see the new section at the checkuser case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this still seems to be going on, I've semi-protected it for a week. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomorrow, I'll see which of the other honorverse articles I've edited today he moves onto when I pack-in for today (which is soon); this is the ongoing pattern. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to rain on your parade, Jack, but those look like the same style of edits as was used to post death threats to User:J Milburn last week. However, as Grawp targets (such as Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) and yourself) have also simultaneously had edit-links c&p'd to an off-site forum (I'm not saying which, and I will redact any mention of them) for mass-spamming of death threats, I believe that these users and Grawp are allied. These IPs aren't Grawp - Alison ferreted out his IP range in the original Grawp CU case (it's 4.168.24.0/24) because of the harassment and disruption, and the IPs up top do not match (however, it should be noted that that range's block expired). At best, these are proxies for him. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] single purpose account - edit warring

user cormhamster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CormHamster seems to have a single purpose account - the account has only been used to edit 2 articles, both closely related to eachother.

Since March 20th this user has made the same revert six times on the same article, despite the revert removing a information from a reliable source and consensus clearly being against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad_Watch&action=history

When I mentioned that he had perhaps made too many reverts, the user made it clear that he planned to push the rules as much as he was able to do.

I think you have made too many reverts within the last 2 or 3 days. 3 reverts is not a right, perhaps it might be best for you to leave the article alone for a while. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will operate within the rules of the site. Nothing more, nothing less. CormHamster (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad_Watch#cormhamster

I don't know if this user is a sockpuppet or not, I dont think there is enough evidence for a checkuser, however single purpose account, multiple reverts, a desire to push 3RR as far as possible and a blatant disregard of consensus, is really not acceptable. I was handed a 12 hour block for my reverts on that article - even though I didnt exceed the 3 reverts limit, and I am trying very hard to not enter into another edit-war, users like this who offer nothing other than reverts have no place in wikipedia, and offer nothing apart from tiresome ANI reports and users like myself trying to keep an article decent, while remaining within the rules and the spirit of the rules.

Oh and excuse the crappy formatting and links, I am rather lame when it comes to wikipedia coding. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned about gaming 3RRDGG (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nmate

Dear MarkBA!
why you are not on the Marián Kotleba's seminar than ''otec'' Tankréd ?
                
[[Nmate]]

[edit] User:Starfire777

Despite repeated requests, Starfire777 (talk · contribs) has been on a crusade against "Darwinism"[40] [41] and engaged in edit warring[42][43][44], then after a 3RR warning[45] continued.[46][47] I've given Starfire777 a 24 hour block for edit warring, note that I made one of the reversions.[48] Please review this block. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse by a non-admin. User clearly has an agenda, but doing my best to AGF, the block is warranted by simple repeated violation of policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also clearly a returning user, from the use of the term weasel wording in the summary of his very first edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Laettner semi protect s.v.p

can someone semi protect Christian Laettner for a month ? or block user 74.138.172.31 ? Cheers. Mion (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 day. After 1 day the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

History of that user shows it is going on from januari, so 1 day is not helping, Mion (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:74.138.172.31 single purpose account

• 20:41, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→1992 East regional final game)
• 00:21, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
• 03:22, 21 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→1992 East regional final game)
• 17:32, 12 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
• 04:12, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:74.138.172.31‎ (Undid revision 187397752 by Anabus maximus (talk))
• 02:05, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:74.138.172.31‎ (→Your recent edits)
• 01:46, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (Undid revision 187123594 by Duke53 (talk))
• 20:46, 26 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (Undid revision 186971386 by Duke53 (talk))
• 05:13, 17 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)

I suggest the middle, two weeks ? Mion (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. If that doesn't stop them, a much longer block is possible - this appears to be a static IP address. Is anyone else involved in the vandalism? If not, there is no need for protection. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see User:216.84.48.187 is also being used, but hasn't been in over a month. If they go back to using that address, it can be blocked too. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More anon harassment and vandalism

In what appears to be a continuation of an issue brought forth above ([49]), 87.113.93.118 (talk · contribs) has been continuing to vandalize parts of my userpage ([50]) and maliciously edit my comments on AfDs ([51]). For the reasons I gave in the discussion above, I believe this anon has some connection with Fredrick day (talk · contribs), even if he is not FD himself; at the very least, it's quite clear that it is someone who has been involved in the OM mess. I'm getting sick and tired of this. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• You could take it to AIV, but it'd be a whack-a-mole situation; this person is using a dynamic IP - see also Special:Contributions/87.114.141.40. It's a PlusNet account from the UK, which spans 87.112.0.0-87.115.255.255; not really a blockable range, I'd say. Black Kite 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, we unfortunately can't block the whole range very easily at all, and even if we could, we wouldn't since we'd be blocking half of England in the process. If you believe there is a connection to Frederick day, you might want to try requesting a checkuser - if things come up positive, we can hardblock that account. Sorry we can't do that much, but as Black Kite pointed out, he'd just pop up somewhere else if we tried blocking him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 202.7.209.160 (talk · contribs)

Not sure quite what is the best procedure. The editor has made numerous edits this month, it looks like a pattern of adding random names and phrases to random articles. The only one I know for a fact is incorrect is the edit to Portland Trail Blazers, but the others look like somebody playing around randomly, rather than making substantive and informed additions. Editor has been warned four times, but more edits than that are problematic. Not sure if a block is the appropriate remedy at this point, or something else. -Pete (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP vandalizes again, go ahead and give them a {{uw-longterm}} warning, then report to WP:AIV if it continues. Since it's an IP, we have to be a little more careful about the blocking. They appear to have stopped for the night anyway (or day, rather - IP is coming from Australia). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific reply. There was one more, so I issued the longerm warning as you suggest. I will try to check back tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obuibo Mbstpo, yet again

...has returned, in the form of SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs). As yet, he hasn't taken up any of OM's disruptive activities; do we let the sock continue (effectively granting an unblock), or block it has a block-evading sock? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's evading a block, he's evading a block. Seems straightforward: block. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're right, unfortunately, and I've blocked him. I'm hoping he'll make a compelling case for an unblock, but I guess that's up to him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(A) OM's block is totally illegitimate in the first place, as is continued enforcement of it; (B) You know this is the same individual how, exactly? Don't shoot first and ask questions later. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The case is complex. While it is likely that, on cautious review, the block would be lifted, he has not requested that, and he has also requested that I not "defend" him. Wikipedia is not going to be served by tilting at windmills, and Sarcasticidealist seems to be playing this quite straight. Unless the block is appealed and found not legitimate, acting to block socks is certainly allowed. We could decide to ignore the prior account, WP:IAR and all that, but ... I'm certainly not going to propose that. Believe it or not, I have no disruptive intent at all! As to how the sock was identified, it would not be rocket science, and I'm asking that the precious time of a checkuser not be wasted. If somehow it were to turn out that SpiritWorldWiki is not Mbstpo -- we should be so lucky to have another like him -- then the real user will presumably ask for unblock, and it can be reviewed at that time. If Mbstpo wants unblock, he'll ask for it. (You can tell from the edits that this is an experienced Wikipedian, this is not a noob, so blocks are relatively harmless.) On the other hand, if others decide to move for the unblock of Mbstpo, I would support that. I am not going to move in that direction myself. There is plenty else to do, simply to follow up on all the clues Mbstpo left behind. So this 63-year-old editor is following up on clues left by a 27-year-old writer, because I've found it to be -- always -- worthwhile. If this was music, he'd be Mozart. And, yes, we can't allow Mozart in the living room, the fart jokes, you know. Mozart, we might notice, was quite disruptive and was hated by quite a few people in his time. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer B:

• the account was created just after OM scrambled his password;
• the account is run by a rabid inclusionist;
• the account has devoted all of its time to OM's areas of interest: sweeping policy proposals with no chance of acceptance (not that there's anything wrong with that), Wikiproject Parliamentary Procedure, and Ayn Rand;
• when I asked the account if it was OM, it declined to answer me and continued editing;
• Quack

If any admin thinks that my evidence for this block was anything short of overwhelming, she/he has my cheerful permission to unblock without further consulting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I followed the case a bit. This editor created a hoax article, among other things. Editors who would knowingly make the encyclopedia worse rather than better should not be welcome here. Hoaxes make the encyclopedia worse. So the solution seems obvious to me. (Not to mention that this previously banned editor had already been given lots of "one last chance"s.) Why would we want to keep an editor around who fabricates sources? Friday (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't, at all. The trouble is that that hoax (and his ensuing increasing disbelievable denial) was the only apparent bad-faith action he'd taken his whole time here. In the meantime, he'd done some very good mainspace work. With the new account, he did the very good mainspace work without the hoaxing. I would very much love to see him admit responsibility for the hoaxing and repent, that he might get on with his useful mainspace work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted it (the hoax) to me, but he is essentially burned out by the toxic atmosphere regarding reform on Wikipedia. He really should take a break. Meanwhile, I'm trying to do something to lessen the amount of smoke emitted, it burns the eyes. I do see, not only what Wikipedia needs, but how to get there, and it will take time. He's young and impatient, and when he runs into the totally expectable obstacles, he gets frustrated and, yes, angry. Change must come to Wikipedia or it will die. But it must also come step by step, with each step enjoying consensus. It takes time to build that, usually. Neither he nor I have a crystal ball, we don't know how much time we have. But probably more than a year and less than perhaps five, I'd guess. I don't think people realize how rapidly a project like this could implode. Parts of it are largely invulnerable, but this site ... not necessarily. Depends. And the real question is, what parts of it will survive? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him (by email) not to evade the block. (I asked him before, and now again, after I saw the above mentioned edits.... sore thumb, it was.) He has also requested that I not "defend" him, so I am not taking any action to overturn the block. Obviously, if he is evading a block, new accounts no matter how "nice" can be blocked. When Mbstpo (as Absidy) was blocked, he did post under a series of accounts, similarly, none of it disruptive -- except that block evasion is disruptive in itself, because it creates a fuss.) Sigh. By the way, he apologized profusely to me for the hoax article. I told him that it was actually hilarious -- but don't do it again! My opinion: we need to lighten up, laugh more and block less, at least when it comes to actual contributors, which he was, for a long time. No blocks, and I didn't see any warnings, back to 2005, nothing until this year, 2008. Heavy contributions. Between the creation of the Mbstpo account on March 3, and the block on March , Mbstpo made about 1600 edits. What I will say, not in his defense but for Wikipedia, we might at some point look at what so seriously disturbed such an established Wikipedian that he committed wikisuicide, not once, but twice. It's easy to blow it off as "his problem," and that is partially true, but it is actually our problem, and it is happening all the time, simply in less spectacular ways. He started a project, in fact, to look at this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform and, in particular, the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. Maybe I should add his name.--Abd (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. His talk page isn't locked, and I would very much like to hear him explain why a generally good contributor decided to go and create a hoax (I disagree with you about the merits of hoaxes, though, especially those that editors fabricate sources to defend). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem in the mood to talk usefully about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what! Put a note on his talk page asking him why he did it. I do not want to encourage him to evade the block, and that account was spiked. If he wants, he could answer there with an IP edit from a library. Better, he could send an answer to me, because I can verify it's him with no difficulty. If I am requested to do so, I will pass it on, as long as I consider it not disruptive, this would be an exception to the rule against proxying for a blocked user-- but note, I won't make that exception unless an admin asks me to! In any case, I do know enough to answer, but .... better it come from him. Meanwhile, I mentioned above the project which was set up to study this very question. Mbstpo is certainly not the first! By the way, I don't think I argued the "merits" of hoaxes, but I would like to keep them in perspective. The only damage caused by this hoax was the fuss over it (and that is real damage, I'm not minimizing it). And, absolutely, creating hoax articles is a violation of policy. So the question is the response. What has happened is that alleged disruption in WP space -- which is the real issue for most complaining about Mbstpo -- gets mixed up with the joke in the marriage article (damage: a vandal patroller had to go, Click! normally no block would ensue) -- and the hoax article (complicated -- why did he lie -- after he was already blocked -- about the source book sitting in his lap?) get all mixed up. The WP "disruption" was quite defensible, but not the japes. Again, I could explain his lying on his Talk page without defending it -- and I roasted him pretty well by email over it -- but the energy would be better put into the generic project about Attrition. The issue is not Mbstpo or, for that matter, me, but the welfare of the community on which this project depends. We have a lot of work to do.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To hell with the rules. If he's not actually doing anything wrong, then just because the "rules" say you can block doesn't mean you should. I always thought the best interests of the encyclopedia were more important than bureaucratic masturbation. Furthermore, when I last checked OM claimed to have a source for the alleged "hoax" article he created, although there may have been further developments on that front since then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked, he can ask for an unblock under his original account. I still cannot understand why his enablers are still banging on about his hoax being real, since the fictional figure he tried to create an article about was "killed" in some mountains that don't exist. It was a hoax, he needs to own up. --Fredrick day 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, except that he's apparently scrambled the password to his original account, so any unblock request will have to be from his new one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Original" being used loosely here, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's an original, all right. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. I'm sorry about Weber's comments, but perhaps after he reads what I've been writing, he'll stop beating the dead horse. Hint: it was a hoax. Or, to put it another way, as the editor in question did, Mbstpo exists in a "parallel universe." I.e., Mbstpo is real. Real fiction. Lives in the world of his imagination. In my encyclopedia, the Mbstpo article would be tagged as Fiction or Myth, or, at first, as Unverified. With that, it's an excellent article! ("My encyclopedia" is the sum of all human knowledge. All. Human. Knowledge. It is a work in progress.) By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! But I won't, beyond this very diffuse hint. It would actually violate a number of basic principles if I did. As to Weber, I understand his frustration as well. It's a loss, that Mbstpo is no longer with us -- though he's reading much of what we write. The poor editor who dropped a moderately nasty, mild by comparison, note on my Talk page right after I found out ... poor guy! I was pissed! Kim Bruning, the soul of courtesy, wrote "Fool!" when Mbstpo wrote that he had scrambled his password. But ... it is actually all for the best. I'll try to convince Weber of that.... off to tilt at windmills for the rest of the afternoon. Gotta keep busy, use it or lose it, etc., etc.--Abd (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly hard to work out what the username means. --Reuben (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Any editor who would lift a single finger to defend a hoaxer is not worthy of consideration. Go write fiction somewhere else; here, we're an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! does it look like anyone here really cares what stupid game it's part of? Please stick to the point in future, how clever a hoaxer thinks he is being is frankly not something that should concern us. --Fredrick day 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

seems to be back again, this time as David Janssen (geddit "the fugitive"), I've asked him to pop across here and ask for his block to be lifted. His article edits are excellent and I'd like nothing more for him to stop this stupid block evading and get back to article editing. --Fredrick day 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Where was he banned? Mr.Z-man 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Start at the top and work your way down. --Fredrick day 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't banned, just blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you attack me for "defending a hoaxer", calm down. As I mentioned before, he had said that he had a source, and I saw no reason to disbelieve him--and in fact I did not until I read Fredrick Day's post and re-read the blocking thread. Fine. It was a hoax. Although I am still defending him, altogether--and I fail to see how that's a problem--if not the deed itself. The two need to be considered separately. An indef block, without warning or prior discussion, was still totally uncalled for.

Perhaps I'm being a bit Quixotic here--perhaps you're right that there's no practical gain to be had by defending him. So what? There's a principle involved nonetheless. A user should not have to request an unblock (a process that often requires much supplication and self-abasement if it is to be successful) to put an end to a block that should never have been made in the first place; the community should lift it on its own initiative. That he does not wish to request an unblock does not mean he does not want it--perhaps he is just unwilling to risk having to kowtow in order to do it. I don't blame him. Unblock the account, offer to fix his password (if possible) or at least agree to not instantly re-block any new accounts he may create, and then it will truly be left up to him. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I defended the guy when people were complaining about his far-fetched policy proposals. I even defended his blanket keep votes (or at least rejected any suggestion that he be sanctioned for them), in the same way as I've done for your blanket opposition to self-noms (although I confess to some gratitude for the fact that my RFA passed unanimously during a week in which you evidently had better things to do). Once the block came down, my immediate reaction was to ask for what evidence there was that this article was speedy-able as a hoax. But when the request evidence was forthcoming, I became a supporter of an indefinite (as distinct from infinite) block. A user who creates hoaxes - especially hoaxes that aren't immediately apparent as such, and especially hoaxes that use fabricated offline sources to support themselves - is a serious, serious menace to this project. Such an editor becomes a greater menace to the project when his hoaxes are surrounded by good edits, because it makes the hoax even harder to detect. Indefinitely removing such a user from the project is not a disproportionate response. I would like to have this user's edits on parliamentary procedure back. I wouldn't mind having his edits on policy back, either. But unless/until he explicitly agrees to stop the behaviour for which he was blocked, I can't support an unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Brace yourselves; I'm going to agree with Kurt. There is a good content-creation side to this editor; IF he can promise to concentrate on that without the hoaxes, vandalism, silliness or any of the other drama that got him blocked last time, then no problem with unblocking. But seriously, we said "last chance" the previous time - at the first sign of anything that's pointlessly going to waste other editor's time, out comes the block - for keeps. Fair? Black Kite 23:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Kurt Weber's position here, in part, because this editor is likely to continue to draft some of our missing parliamentary law and procedure articles that we very much need. Having said that, I was one of the first endorsers of the original block (of Absidy) at the time of the "delegable proxy" mess, so it's fair to say I have mixed feelings. I would like to see this editor work out, but suggestions that he limit himself to mainspace have not been well-received. Sigh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Part of the problem with that is that the most serious damage he's done to the project - the creation of a hoax article backed by a fabricated source - has occurred in the mainspace. In any event, though, his most recent incarnation's talk page seems to suggest little interest in reform. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the good faith of Black Kite, this editor actually does not have a history justifying such serious "last chance" warnings. I know it looks that way, but the situation is complicated by many editors having complained vigorously about legitimate actions of this user. I agree that the hoax article raises some serious issues; however, for example, that article is not a serious as a single fabricated source in a normal article. Nobody is coming here searching for information on Obuibo Mbstpo. By all means, he has properly been reprimanded and, this time, a block was clearly within reason, it was much more complicated the time before (Newyorkbrad, in my opinion, improperly involved himself the last time, confirming a block that was actually quite against policy and ArbComm precedent ... but one might note that no complaint has been filed over it.) I essentially raked the user over the coals for lying about the hoax after it had been challenged. But we have a system of escalating responses, and this guy went from 0 to 60 mph in a very, very short time, and he was, I'd say, sorely tried. Frankly, I think he should stay away for a time, he needs a break, in my opinion. He needs to do other things, details like making a living, and I suspect that part of what is happening is a desire to get kicked out permanently so that he can't be tempted to keep editing. However, he knows too much, he knows that he can edit anyway. If he's going to do it, might as well allow the edits to stick. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now seems to be operating under yet another sockpuppet Larry E. Jordan - he was offered a chance to go straight, this seems to be his answer. As with any other abusive sock, I suggest we revert on sight - yes his edits are good but we cannot reward sock-evaders with "oh well!". --Fredrick day 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any "shoot-on-sight" reversions of legitimate content, I will un-revert. The "revert on sight" clause is so we don't have to go through a whole big formal todo with reverting obvious bad-faith edits; it's not there to declare the individual an "un-person". If it's a problem, remove it. If it's a good contribution, there is absolutely no valid or legitimate reason to revert it, regardless of who put it there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Is it time for a community ban now? Wizardman 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some good edits in mainspace - and then stuff like [52]. Sigh. How many accounts is that now? 12? Black Kite 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

he did a whole series of those amongst his other edits - I guess he plans to mix those in with his good edits and see if he can change policy/guidelines that way... --Fredrick day 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, etymologically speaking, he's quite correct. For whatever that's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For anybody who's interested, User:Larry E. Jordan has actually requested unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. How many do we know about now? Oh, wait, I know! I'll list them -- and then the community can consider whether this is a legitimate use of multiple accounts.
  1. Larry E. Jordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  2. David Janssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  3. SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  4. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  5. Thespian Seagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  6. Absidy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  7. Ron Duvall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
  8. Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
  9. Zxczxczxc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  10. ReplyToSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• and probably others. If the community wants to allow this person to edit at all, perhaps it might wish to consider strengthening the sockpuppet policy; me, I'm partial to one person, one account, other than in quite exceptional circumstances. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was pretty simple, socks = not good except for a specific purpose, and a sock to evade a block always = a blocked sock. Is there some kind of uncertainty here? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:56, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale abusive sockpuppetry has long been a fast ticket out the door. If a person is really interested in returning from a block to contribute productively, and avoids the old haunts and dramatics associated with the original block(s), it seems pretty unlikely to me they're ever going to be caught -- a corollary here is that a user repeatedly caught and blocked for socking is probably returning over and over to the same articles, the same disputes, the same problematic behaviors. A wrongly blocked user might create a sock or two, I suppose, but why so many at once? Why the socks which seem to have been active before OM's block, as linked by Jpg above? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat unusual, in that the socks are being detected and blocked for engaging in exactly the same productive behaviours as the puppeteer, without apparently engaging in the unproductive ones. As for the socks created before OM's block, I believe that OM itself was originally a block-evading sock, but that the community opted to allow it (i.e. basically the equivalent of agreeing to unblock the puppeteer). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricky. As much as a good number of those edits are helpful, I'm a bit dubious of anybody that feels a need to keep an ongoing and secret collection of active accounts. I have a few spares, such as User:Lunaccount-l or User:Lunasock, but none are regularly active and all are very clearly linked to me. As has been pointed out, OM's alternate accounts make good, helpful edits but tend to have some problems with escalating issues too aggressively. Why the switch from Ron Duvall (talk · contribs) and Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) to Absidy (talk · contribs)? I can see an argument that blocks on Absidy and Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) might be a bit hasty, and I'm encouraged by their good edits and the fact that people are standing up to speak on their behalf, but I still find myself uncomfortable with intentional disruption and blatant sockpuppetry. If this user is to be unblocked, I'd prefer we keep them on a short leash. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no controversy: the use of new accounts to evade a block is not legitimate.

Most of the accounts listed above are just that, created while blocked. Mixing that up with a user dropping one account name to take up another, being open about it, which happened several times, is exaggerating the situation. I do know that this user, way back, told me that it was legitimate to drop an account and begin with another, that this was not sock puppetry if not intended to deceive and the first account was abandoned, not used again. Whether that was accurate or not, he told me that before there was any trouble at all. And I did read language in WP:SOCK that was readable that way. One of the problems is that this community has adopted a term to use, and uses it in a way at variance with standard usage. Sock puppetry refers to the creation of additional identities for a user which are then used to create an impression of wider support for some idea, by multiple voting -- one of the original applications -- or by holding fake conversations. This user has never done that. However, during the WP:PRX affair, he changed his account, creating a minor impression of wider support, though it was really irrelevant and had no bearing on the proposal. (The result and the controversy would have been the same without the account change, and the only real difference was that the accusation was then made that the proposal was supported by sock puppets.) Then, as a result of an SSP report and checkuser (which merely confirmed the obvious, what was already admitted -- except that I was cleared of charges that I was a sock of the same master as part of that), the SSP report deleted for privacy reasons, he changed his user name again, to Absidy. The block of Absidy had *nothing* to do with account name changes, Absidy was blocked, when we look at it closely, for being rude to an administrator. Prior to that there was action arguably worthy of warning (it was also arguable that it was legitimate, but it certainly irritated some users -- he dropped a notice advertising the startup of the proxy system on the Talk page of every administrator), for which he was, in fact warned. He had stopped, and stated no intention to continue, nor did he continue, but he was rude. And he was blocked, obviously, for that. Leading then, to all the new account changes, until Obuibo Mbstpo was opened as a method of coming back, an unblock having been negotiated. Now there are more accounts, again resulting from a continued block. The offense here, normally, would have resulted in a 24 hour block at the most. This user has absolutely no block history before the rudeness one, no history of warnings for vandalism. This would be Kurt Weber's point: if the block is not legitimate, then all the problems with socks should not be considered an additional offense. I'm not sure I agree, but it is also certainly arguable, and there seems to be some level of precedent for it. Mbstpo is, by the way, not thrilled that I'm defending him, he's really asked me to stop. But I'm not defending him, I'm proposing that we follow policy and consider the welfare of the project. Is it better to continue to block him -- based on what? -- or to allow him to contribute. What harm will be done by one, and what harm by the other? I'm not proposing one over the other at this point, I can see both sides. What I don't like is that the situation is exaggerated by some, confusing the issues. Don't consider what's good for Mbstpo, that's his job. Consider what's good for the project.--Abd (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock?

Per this diff, I would favour a trial unblocking. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to help the encyclopaedia, and the hoax article and marriage proposal edit stand out as isolated incidents against a backdrop of policy debate and parliamentary procedure articles. I have no objection to his return to policy pages (as long as he continues to be a significant mainspace contributor), but he seems to be indicating that he doesn't even plan on doing this. I find his handling of this situation as regrettable as most of you likely do, but blocks are preventative and I no longer see what damage this one is preventing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to follow the lead of users more familiar with this user (if I've run across or dealt with them, previously, I don't recall it). As mentioned above, there are some points in their favor, and others that give me pause. I'm not happy keeping him blocked forever, given the helpful contributions balanced against what I hope is a mere indiscretion, and could probably support a "short leash" unblock (or block reduction) on that basis. Just so long as we keep a close eye on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to the unblock. This user is obviously easy to spot, which self-limits the damage they can cause, when they act up. Since he's making decent content contribs and others (myself included) are monitoring it, I'd say its worth another shot. Just whoever unblocks, please please leave a big link to WP:SOCK on the unblock message. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get why an editor who fabricates a source should be welcome here ever again. But as long as people are following him around, reverting anything cannot personally verify, maybe it's OK. Still, it seems like a lot of work just to accommodate one problem editor. Can we at least keep him to one account, and put a note on it saying "Attention all editors, this is a known hoaxer. If you see something suspicious, revert it until it's verified independently". Friday (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that -- with a very short period of exception, where he -- with little apparent reason -- made one account change, then made one more under some pressure, again without any necessity that we could see, but people do have their own reasons, he has only created new accounts (1) after spiking the password on the old account, apparently in all cases, so creating a new account requires the least administrative hassle, and (2) during periods when he has been blocked. If he edited IP during that period (has done a very few edits that way), he'd be making more work, and, since he often edits from a library, uninvolved users could be blocked. So he registers an new account for various purposes, and he hasn't been disruptive with these, beyond the disruption from the simple fact of block evasion (which includes accounts created for totally legitimate purposes, such as commenting on his prior Talk page, which were blocked anyway when identified). I would at this point ask him to pick an account name that he will keep and be permanently satisfied with. Alternatively, he can "disappear," and he knows how to do that, and come back after the necessary pause. That might be technically block evasion, except that WP:SOCK almost goes as far as to recommend it. This might be moot if he has actively chosen the new name mentioned above. We only go after those new accounts if they attract attention for disruption, and even then it can be difficult to connect them. In any case, I don't see any actual opposition to blocking, but only some minor level of puzzlement, which is to be expected in a case like this. I haven't see the material referenced above yet, I'll look at it and comment there. I hoping this resolves the wikifuss, and I'll do what I can to keep this user on track. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no actual objections - although plenty of reluctance - above, I've unblocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna be keeping an eye on this user then, because I'm uncomfortable with the unblock myself. Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell this humble non-administrator (i.e. me) whether it is now ok to restore edits that were made by the editor in question while he was blocked? Regardless of which name he was using at the time? I'd like a clear, definitive, unanimous answer, otherwise I will just leave it alone -- which would be unfortunate, especially with regard to Template:Cite parl, which got broken in the midst of all of this. Or, one of you admins can fix it, and restore the other constructive edits that were reverted. Neutron (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually okay to do so whether or not the user is unblocked, as long as you're doing so edit by edit (i.e. "I'm re-doing this edit because it was a good one") and not wholesale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was a little confused about that, given the unresolved exchange between two admins here. Neutron (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it okay to restore them, but it was absolutely not okay to have reverted them in the first place (I know you're not the one who did this--Frederick Day was, and he has totally ignored me every time I've pointed this out to him). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this guy's apology and fessing up, but this seems to be encouraging sockpuppets. This guy has 10 known socks, many of which are blocked indefinitely. Rather than saying "yeah it's okay to fly off the handle, get blocked and create another sock", I think this latest sock should be blocked and we should email this guy the password to the OM account. AND, no matter what's done, this user's ability to edit should be on the provision that he not create ANY more socks in the future. From now on, should he be blocked again, he can use the unblock processes just like everyone does. This guy is really testing the limits of our little system here and it shouldn't be condoned to the degree it has been. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

sorry you are entirely wrong - just keep changing accounts and eventually the community will lube up and say "please warm your hands before you put them on my shoulders". - isn't that what we see here? --87.114.3.85 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're saying, anonymous caller. If it were up to me I'd laugh and exclaim just how ridiculous it is for this person to expect to ever be able to edit again, but short of that, I've made the above suggestions. Here's hoping. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:58, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there isn't anything wrong with socks as long as they're not being used abusively. Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive--so if a user creates a sock to contravene a block on his main account, however legitimate that block may have been, as long as he's not doing anything wrong with the sock what's the actual problem here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand: this does not create a precedent for creating block-evading socks to continue inappropriate and unacceptable behavior. Near as I can tell, the only precedent it creates is "If you're blocked but you want to create a new account, as long as you're not causing problems with your sock go right ahead"--and I don't see anything wrong with that. There's no problem with socks in that situation. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've got that right. A sockpuppet to evade a block is not allowed and should be blocked. Allowing people to evade blocks by creating sockpuppets is basically telling them that a block is no big deal, and they don't need to even participate in the unblock process to address the issues. Who would even post an unblock template, if they knew socks were an accepted way to deal with a block? Plus there's this, from wp:sock:"Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations." Equazcion •✗/C • 15:59, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Sockpuppets of blocked users get immediately blocked. Blocks are not against usernames; they are against the individuals who have behaved poorly enough to be blocked, regardless of what name they are calling themselves at any given moment. One person, one account is the basic principle; no evading blocks with alternate accounts is just an obvious side effect of that principle. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. This is not a bureaucracy; we don't enforce "rules" just for their own sake. If a user evading a block, however legitimate, is editing productively and not causing any problems with his sock, then what possible benefit could there be by blocking his socks as well? A user who creates socks to go on continuing his destructive behavior is one thing; this is quite another. The "rules" be damned--if making the encyclopedia better means letting people get away with breaking the "rules" in certain situations, so be it. To hell with the "rules". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong Kurt. Sorry. This place is not a democracy, but it's also not anarchy. What you are suggesting is ridiculous, there is no better (or more civil) way to say it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm perfectly correct. In fact, what I explained above is the essence of Wikipedia: when enforcing the rules get in the way of making Wikipedia better, the rules lose. If you want to debate whether or not this is such an instance, that's one thing. But the principle I'm arguing still holds. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, you seem to have missed the first part of my comment, the part before I pointed out the statement in policy. You instead chose to label me a rule-pusher, because that's the easiest the thing for you to argue with. Here's the non-policy part of my argument, again, which was in fact most of my comment: "A sockpuppet to evade a block is not allowed and should be blocked. Allowing people to evade blocks by creating sockpuppets is basically telling them that a block is no big deal, and they don't need to even participate in the unblock process to address the issues. Who would even post an unblock template, if they knew socks were an accepted way to deal with a block?" Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I labeled you a rules-pusher precisely because of what you just repeated: that is very much a rule-based argument. It is my contention that as long as they use them productively, without causing problems, then "allowing people to evade blocks by creating sockpuppets" is in fact no big deal. So what if it means they avoid going through the unblock process? Process for process's sake is ridiculous. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that encourages avoiding the unblock process, which means not dealing with the issue. What makes us allow a sock to edit (if the user is open about being a sock) is the same as what makes us unblock a user. Except in the latter case, we deal with the issue and make a decision, something that needs to be encouraged. If we condone creating socks to evade blocks, we condone not dealing with the issue, and circumventing an action that was taken for a presumably good reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:41, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(btw, I hate having to enter all these colons every time) Assuming the initial block was legitimate, if the sock does not engage in the behavior that led to the block of the original account it seems to me that the issue has been dealt with enough. Blocks are preventative; the block was issued to put a stop to the destructive behavior, and the individual in question is no longer engaging in the destructive behavior. What more do you want? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(just copy-and-paste the previous comment's colons, then add one more. that's what i do) You keep repeating that, and I just explained the value in not allowing it. If you have an answer, feel free to post it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:52, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You claim that the underlying issue hasn't been dealt with if we just let him get by with his socks, correct?

But if he stops engaging in the destructive behavior that led to the initial block, what more needs to be "dealt with"? That's what I don't understand. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If he stops. That's uncertain. So, is it smart to encourage such behavior? Should we send the message that it's okay to sockpuppet in order to evade a block, just because one person has promised he won't engage in malice using it? Or would it be smarter to not allow socks in evasion of blocks at all, and force people to use the unblock process? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:05, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is exaclty right here. What matters most is the encyclopedia. If he creates another account and edits productively, there's no reason to block simply for bypassing the "unblock process." We certainly should encourage people to reform and contribute content, otherwise, why the hell are we here? The fact is that we judge each instance on its merits, not based on precedent. Mr.Z-man 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the encyclopedia would benefit more from a discouragement of circumventing community actions. But that's just me. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:12, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Sometimes I undent. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then the colons start over. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unblock 2

All this meta-discussion about the nature of rules is silly and pointless here. There's one single biggest factor to consider here: This editor knowingly, intentionally, made a hoax article and continued to defend it after it was noticed, including fabricating a source. This, by itself, is clearly enough to determine that he's not an editor we want here. Can any reasonable person honestly see it otherwise? Friday (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it was a one-time issue. People fuck up. Get over it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One time, yes, but not a mistake. It was an intentional act. I would never willingly collaborate with someone who did this.. and this is a collaborative project. So where does that leave us? The obvious answer would be to show people the door once they've demonstrated that they're working against, rather than for, the goals of the project. Yes, even one time. Mistakes are allowed. Intentional sabotage is not something I'm willing to tolerate. Should anyone tolerate it? I can't see why. Friday (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of issues on the above: first, all block-evading socks were blocked on sight. One was eventually unblocked after discussion here, which is more or less the normal process for unblocking the indefinitely blocked. I don't think we've established any precedent here at all, frankly. Second, OM undoubtedly committed deliberate sabotage - that was when I joined the "block him" chorus. But he's since admitted it and committed to not doing so again, and is currently at work improving the encyclopaedia. We often block vandals (who commit acts of deliberate sabotage) less than indefinitely, which is basically adoption of the principle that deliberate sabotage does not necessarily lead to an indefinite block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're grossly overreacting. Creating a hoax article with a title that no one in a million years will ever use as a search term hardly has a significant damaging effect: no one actually looking for legitimate information ever going to find it, and all it does is create a bit of annoyance. OM's a smart guy; if he had actually intended to "sabotage" the encyclopedia, he would have linked to it from legitimate articles, working it into the prose, so unsuspecting visitors would be tricked into reading it (or something else that would achieve the same effect). He did no such thing. At the worst, it's a very very minor and insignificant breaching experiment; more likely it was nothing more than a bit of juvenile silliness that's not going to happen again. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we're an encyclopedia, fabricating a source is one of the biggest sins we have here. By any reasonable academic standard, it's a Very Bad Thing. This type of thing gets people kicked out of universities. If you want to chalk it up to juvenility, so be it. But what do we know about juveniles? They stay that way, for several years. Is there any reason to believe this problem has actually gone away? I don't think people change that quickly. Friday (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page:

"That's exactly what we're saying, anonymous caller. If it were up to me I'd laugh and exclaim just how ridiculous it is for this person to expect to ever be able to edit again, but short of that, I've made the above suggestions. Here's hoping. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:58, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia drove away so many people like User:Jmaynard that there aren't many parliamentary procedure experts left to work on WP:WPPP's articles with that same degree of intensity. If you had ten people improving those articles as fervently as I, Wikipedia could probably be more choosy about who it keeps... then again, if you had ten such people, that WikiProject's work would probably be mostly complete by now. In many respects, Wikipedia just never quite got the concept of WP:EM... Sigh. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"

I really hope OM isn't accurate about what's going on here. Despite sarcasticidealist's explanation, this user still has ten socks, been disruptive and sabotaged. Too many chances. Short of blocking him indefinitely right now, please insist on the provision that one more sock = permanent ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:45, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I will support a permanent ban if OM commits a single additional deliberately disruptive action (which would include abusive sock-puppetry, hoaxes, etc.). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The time I donate to the project is invaluable. I don't have much of any time to vet articles and sources, especially those made intentionally false. The block stays, IMHO. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Friday and NonvocalScream. Get rid of him. Blueboy96 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me just go on record as saying that yes I agree, get rid of him. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:27, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)
To all of you advocating re-blocking, can I be clear on the principle on which you're advocating it? Is it that a single deliberately disruptive action is sufficient for a permanent ban? If so, is your position that all vandals should be permanently banned? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Ten socks, + socks to evade indefinite blocks, refusal to use unblock process and choosing sockpuppeteering instead, + sabotage and misc disruption = permanent ban. That should always be true, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's fair, although I'm not sure what you mean by "misc disruption". But your position is reasonable, I think, although I'll continue to hang my hat on the belief that blocks are preventative, and that I see nothing to prevent here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I could forgive one hoax article. But 10 socks, abuse of two attempts to start with a clean slate--sorry, we don't need him. Blueboy96 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The sabotage wasn't the first issue brought against OM, if you remember. His block was the result of other disruptive acts as well, such as posting the same proposal to multiple locations. See the many other ANI reports for OM. What we're preventing is further disruption. After a while, it may be prudent to expect more. That's when blocks are used. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, those. I don't consider any of the pre-hoax ANI alerts about OM to have documented actually disruptive behaviour (hence my lack of support for a block until the hoax), as opposed to simply annoying behaviour that is acceptable from good mainspace contributors. In that regard there are substantial parallels to be drawn between OM's projectspace activities and Kurt's: I wish both would knock it off, but both are clearly here to build the encyclopaedia and are expressing opinions of the sort that ought to be tolerated, if not embraced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

K, then remove the misc disruption from the equation above. A permanent ban is still warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:59, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blocked again

User has been blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:27, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was for creating an article called Easter Bunny Hotline that claimed to let the user speak to the Easter Bunny, but led to a recorded message of some sorts which is certainly not child-friendly. [53]. I think we're done here. Blueboy96 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...what exactly did he do wrong here? Near as I can tell, he created an article about a legitimate phone hotline. Whether the subject of the article is a hoax or nonsense is irrelevant--articles about hoaxes and articles about nonsense are not, in principle, verboten--after all, we have articles about Lamarckism and articles about the Piltdown Man hoax. And there's certainly nothing wrong with creating a non-hoax, non-nonsense article (even if the article itself is about a hoax or nonsense) that is summarily speedily deleted, either. You're going to have to do better than this if you want to make a legitimate case for driving him away. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What "abuse"? Aside from the one-time hoax, he has done nothing inappropriate or unacceptable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blackworm disrupting discussion pages

Blackworm (talk · contribs) has resumed his long-running campaign of soapboxing on gender-related issues, currently at at Talk:Sexism and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F and Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny. I left a warning on his talk, which was removed with the comment that it was "harrasment".

Blackworm's recent troubles include assuming bad faith when offered mediation: see User talk:Blackworm#Request_for_mediation_accepted ... but it's hard to pick out parts of Blackkworm's history in this area without being arbitrarily selective, because almost the whole of Blackworm's involvement in these issues appears to involve conflict.

The latest episode fits a long-standing pattern which is akin to trolling: trying to engage editors in wide-ranging debate by raising open-ended philosophical questions on relatively simple issues (such as the purpose of WP:SB), and then accusing others of personal attack or censorship when asked to desist.

Can this be dealt with by admin action per WP:TE and WP:DE, or is a matter for an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant discussion thread is this one[54] at talk:Wikiproject gender studies. There was an WP:AN posting about this same issue back in January where User:Pigman brought many of the same problems to community attention[55]. Since then Blackworm has continued with the same tendentious behaviour, still treating WP as a battleground and as a soapbox. These are some instances of accusations he has leveled at specific editors: Lquilter, myself and SirFozzie and Pigman--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been loosely following Blackworm's participation in discussions and work since I posted to the Admin's noticeboard in January 2008. I've hesitated to take action because his perspective and arguments run counter to my own. This has made it a little difficult for me to discern whether my motivations are purely to counter his disruptive and tendentious behaviour or to act to eliminate an opposing but entirely valid viewpoint presented in a somewhat abrasive manner. In an ideal world, I'd be entirely clear on the distinction between violations of WP policies and spirited counterargument. In this case I'm finding it difficult to sort through.

Blackworm has consistently made attempts to insist on his views in the face of the often overwhelming consensus of other experienced editors. My observation is he is determined to insert his minority views on gender/sexuality related articles by invoking WP:NPOV and claiming these views need equal representation. The problem is that he rarely offers little in the way of good WP:V and WP:RS sources to support these views. Then it comes down to him saying he thinks a perspective should be represented equally with all others, regardless of sourcing, a very problematic viewpoint for the encyclopedia.

As I noted in January, his contribs are overwhelmingly on talk pages, indicating he is more interested in discussion than actual work on the articles. Normally, this would be a commendable sign of communication and attempts to reach compromise and consensus but, generally, I've observed him to be argumentative and belligerent rather than working with others to reach solutions in conflicts.

Because of my ambivalence in this case, I'm not comfortable with personally taking action but I entirely agree with BrownHairedGirl and Cailil that Blackworm's participation is more disruptive than productive. Cheers, Pigman☿ 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again you three. I again deny BrownHairedGirls's claim of my being involved in any "campaign." I don't believe two discussion threads posted more than two months apart constitute a campaign. I can't help but perceive sexism, racism, bias and illogic in the stated aims of those WikiProjects. I'm not asserting the existence of these things, I'm relating my impressions and asking questions on those discussing pages that will hopefully allow me to understand that the projects are not sexist, etc. This is made difficult by a few editors who pounce on me and demand that I go away for asking such questions.

I strongly deny assuming bad faith with respect to the mediation I'm involved with (in fact I explicitly deny it in the section linked above), and I object to the accusation, especially considering this mediation is currently active and ongoing and the accusation pollutes it. If I was assuming bad faith in mediation, I would guess that I would have been told by now by the mediator. Since this is not the case, I demand you keep your speculation and bad faith accusations to yourself.

I follow the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. I am sorry if this causes me to enter into disputes in the gender-related articles that you edit. I consistently have my position misrepresented, however, most recently when BrownHairedGirl asserted that I was demanding equal representation for sexism against men and women on the sexism article, when really the only thing I said was a denial of the original poster's assertion that the article currently deals more with misandry than misogyny. Note that in Talk:Sexism, BrownHairedGirl made an arguably soapboxing speech alluding to women and the right to vote, and women in business, and when I responded with an example of what I believe to be sexism, accused me of soapboxing and WP:OR. The claims were referenced, only the conclusion of sexism was arguably WP:SYN -- but this hostile, vehement attack seems completely misplaced given that the entire sexism article contains no cites and references! Anyway, I'm glad to further discuss that, but then BrownHairedGirl demands my silence at the end of every detailed reply to my posts, insisting on the last word. Fine.

If I am blunt, and (sometimes) steadfast in my position with regard to article content even in the face of outnumbered opposition, that is no different from the editors I have been involved in discussions and disputes with, especially in circumcision and circumcision-related articles, which are dominated by one particular editor. Perhaps it's the behaviour that I have learned "works." The important thing is, I don't force my view into articles, I respond politely and with good faith in disputes (not immediately jumping to claim bad faith as is the case here), and I abide by consensus. I do let my view be heard, however; and my views sometimes seem to upset those who disagree with me as much as their views upset me. I don't see that as abnormal in dealing with these controversial subjects.

I believe that most readers would agree that the questions I ask on the two WikiProject Talk pages are not open ended nor philosophical. I am concerned with them because they are the only places in official Wikipedia space, as far as I know, that specifically call for actively countering the points of view of specific racial and gender groups which they list. I have yet to be convinced there is a sound basis for these actions, and thus have taken my concerns to the project members in what I believe is a respectful way. Many editors have responded with respect and reciprocated good faith; others, such as Cailil and BrownHairedGirl, immediately respond with personal attacks, failures to assume good faith, and demands for silence backed by threats of administrative action.

I want to specifically thank Pigman for his insightful post above. Again, however, I deny that I am demanding equal representation for minority points of view, and strongly request evidence for that claim. I am demanding their representation in areas I feel the majority view is presented as fact, or the minority view is misrepresented or presented as fringe, per WP:NPOV. It may surprise you to learn that I don't even share some of these minority views personally, and have been commended on my neutrality and objectivity both here and in my real-life interactions with others.

Remember, it takes two to have an argument. I again invite the neutral reader to look at my recent contributions, read the talk pages I'm involved in, read the mediation I'm involved in, and above all not to simply read selected contributions referenced by my longtime critics here, along with their commentary and often improper interpretation of those contributions. Blackworm (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pigman. I brought this here because I disagree with Blackworm on most (but not all) of the substantial points he raises, and because of that I don't feel comfortable acting alone.

The overall pattern I see is of someone who is looking for things to argue about, rather than for ways to improve the encyclopedia. His contributions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F is based on nit-picking about the definition of the word "systemic". Encarta's definition is "1. of system: relating to or affecting a system as a whole", which reflects the usage at WP:CSB, but whatever the merits either way of the definitional argument, what difference does it make? WP:CSB identifies an persistent imbalance in coverage, notes that it reflects the interests of contributors, and sets out to redress the imbalance in coverage.

At Talk:Sexism, Blackworm's opening contribution included the assertion that "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress": that's an attack on other editors, and an expression of Blackworm's views on the subject of sexism (which is soapboxing). I have challenged Blackworm to start provide references for the inclusion of material which reflects his understanding of the subject, and I'll await the response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also a relevant edit summary:"How strange that a member of Wikiproject: Gender Studies, a group with a goal to eliminate systemic gender bias, would add "women's rights" but not "men's rights." Hmmmm"[56] - which responded to USer:Grrrlriot's addition of Women's rights and Equal rights to Right. Blackworm's summary is an allegation of deliberate omission of men's rights by Grrrlriot which is an assumption of bad faith. Blackworm's claims that pages have been "hijacked by feminists and profeminists" are a very old problem[57][58]. There is also his altercation with myself at talk:feminism (Talk:Feminism#Persons_of_interest) which is a continuation of the same issue to teh present.

I do think it would be helpful if some outside sysops would review this issue in general - I personally am happy to have my behaviour examined and I'm sure everyone else would be too. Blackworm has made a number of serious accusations about a large number of editors - but has provided no proof of these allegations--Cailil ^talk 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I again deny your accusations. In the first contribution you reference, there is no allegation of deliberate omission. The other contributions you reference are over a year old. I claimed that one page (not pages) was "hijacked," and the claim was misplaced and inappropriate, although echoed by others in that discussion at the time. Blackworm (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.] You don't seem to be awaiting a response, if you're simultaneously demanding my silence. I am quoted out of context above, and I invite the reader to read the post that prompted that response, which said: Yes, some editors are so concerned that "feminists" or "anti-male editors" will try to ruin wikipedia that they go overboard in requiring "equal treatment"; we end up with what is clearly a disproportionate emphasis on misandry etc. Is that not an attack on editors? Why did you jump on my apparent attack on editors, but not on Lquilter's?

I don't dispute the meaning of "systemic." I question the assertion that systemic bias exists here and must be countered. Again, I dispute that there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup of a group of editors, as these projects seem to assert. If that were true, what is stopping one from asserting "systemic bias" in any group of editors (e.g. WP:GS) based on their demographic makeup, or indeed any particular editor on the basis of their gender and race? It seems to me like a tolerated failure to WP:AGF on a grand scale. Also, some editors involved in those projects routinely interchangeably use the word "systematic" to describe the bias, which carries a notion of planning and intent (1. done methodically: carried out in a methodical and organized manner). Indeed, the WP:GS page said "systematic" until I changed it, a change which persists to this day. Are the majority of editors inserting bias in a methodical and organized manner? Can you see how a devotee of WP:AGF might object to this apparent assertion of two WikiProjects? In any case, I've said what I needed to say on this; and until someone is able to answer the questions I posed on the two WikiProjects' discussion pages, I have nothing to add to them. Blackworm (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm's conduct shows many of the classic techniques of trolling:

Playing word games

• You say "I don't dispute the meaning of "systemic."" ... but that's exactly what you did here when you cited a selective list of definitions (culled not from a dictionary, but from a wikipedia disambiguation page, which is a navigational tool not a list of definitions).

No, I did not do that there. I asked which of the meanings were being used in that group, as a starting point for discussion. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Using straw man arguments

• You say that you "dispute that there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup" ... but I have seen no claim by anyone except you that there "must automatically" be any such thing. What is noted at WP:CSB is that there a bias exists; there is no claim that that it "must automatically exist"

Well, all right, if you want to get technical, I challenge the claim that there is "systemic bias." So far, you have nothing but WP:OR when it comes to supporting your claim that such bias exists. When I ask for evidence of bias, I'm presented with a few examples of debatable imbalance in articles, rather than a proper reliable Wikipedia-wide study of imbalance. If such a study were done, and it came to conclusion of encyclopedia-wide imbalance, that would seem to be the only valid evidence to suggest bias, and thus seemingly the only valid evidence to condone actively editing articles in pursuit of countering this bias. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, enough.
First you try pinning on others the claim that they believe "there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup" ... and then when challenged you back down, and claim that your argument is about the evidence, which is not OR, and which has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
This constant shifting of your stance is why I think you are a troll: it's a technique designed to perpetuate an argument rather than resolve anything. Enough: open an RFC if you want to, and set out your case, but cut the trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(interrupted post continues)

Misrepresenting others

• Blackworm says that I "made an arguably soapboxing speech alluding to women and the right to vote, and women in business". Wrong: you raised at Talk:Sexism an allegation of "imbalanced coverage", to which I responded with to an example of the effects of sexism, and asked for counter-examples.

I cannot find the phrase "imbalanced coverage" anywhere in that discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would strike out that quote and rephrase. I pointed to an imbalance of information, an imbalance I believe is appropriate given the imbalance in reliable sources discussing sexism against females versus sexism against females. I objected to the previous claim that the smaller amount of information on sexism against males was an over-representation. Again, I'd appreciate it if you didn't read more into my words than what I say. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting his own conduct;

• Blackworm claims above

  "I consistently have my position misrepresented, however, most recently when BrownHairedGirl asserted that I was demanding equal representation for sexism against men and women on the sexism article, when really the only thing I said was a denial of the original poster's assertion that the article currently deals more with misandry than misogyny."

  Blackwood did indeed correct the original poster as he claims, but he completed that post by a comment which could be read either as general soapboxing or as an attack on contributors to the article "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress"

Again, I was alluding to Lquilter's prior categorization. I believe your interpretation of my remarks is a misrepresentation given that context. I believe my comments to be a de-escalation compared to Lquilter's comments. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Claiming different objectives to those actually purused

• Blackworm claims above that he is "blunt, and (sometimes) steadfast in my position with regard to article content". But a quick examination of Blackworm's contributions at WP:CSB shows nothing about content, and at Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny Blackworm has reacted angrily to repeated suggestions that he start providing references to support the addition of content he considers appropriate.

That seems to be your opinion, and I respect that, but I deny being angry, especially not angrier than you. Your comments could be viewed as escalating, also. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been ongoing for months. Blackworms notes "Perhaps it's the behaviour that I have learned "works."" Perhaps; and if so, it's time to put a stop to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, another approach would be to teach me it doesn't work by reading the last three or four archives of Talk:Circumcision, where the behaviour I refer to is endlessly rewarded by administrators, then proving to me it doesn't work by putting a stop to it there. Then I would have no choice but to stop believing that behaviour is sanctioned and acceptable. Unlike a few editors I have encountered recently, I wouldn't talk to administrators or AN/I just because I disagreed with someone on content or interpretations of conduct. You won't find much talk about it here. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that most readers would agree that the questions I ask on the two WikiProject Talk pages are not open ended nor philosophical. I am concerned with them because they are the only places in official Wikipedia space, as far as I know, that specifically call for actively countering the points of view of specific racial and gender groups which they list." If you are concerned that a project is "inappropriate" then take it to RFC. But making unsubstantiated claims about the purpose of WP:CSB and WP:GS on Talk:Sexism like this is inappropriate as is giving your opinion about what "masculinities" as an area of research[59]. And as stated to you before adjusting the aims of a Wikiproject which you don't want to join to a version against the consensus of the project members is also inappropriate[60]--Cailil ^talk 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I think that's a useful way forward. If Blackworm wants to change the aims of WP:CSB, he can open an RFC; and if he thinks that it should be deleted, he can take it WP:MFD. But it's time for an end to the soapboxing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can abide by that -- the discussion thread on Talk:Sexism being derailed from the start by accusations against editors, I'd just as soon see it end. And you're right, discussions should be about content, which must be sourced. I see a lot of possible WP:OR in that article, so maybe I can contribute by sourcing material and deleting unsourced material. I'll try to show you that I'm not what you imply I am.

On the matter of WP:CSB and its child project (so I'm told) WP:GS, does that mean that the discussion is over? Should someone there answer my question(s), would a reply from me short of taking it to WP:MFD be seen as inappropriate? I respect your position as an administrator, and I would like to know if you are closing that discussion at this time, with no response to my claim of the projects' fundamental assumptions justifying its actions resting on WP:OR above. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It might helpful if you asked your questions at WT:CSB rather than Talk:sexism. As far as I can see Puchiko & Wikiacc have answered the questions you asked on the project talk page. The post you made about WP:CSB on talk:sexism is off-topic (see WP:TALK). And a correction - WP:GS is a project "with connections" to WP:CSB not its child project--Cailil ^talk 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Return of a banned user

I would like some opinions on the issue of an editor apparently returning to en.wiki after being banned for one year. Namely, Stefanomencarelli initiated an arbcom that ruled substantially against the incivil behaviour exhibited. The banned editor may be operating under 190.140.234.59 but has so far although returning to the "old neighbourhood" and making mainly inconsequential submissions, has been a "good faith editor." I would be inclined to keep an eye on this account and other anons who exhibit similar editing patterns but again have not participated in any disruptive actions. What say you? FWIW, the aforementioned editor may be legitimately trying to re-establish himself as a reformed contributor, and I would have no problem with that. Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi there, some users might actually change from being a ¨vandal¨ to a reformed contributor, as you said. Therefore, for now, I would assume good faith! Have a nice day! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thus, as long as he's not causing any problems there's nothing to worry about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that it goes against policy. A 1-year ban from arbcom wasn't put in place for them to simply sidestep it - it's there for them to have a lengthy time-out and to use that time for self-reflection. It's like going to jail and breaking out - sure, you may have changed, but you still have to do the time. And I think they can have an arbcom ban appealed by the mailing list, can't they? If this user really has reformed, then I don't see any reason why arbcom shouldn't allow them back. Valtoras (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy is, ultimately, nonbinding. If it comes down to a choice between following the rules or making the encyclopedia better, the rules lose. Bureaucratic masturbation takes a back seat to getting actual work done. As long as the anon sock hasn't been causing any problems and has been editing productively, enforcing this particular rule against him would mean a net loss to the encyclopedia. There's no reason to worry about it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:11, 23 March 2008(UTC)

Wrong Kurt. Bans are bans. Blocks are blocks. I suggest you read up before talking down to people. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I'm quite aware of the difference. The principle still applies. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESCStudent774441

I blocked ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption, rudeness and completely failing to get it (for multiple values of it). Something tells me it might be simpler just to indef this one, but he's asking for (or is that demanding?) unblocking, so please review. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrigible troll with no useful contributions and even less clue. (Declaration, it was me he was trolling).--Doc^g 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the case, but I've rejected the unblock request on the simple grounds that he didn't give a reason. I need a little more than "it's unjust" to unblock someone. --Tango (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ECed with you Tango, sorry about that... I reviewed enough edits in the time prior to the block being placed (at Doc's request) that I endorse the block as sound, and I declined it as well... ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've just declined it a third time and protected his Talk page for 12 hours. I think three bites at the cherry, combined with Admin-shopping, is enough. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indef blocked

I just indefinitely blocked ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs). If anyone can see why we should let this tedious charade continue, by all means unblock...and good luck with any mentorship... — Scientizzle 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

and I thought for a while that I'd got through to him. Never mind, my mistake. I doubt now that any mentorship could be productive. WP:RBI and WP:BEANS indeed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• How dare you! You've violated his legal right to free speech! Clearly we must unblock to allow him to shop us all to ArbCom for this flagrant abuse of his constitutional rights. Otherwise we're surely all headed for Trenton, New Jersey. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

@Guy... hehe... he did make some threats, I feel, as I opined on his talk and mine, although didn't mention NJ, I think he actually claims to go to school at SUNY in Saratoga Springs. Subsequent to Scientizzle's indef (note that this indef came from the very admin he was insisting review his 24h instead of just any random admin) I asked him straight up if he is prepared to do things correctly. He answered yes to all 3 of my rather direct questions, so there will be no room for further waffling. Call me a softie, I guess, but I'd give him one more chance based on that... (VERY short leash, mind you) and I've asked Scientizzle for concurrance. If he agrees, I'll unblock but won't hesitate to reblock. (I suppose he did already agree, see above). My expectations are low (I usually get burned, as you all point out to me each time :) ) but I'm willing to try one more time... Thoughts? Brickbats? Prearranged snickering? :) ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I diagnose testosterone poisoning, also known as Angry Young Man Syndrome. I have no opinion on whether he's ever likely to be of much use to the project, but he needs to lose the chip on his shoulder and the exaggerated sense of entitlement and his own importance. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of histories

Resolved. Pages merged and movedKralizec! (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please merge the histories of the two pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop/by White Cat

The history under /by White Cat should be merged into /Workshop

Thanks.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do ... give me a minute ... --Kralizec! (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Though you should double-check that the correct version is currently showing. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt, again

[edit] Ned Scott block review

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=200249131 I think the block serves no purpose. Please unblock him. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Krimpet has blocked User:Ned Scott because of the Daniel Brandt drama above. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He was told not to forum-shop elsewhere. He forum-shopped elsewhere. He even admitted it was a bad place to take it. he took it there anyway. Good block. And I took down the inflammatory title. SirFozzie (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I said that it might have been better posted at "misc" rather than "policy". -- Ned Scott 06:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She blocked him for his forum shopping of the matter- including restoring a totally unnecessary cross-post to the village post. He has agreed to stop and she has unblocked him. Valid block, valid resolution. Drama over. WjBscribe 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with the assessment that it was unnecessary, and it is a sad day to see people being blocked for posting a short, neutral message to the village pump. Don't equivocate my notices with the kind of trash that caused us to develop a guideline on the mater. It most certainly wasn't a valid block, but arguing for the sake of principal won't get me anywhere tonight. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Routine block for being a silly sausage. Good call. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To take to an extreme, if an administrator asked me to stop broadcasting, I would certainly seek the input of others before reinserting my message. Good block. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And how would you do that if you were not allowed to ask in the first place? -- Ned Scott 06:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did you seek the input of others regarding Krimpet's request? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And I ask again, how could I without being blocked in the same way I just was blocked? Or even if I wasn't blocked, I'll be attacked for "causing drama", and no one will objectively comment about the issue of giving out notices. This was anticipation of disruption without any disruption (again, unless you count those who freaked out about the possible disruption). -- Ned Scott 06:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. If you had sought clarification on your action and Krimpet's request on this board, I think you would have gotten it. Without attacks. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I lost faith in the ANI thread when people started talking about Brad Pit. Considering the likelihood of admins anticipating disruption and the nature of the topic, yes, I probably should have done everything I could have to appear non-combative and corporative. I was insulted at the idea that I was forum shopping and didn't want to give the accusation any kind affirmation (for a lack of better words). This was more a block about my haste rather than what I actually said or did. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we live and learn. :) Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, enough. I wanted to give a simple, neutral message about a relevant discussion that is of interest to the community. You're free to disagree with my judgment, fine, but what I did was painfully mild, and most certainly not deserving of a block (what amounts to four edits). I understand the anticipation and assumptions made, because of the topic and because of past discussions, so I can't completely fault Krimpet, but if you people can't be reasonable and objective about these things, then don't bother talking about it. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you disagree with my review of this block, That means I'm not being reasonable or objective and I should have not bothered? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm sure people have other reasons for endorsing the block that are objective and reasonable (which doesn't necessarily make it correct or incorrect, etc) -- Ned Scott 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm confused. Your statement here contradicts the one you made here a few minutes ago. O_o NonvocalScream (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not very good with words. Allow me to explain. You're being objective in that you're actually saying "why didn't you make sure about X before you did it again". Tony isn't being objective, respectful, or helpful in calling me a sausage (though I guess you could say he's trying to de-escalate the situation with humor, I'm not sure). You disagree with me regarding the block, but I can still respect your reasons (just as I can respect Krimpet's original block, since I can imagine Krimpet's line of thought at the time). -- Ned Scott 07:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is ok, I understand better what you mean now. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment may have been neutral, but using phrases like "discussion is brewing" and hinting an another DRV (which we all know would be a year's worth of drama crammed into a week, not to mention indicating your goal in the discussion) are not necessary. Just an invitation to join in would have been much better and far less drama-inducing. Mr.Z-man 07:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't consider "brewing" to be a controversial word. It just popped in my head to describe something forming. I'm sorry if the thought of another DRV disturbs anyone, but it is the most likely next step. I don't desire drama, but it is an unfortunate side effect of discussing something rather than ignoring it.

Thinking about it now, I think the only reason anyone thought I was forum shopping was because I reverted SirFozzie's denial of my edit protected request, and must have saw my notices as an extension of that (which in itself was not an attempt to "ask someone else", but rather a moment of frustration, and feeling that removing the tag would mean "giving in" [yes, still not a good reason to do it, but just trying to tell people what my line of thinking was]). Had I not done that and still left these same messages, there would be no issue, and certainly no block. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of socks needed, after CheckUser result

Resolved. Careuc indef'd, its master Buffer v2 blocked for a week. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Careuc was found to use socks (User:Buffer v2, see the CheckUser result). I ask admins to ban the sock User:Buffer v2 indef. Thank you. Marc KJH (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

[edit] User avoiding block

70.108.133.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the sock of 70.108.92.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked yesterday by Dreadstar for vandalizing the Elizabeth Hasselbeck article and for personal attacks. 70.108.133.61 is now reverting again on the Hasselbeck article and leaving messages like this to Dreadstar and myself. I'm asking for the sock IP to be blocked and the block extended for 70.108.92.126 because of harassment and block evasion. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 70.108.133.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption. For the sockmaster, you may aswell contact Dreadstar for what route to persue there. Rudget. 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrick day

self-confessed puppetmaster - someone want to lock down the account and userpage (since I've tossed the fred identity aside and it's best to tie up the loose ends). --Fredrick day 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you are a sockmaster? Looks like you've linked to an edit by yourself. Rudget. 13:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he's saying. He's saying he wants blocking for it. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What action do we take? FD said he's going into 'retirement'. Do we wait for him to come back and the block the account, provided it causes more disruption? Rudget. 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not going into retirement the fredrick day account is, it's served my purposes and I'm more effective as an IP editor - I suggest you block it and then lock down the pages. --Fredrick day 13:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't block on request. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SELFBLOCK. Rudget. 14:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that "I can best do what I do using an IP address" in this comment linked above appears to mean "trolling and harassment"; self-blocking is a no-no, but by looking at recent contributions from this editor, I'm not sure the editor should not be retired. In fact, the linked comment and this whole thread pretty much illustrate the recent trolling behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor says that he has retired his account and he will not be using his account Fredrick day anymore.He will editing as a IP editor.The user has never been blocked before and has made some good contributions earlier.Hence feel we should assumeWP:GF .Anyway no point blocking the account if he is not going to use it and has himself retired it.Let us see how the Ip edit in future Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's using anon IP addresses to troll and attack other editors, I was about to block indef anyway. (See for example Special:Contributions/87.114.141.40; Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day.) He's also 'signing' his IP edits as 'Section31', which is an apparently unrelated (and quiescent) account name. I've blocked the IP, but since he seems to be on dialup, that's probably not going to be particularly effective unless we rangeblock his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, rangeblock is unworkable— he's coming from all over, at the least, a /19 at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He claims he's wardriving (see User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Section31); I don't know if I believe him or not. In any case, until he expresses some interest in making positive contributions again, I'd suggest reverting his edits on sight per WP:RBI. Edits all appear to be coming from the range 87.112.0.0 - 87.115.255.255 (a /14), registered to Plusnet Technologies. It could be rangeblocked for some period of time if necessary (perhaps a Checkuser could offer an opinion about the amount of collateral damage such a block would cause), but if aggressive abuse takes place a better strategy might be to contact his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He will get bored and tire himself out, or run out of gasoline money hehe. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] repeated vandalism to 2 articles

To whom it may concern:
Two articles that I help to maintain are being repeatedly edited to include incorrect information, or to remove relevent information. They are Accursed Lands and Roleplay Intensive MUDs.

This has been going on for quite some time. The vandal is identified below:
74.36.3.56 - static IP, either home or office?
User:TSOY Falco (a reference to "the streets of yesterday", a MUD)
74.134.243.9 - sprintlink IP - mobile

Here is the story, sorry about the length:

This person, whom I shall refer to as "Falco", is the owner of a roleplaying game (a MUD ) named "The Streets of Yesterday". He has been carrying on a vendetta against another roleplaying game, which I am associated with, named Accursed Lands MUD (AL-MUD). As part of this vendetta, he has spread lies about AL-MUD on various MUD-related web forums, and attempted to unilaterally change the definition of commonly-accepted terms used by the MUD community. The term RPI, or Roleplay Intensive MUD is one such term.

Approximately six months ago, several of us who have an interest in the "roleplaying intensive MUDs" page noticed recurring instances of vandalism to that page. This vandalism included the removal of the reference to AL-MUD -- which is a notable MUD in the RPI genre -- and the insertion of several MUDs into the 'notable rpi muds' list, most of which are in a stage of development that can be considered pre-alpha (unplayable not accepting players).

AL-MUD is a notable mud in the RPI genre for several reasons, but mostly because it won several awards, including the "RPI MUD of the Year" awarded by the Web's premier non-partisan RPI-MUD discussion forum (http://rpimud.com) for two years running. There is an external link to this discussion forum at the bottom of the article.

Additionally, some changes were made to the "Accursed Lands" wikipedia article (an article which survived a deletion attempt due to the notability of AL-MUD, as measured by the awards won by the MUD). These changes were factually inaccurate -- I can state with confidence that they are lies and not just honest mistakes -- and seemed designed to bolster the assertion that AL-MUD was not suited for inclusion in the "roleplay intensive MUDs" wikipedia page. Unfortunately, we failed to notice these changes to the "Accursed Lands" article, and failed to understand what was going on until recently.

"Falco" edited incorrect information into the "Accursed Lands" article, even though he is thoroughly familiar with AL-MUD and knows this information is incorrect. Specifically, if it's of any interest, he stated that AL-MUD did not feature what is known as "perma-death" (which is when player characters die irretrievably, instead of coming back to try again), even though this is completely false. There were some other malicious edits in a similar vein from another IP address, but we can't prove he was behind them. He used these lies inserted into the "Accursed Lands" article to try to justify removing the mention of AL-MUD being a notable mud in the RPI genre from the "roleplay intensive MUDs" article.

After repeated incidences of vandalism to the "roleplay intensive MUDs" article (and after finally noticing the lies inserted into the "Accursed Lands" article), I tracked the offending IPs to this "Falco".

"Falco" has been trying to use the "roleplay intensive MUDs" wikipedia article as a source to bolster an argument he has been having on a web-based MUD forum (http://topmudsites.com). He goes by the handle "prof1515" on that forum. His anonymous edits to various MUD-related wikipedia articles (which amount to nothing more than malicious vandalism, as far as I am concerned) seem driven by his agenda, which is to redefine the term "roleplay intensive MUD", or "RPI", to apply only to games which do not compete for players with the game he is trying to develop (called The Streets of Yesterday -- http://www.victorianmud.com/). He has a vested interest in the success of his MUD game, since he is a graduate student in history and he is using the development of his (supposedly historically-accurate) MUD to further his studies; rumors are that the MUD is part of his thesis.

Now that he has been exposed as the anonymous wikipedia vandal (by me on rpimud.com, in an attempt to shame him into doing the right thing), he has created a Wikipedia account (TSOY Falco). He continues to add lies and personal opinions to both the "roleplay intensive MUDs" and "Accursed Lands" articles, but now links to the discussion that he fomented on topmudsites.com as a reference to back up his unfounded assertions (presumably hoping that nobody notices that the poster using the handle "prof1515" is the same person as "Falco").

In the interest of preventing a zealot from single-handedly redefining a term that has had the same meaning in the MUD community for many years (RPI), and in the interest of preserving the articles that I maintain in a factual and accurate state, I'd appreciate if the Wikipedia higher-ups could do something about what I consider this person's malicious and underhanded edits.

Thanks in advance for any help. Jayess (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel rears her head once more

Resolved. Resolved for now, full protection has been implemented. Rudget. 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

Weird she'd be allowed to edit, given how polemical she's been against Jimbo. Oh well. Now, where's my spot on the Colbert show? ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 15:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But, with respect, what administrative action is needed? Is sleeping with Jimbo grounds for a block?!? Whitstable 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the page has been protected. Hut 8.5 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of intent to circumvent block

While I admire his candor, this is getting silly. [[61]]. The user basically removes material from four pages... and has declared that he will continue to do so. I would like to semi-protect, however then he will just start making user accounts. Any reccomendations would be helpful. Hohohahaha (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like he's heading toward 3RR. Useight (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Doctor (Doctor Who)

On 18:07 March 1, 2008, I submitted edits to the article Doctor (Doctor Who), among which were two additions that have led to problems. One involved regeneration and the line of dialog, "...dead too long this time..." from the 1996 Dr. Who telefilm, the other the TARDIS's alternate console room seen throughout the 1976-77 season of the original Who programme, introduced in the serial The Masque of Mandragora. They were promptly reverted by User:Edokter, claiming in his edit summary that they were speculation. The latter edit has just been effectively conceded (one of the people in the dispute just made a mere minor fine tuning-type edit to my restoration of it), but the other remains disputed. However the disputes, seen first in edit summaries then in a talk page thread, Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Reverting reversion by Edokter, have been far less than reasonable. First User:Ckatz replied to my posted defense of my work, then Edokter himself joined the discussion. Neither have ever actually dealt with what I posted in my defense (which was an airtight case), nor acknowledged my saying in subsequent posts that they have done so. I had also pointed out that there are things in the article, including what the alt. console room edit of mine was refuting, was speculation, and their failure to remove them as well was dubious. No mention of this from them, either. After my posting of March 6 was not responded to for two weeks, I assumed concession by default and reposted the three edits that had been in dispute (User:DonQuixote, after making a factually indefensible statement about the regeneration edit, made compromise suggestions for the other two, one of which—for the edit I have not specified here—I stated then that I accepted and is what I posted, but no actions were taken or even comments made by the other two editors on either). Ckatz reverted the regeneration edit with no new ground stated, but, as I said, merely did a minor fine tuning to the alt. console room passage, effectively conceding its basic validity. Both he and Edokter added new replies to the thread, having no more validity in the context of the actual facts than any of their previous postings; Edokter's suggests that at that time he was unaware Ckatz had conceded the one edit. I recommend most strenuously that they both be subjected to disciplinary action, especially Edokter.

If you are wondering why there are no links to "diff" pages, it is because the only way I know to do them is according to the instructions on Help:Diff, which when followed to the letter simply do not work. I posted a comment to this effect with more specifics on Help talk:Diff#The instructions here don't work on 10 January 2008, but there has as yet been no reply or action. Ted Watson (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Admins do not settle content disputes. You have made no accusations of anyone violating policy, so there appears to be nothing for an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If the involved parties cannot come to a consensus, the next step would be dispute resolution. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The complaint was of not discussing in good faith. If that's not a violation of policy, then the policies are absurd. Ted Watson (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After your first post, two different admins investigated the issue and left friendly messages on your talk page urging you to dial-down the rhetoric and be more civil to others. The hostility of your reply coupled with your abject refusal to even read No angry mastodons or Beware of the tigers is rather telling. You accuse other editors of having "lied" [62] (emphasis not mine), call the work of others "garbage" [63], describe the opinions expressed here on AN/I as "offensive—and incompetent" [64], and even denigrate those who try to help you [65]. To be perfectly frank, I am rather shocked that you do not have a talk page full of civility and no personal attack warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by all [of my actions, words and statements] that you cited above as valid (including the reason I gave for not reading the essays) and justified, in some cases provoked, and the fact that I "do not have a talk page full of civility and personal attack warnings" tells me that most admins see it that way. I noticed during the "preview" stage who you are, the very person to whom I had directed the words "offensive" and "incompetent" (which I see as grounds for your recusal from this issue). You definitely and irrefutably provoked them there, suggesting I had not read the replies when my own postings among them were dealing with them. Taking all of these words and phrases (not just those two) out of their original contexts implies that it is not ever possible for their use to be appropriate, which is an absurd contention. Furthermore, none of this has one iota of impact on the irrefutably improper behavior of Edokter and Ckatz, which is the issue here. Oh, and one other thing: get a dictionary and look up the definition of the word rhetoric (I already have); there is nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric. Ted Watson (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive misguided edit by anon.ip

Resolved. continued after final warning, blocked --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

66.229.149.116 keeps reinstating unsourced material in Capricorn (astrology). I think he is doing so on purpose. Hopefully this is the right place to post it, I couldn't decide if it constitutes vandalism per se. Thank you, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After that many reversions, it's close, but IP has received only one warning as yet. Have left a final one and advice as to sourcing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully the person will get the message this time :) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this person doesn't want to listen. [66] --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need more eyes at Race and Intelligence

Hi, we'd need more eyes at Race and Intelligence, as it seems again there is POV-pushing brewing, and the the possibility of outright edit-warring. Of particular relevance is the latest RfC question about the current neutrality (or lack thereof) of the article, and the behaviour of one user, User:Jagz, who seems to be POV-pushing and lacking in civility. However, as I am myself a very involved party, I'm inviting people not to take my word for granted, but to please go there and make up their own opinion, and act as they see fit. Thanks. I'm just raising the flag here. I invite other, neutral eyes to make up their own minds about the whole situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected to stop edit war. It should go without saying that this page was intentionally protected under the wrong version. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; they've all been wrong versions if you ask me. Here's hoping the RfC turns up more useful suggestions (there have been a few already). In any case, thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a message someone left on my Talk page that seems to sum up the situation recently:

You are fighting a group of some the most effective blockers on wikipedia. The subject it really very emotive and goes to the heart of many peoples core belief systems. You are performing valiant work in the face of extreme personal attacks and I commend you. Try to ignore such attacks on your intelligence and competence and so on. The article as it stands is a shamble of POV and weasel words and fails to describe the debate in any coherant fashion, and this is by design. "importance, or lack of importance" must be the definition of weasel words. It is like it is writen by a teenager, with no understanding of language. 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

--Jagz (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake has a history of being involved in edit wars on race-related articles although manages to circumvent 3RR by participating with others. He also expects others to observe certain editing protocols and then fails to follow them himself. He has also demonstrated a propensity for calling my edits POV-pushing regardless of their merit. His actions do not promote the peaceful resolution of disputes, in fact I believe the opposite is true. --Jagz (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote abve was from User:Lobojo who basically never was involved in either te talk page or the article. He's entitled to his own opinion. However, you did fail to transcribe the rest of the section, were other users pointed out the fact that you were editing against consensus, to make the article fit your own POV, and you were asked to stop this. That was back in January. Now, two months later, you are still edit-warring against consensus (for which you were recently blocked). I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about your behaviour. Also, about POV-pushing, please realize that just about every other editor involved in the article calls your edits the same. You know what they say: if it walks like one and if it quacks like one... I would like to suggest that you start discussing constructively on the talk page where most editors are trying to rewrite the article. So far, your contributions on the talk page have been less constructive than many other editors'.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unclear of the criteria of WP:3RR at the time I got blocked but it was an incident in which you were involved in edit-warring. I thought it applied to the same material, not different material on the same page. --Jagz (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You were unclear?

• here
• here
• here
• and here

After being issued four warnings (that I can fish up in under 3 minutes), ans having issued several yourself, you claim to still be unclear on the concept of 3RR. Please don't insult my intelligence.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The following section is from a request for arbitration that mentions Ramdrake.[67]. --Jagz (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-warring

There has been a great deal of edit-warring on race-related articles in the past few months. There have been so many reversions I'm not going to bother listing diffs. Just take a look at the protection logs:

• Afrocentrism, two protections in last four months for edit-warring
• Black people, two protections in last three months for edit-warring
• Race and intelligence, four protections in last four months for edit-warring
• Race and ancient Egyptians, two protections in last two months for edit-warring

And, you guessed it, it's the same people. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Per request for specificity on the talk page, the users who are most commonly involved in revert wars on these articles are Dbachmann, Deeceevoice, and Ramdrake, with Jeeny and Futurebird also contributing some, but not as many, reverts. Egyegy, Muntuwandi, Taharqa, and Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, and other also join from time to time. This list is by no means exhuastive. Picaroon (t) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, I'll let the record speak for itself: there were no findings from the ArbCom about my actions. Please stop trotting out such comments.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:AeturnalNarcosis again

I have given AeturnalNarcosis (talk · contribs) a uw-v4 warning. I see that nobody has bothered to explain to him why his repeated addition of fair use album covers to the Fleshcrawl article isn't proper, despite my plea above. My next step is going to have to be WP:AIV unless an admin will bother to do something. Corvus cornix_talk 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Black Kite notified him, and I warned him about his comment at Talk:Fleshcrawl. Typically, AIV is much faster, but you are right that repeat inappropriate fair use album covers should be noted here. If he does it again, just ask me and I'll personally block him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RachelMarsden on User talk:Jimbo Wales

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved.

There is an edit war going on, with people reverting her remarks. Does this fall under any policy? I can't help thinking those reverting are in the wrong. Surely Jimbo's user page is as good place as any to leave him comments? The problem is certain users don't /like/ those comments and are reverting her because of that. -Halo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd think Rachel's comments about certain Wikipedians, esp. Jimbo, gives her an effective ban from Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deeming somebody to have an "effective ban" from Wikipedia before they're even actually blocked may be a new first. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bans and blocks are separate. Her comments are bad enough that anyone else will be banned (and please, Dan, I'm precluding your censorship of criticism argument), but she's not blocked because a) her account has been inactive until now, and b) omg t3h media. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that much involved here, but comments like that could realistically go by email. There not necessary. Rudget. 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments or hers? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Her's. I edit-conflicted. :P Rudget. 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, might fall under WP:NPA but it's certainly a borderline case at best and I don't think it's normal policy to revert people for breaking it. The thing is that Wikipedia doesn't want to be seen to censor such criticism. -Halo (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The diff I'm referring to: [68] onwards. -Halo (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been oversighted, I think. Rudget. 16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly. Bit dodgy in my view -Halo (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT OVERSIGHTED. You had a typo for that diff - remove the "1" at the end. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk)

The post that was deleted from Jimbo's talk page has now been placed on the user's userpage. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have went and removed that message from her userpage, as it seems to me that it is not acceptable on Jimbo's talk page. AndreNatas (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am missing how that edit was disruptive - and why it has to be removed. Please fill me in. Kingturtle (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The same oversighted message has been placed on her talkpage, and it looks like an edit war is emerging there. I wish to revert no further though. AndreNatas (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just leave the message alone. It's rather childish, but not worth edit warring over. There's no privacy concern, since it's all being played out in the media anyway, and the personal attacks are mild by comparison to many we get around here (I've had much worse from vandals I've reverted). If she wants to behave like this, let her, it's not seriously disrupting anything. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why she can't have all or part of that on her user page? Kingturtle (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[69]... should we just leave her alone to get on with this? AndreNatas (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted her user page to her version and protected it. She's not violating any policy I can see, so let's just stop edit warring, huh? --Tango (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the matter of her user page, I think, yes, just leave it alone and get on with things. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. That is - as long as we know it is definitely the real Rachel Marsden in question and not an imposter. But judging from the user's edit history, I am concluding it really is the real Rachel Marsden. Kingturtle (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Martinp23 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuh-uh. I think claiming you were "dumped by Jimbo on Wikipedia" is easily G10 territory. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a clear cut case of trolling to me. If she continues, block here. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not get back at our exes. John Reaves 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but in the interests of writing an encyclopaedia, I think it's best to just leave well alone. Do we really want to take on a woman scorned? It won't be pretty. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care if she is scorned or not, she is hindering the building of this encyclopedia. John Reaves 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, she isn't. She's posting stuff on her user page and her ex's user talk page. The people edit warring with her and forcing a major discussion here are disrupting the building of the encyclopaedia. She isn't. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't bypass policy because hell hath no fury. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do and I have. Call it WP:IAR if you want to (I call it protecting a page to prevent an edit war, personally). What's best for the encyclopaedia is just to leave well alone. Emotions seems to be running too high for people to see that, so I'm imposing it on them. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore her, see if she goes away or ceases to misuse Wikipedia. If not, block. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

umm, the comment that she was dumped on wikipedia is in WP:RS isn't it, rightly or wrongly?:) As to Jimbo's talkpage though- people remove unfavourable/undesirable/ "trolling" comments from there frequently. special, random, Merkinsmum 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh people, this is wonderful!! Thank you, thank you, thank you for proving exactly the point that I was trying to make with that one post on the talk page by ubruptly deleting it and threatening to ban me. Excellent! Now, I don't have to explain, or prove, to curious mainstream media that I'm, in fact, bang-on in my assessment of this place. You've done all the work for me. For that, I am grateful. That's all I cared to do, and you folks certainly made sure that I didn't waste any time. lol Much love, Rachel :)

If you're not here to help the encyclopedia, go away. We regularly ban annoyances like you without a second thought. John Reaves 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time in the history of mankind that "encyclopedia" has been synonymous with "cult". I find that highly amusing. :) BTW, feel free and ban me, dear, for making an honest, constructive critique of this whole operation -- and merly restating the fact that I want to be completely disassociated with this cult and have my "article" on here permanently deleted. Banning me will only serve to prove my point, and give me something else to pass on to the "real world" media in all this. I'm sure you know by now that they're kind of paying a bit of attention. :)

Please, John, could you be at least a bit more civil here? --Conti|✉ 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the same person who supported me saying "shut the hell up" to a troll by saying "the best way to deal with a troll is by using a two-by-four"? We shouldn't dance around the maypole when someone's cutting all of the ribbons. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of ever having said that, or supporting you saying that. You must mistake me for someone else. --Conti|✉ 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I could have been a lot less civil though. John Reaves 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DENY. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• More like WP:PROTECTJIMBOSFEELINGS. ;-) daveh4h 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody do something about this? AndreNatas (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about just leaving it alone? --Tango (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How's about not enabling outright trolling? Wouldn't that be a good thing?--Calton | Talk 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel, I'm saying the exact thing John said in a little more civil tone. If you continue to act like this, you will be banned. Jonathan 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to convince me that edit warring in User space is protecting the encyclopedia. daveh4h 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there all this discussion? She's causing disruption, and she has no apparent interest in helping the encyclopedia. Block her. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore her it is for the best, and it is also best for us to keep away from her talkpage, as she only restored that disruptive post that was keep being removed anyway, labelling us "facists". AndreNatas (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that she should simply be ignored, and that any further dubious/inappropriate commentary about Rachel Marsden (who I doubt she really is) and Jimbo Wales should be removed per WP:BLP (which does apply to more than articlespace) and/or WP:USER/WP:TALK. If she engages in editwarring without end, I'd say hit her with escalating blocks for disruption. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She's blocked. Now let's stop talking about it and to her and do something constructive. John Reaves 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, she has just been blocked by User:John Reaves. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

BAD MOVES, folks. You got played :-( -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

argh argh someone is posting bad things about Jimbo Wales quick to the block button mobile Jtrainor (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.