Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 STBot and unicode 2 JzG's recent deletions 2.1 Blacklisting sources 2.2 Viridae and JzG 3 Personal attacks from User:Jeffmichaud 4 Personal attack by Francis23 5 Editor engaging in pointy editing, using his talk as an attack page, violating WP:OR 6 User Tree of Life Time spamming 7 WP:CANVASSING by User:Imbris 8 More crazy wacky funtime with American Brit 9 Turemetalfan / 98.224.211.86 10 John Oliver (comedian) just challenged his audience to change entries 11 350,575 Afro-Latinos in Honduras 12 East Pictou Middle School 13 I was watching TV last night and... 14 repeated addition of uncited material to Dubstep 15 Banning policy etc. 16 W.GUGLINSKI again 17 I am astonished... 18 Puppet of Mike Babic 19 Daniel Brandt once again up for discussion 20 Blocked user spinoza1111 posting insult via anon IP 21 Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites 22 Mr. Loner 23 I need opinion on Mediation Cases and Point of view pushing 24 Birthdate of a minor Wikipedian 25 Jason Leopold 26 User talk:Sfan00 IMG#Don't deep Link Google Books PDF!! 27 Difficult TfD close 28 Iron Man (comics) problems 29 inproper language 30 User:Roitr sock needs blocking 31 Ehccheehcche 32 User 216.47.88.66 seems to be SPA link spammer 33 Bfair2mychurch 34 A minority of Web forum users planning vandalism 34.1 Unblock of Bikuki 35 User:Jon Awbrey 36 User:Angry Christian 37 Phone numbers 38 Move cleanup 39 Community ban proposal re User:Gni 40 Phone numbers redux 41 another Pinoybandwagon's sockpuppet 42 я вам пишу, чего же боле 43 A minority of Web forum users planning vandalism 43.1 Unblock of Bikuki 44 User:Jon Awbrey 45 User:Angry Christian 46 Blocked user spinoza1111 posting insult via anon IP 47 Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites

[edit] STBot and unicode

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=207120593 where STBot notified me about NFCC problem with Image:50 öre SEK.png. It seems that the bot isn't working fully with unicode filenames. Question is if the bot should be blocked or not. _→AzaToth 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Get the right bot, first! It's User:STBotI (one of four bots operated by User:ST47 - User:STBot, User:STBotD (deprecated), User:STBotI, and User:STBotT). This one ('I' for image, presumably) says it "operates under the functions of Operation Enduring Encyclopedia" - someone save us from bad American patriot puns! :-) As for blocking, surely you can ask User:ST47 to undo it's bad tags? Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously something to fix, but looking at STBotI's contribs this doesn't seem to be coming up very often and we're probably best-off leaving it running until there's a bigger problem. Just my two cents. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG's recent deletions

JzG has gone through and deleted a large number of subpages in other peoples userspace under the heading "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". The problem being that he 1. failed to notify the pages authors of the deletions in any way shape or form or even ask them if they wanted to keep the pages and 2. speedy deleted them, circumventing the MfD process used for this kind of deletion and completely misapplied "non controversial housekeeping" which is actually "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, or performing uncontroversial page moves." - to include deleting someones subpages under this heading has stretched the term "non-controversial housekeeping" to beyond breaking point. To make matters worse, he then proceeded to refuse to overturn such deletions [1][2]. And accused me of wheel warring when I complied with a very reasonable request from one of the editors to have his page back [3]. Now I am apparently banned from his talk page so someone else might like to go and point out the deletion policy again. Viridae^Talk 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you reverse his deletion without discussion with him BEFORE? Don't do that. There's seldom a rush to undelete, and if you disagree it is better to get a consensus of admins than to start wheel warring.--Doc^g 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? He had alrady shown himself unwilling to overturn his supposedly uncpontroversial deletions (clearly not by the way) at the request of the authors. So why the hell shouldnt I undelete a userpsace copy of an uncontroversial article on author request when they have been improperly deleted? Viridae^Talk 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether something is "improperly deleted" is always something to discuss. If we all just undeleted anything we thought "improperly deleted" then we might as well wind up WP:DRV now. That's not the way we work. Always discuss BEFORE jumping in with tools (unless there's urgency). You can't complain that JzG unilaterally used tools without discussion, and then do the same yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right.--Doc^g 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No way can you be considered uninvolved. It would be extremely inappropriate for you to undo any of Guys actions without having a consensus behind you and frankly we have enough admins that you shouldn't get involved. DRV is thataway... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was discussion - see WP:AN where there is consensus that there is no reason for pages sismilar to that one Guy has complained about to be deleted. I like how Guy suddenly has carte blanche to flout the CSD policy, claiming clearly controversial deletions are uncontroversial housekeeping, stonewall those people who complain about such deletions and refuse to undo them at the authors request (which, if they were uncontroversial would be the obvious thing to do...) Viridae^Talk 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You of all people are not qualified to judge a consensus on an admin action of Guy's. I get the impression that the only views you judge significant are the anti brigade. This was a shocking decision. For someone as wedded to doing the right thing as you purport to be I'm amazed that you didn't do the right thing here and take it to DRV. Be warned your own behaviour is as disruptive as you claim Guy's to have been and righting wrongs can cut both ways. I strongly advise you to completely avoid using your admin tools in any issue even tangentially related to Guy. You can't say you haven't been warned if you wheelwar again and we know how the arbcom voiew wheelwarring don't we! Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, it is wholly unacceptable to reverse the admin actions of another administrator with whom you are in long-standing dispute. Wholly, utterly, completely, unambiguously wrong. Never ever do that again, please. Second, you undeleted one of these pages without giving me time to discuss it with the user at all, which is doubly unacceptable. Third, you have not looked at the overall context. Most of these pages were userspace copies of articles made while the articles themselves were protected, and have been edited a handful of times at most. The main editor on most of them is maintenance bots. Removing something that's been moved to userspace and forgotten, is not controversial. What is controversial is maintaining POV-forks in userspace, which some of these editors were doing, but that's another matter. I found I think six separate copies of human with varying numbers of edits serving different POVs; long experience indicates that POV-forking an article into userspace is an atrocious way of handling a content dispute.

I am staggered by your chutzpah, coming here and drawing attention tot he fact that you are reversing the deletion of abandoned POV-forks by an admin with whom you are in dispute, while those deletions are already being debated in another venue with uninvolved admins looking on. I am now making a formal request, as I have made several informal ones: unwatch my talk page, never post there again, never revert another of my admin actions. You have declared an agenda against me, and your continued harassment is not appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop flouting policy and you wont hear a peep from me Guy... Viridae^Talk 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, what declared vendetta against you Guy? Oh and why are you objecting so loudly to me overturning a deletion you marked as "non-controversial housekeeping" - if its so non-controversial, surely when the author requests it back you should give it to them asap... Viridae^Talk 11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, there are means for you to pursue any complaints against Guy. Do not use your tools in a dispute. If there's a pressing need for things to be undone without DRV, there are plenty of others to do it. If you continue down this line, desysopping is the likely outcome.--Doc^g 11:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a pressing need to placate those who have been wronged as quickly as possible WP:EM Viridae^Talk 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, actions like these are already on RfC for guy, and he clearly hasnt learnt. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So take it to arbcom, do not use your tools in a dispute. It is quite unjustifiable.--Doc^g 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, you are confusing policy with process. Policy says we don't have POV forks (WP:NPOV), we don't allow users to indefinitely keep deleted content in userspace, and we don't use unreliable sources. Oh, and we don't wheel-war. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of these massively contentious deletions:

• User:Sherurcij/cars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), both copies of List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which was deleted by robust consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers. Neither was being actively worked on, the latter was copied to userspace by request in December last year and not touched since. I don't think there is anything in the least controversial about removing userspace copies of resoundingly deleted content which are not actively being worked on (as in: not touched other than by bots for at least six months). Maybe I'm wrong about that.
• User:Jaakobou/Temp2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), two copies of the same article in the userspace of an Arbcom-sanctioned editor who has apparently begun to mend his ways. Kudos to him for that, but what's the purpose for having two separate forks of the same article, when the main article is still editable?
• User:W1k13rh3nry/Human (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), User:Goethean/Human8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), User:Goethean/Homo sapiens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), User:Goethean/Human7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and various other forks of human
• User:Huysman/Sandbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), User:Huysman/Sandbox1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) two forks of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda not touched since September 2006 in either case.

But you know something? Part of the reason was, and I will freely admit this, laziness. I was removing citations to Free Republic, which is an unreliable source and riddled with copyright violations, and yes, I admit it, I could not be bothered to fix the links in these abandoned userspace forks rather than simply getting rid of them. The staggering assumptions of ill-faith from Viridae are amusing, but simply wrong: I could not see the point in fixing articles which have been lying around in userpsace untouched by anything but bots for months or in some cases years. Still, why even ask for the truth when an assumption of bad faith is so much more satisfying? I think I made around 1,500 edits to get rid of the links and bogus "citations" to Freeper threads or copyvios of mainstream sources (see L. A. Times v. Free Republic) and yes, I really was getting thorughly fed up with it and lost a bit of patience when I found these abandoned forks. On the plus side, we no longer have contentious facts about living individuals supported by reference to Freeper rants about their evil pinko commie subversive ways, so some good at least has come of all those hours of effort. I'm sure Viridae did something to improve the encyclopaedia in that time as well, besides shit-stirring and wheel-warring with an admin with whom he is in dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current policy does not lay down how long archived article material may be kept in userspace, if it isn't being worked on. I do think we need a clearer and more specific guideline on this, to avoid such conflicts occurring in the future. I do think that JzG was wrong to originally delete these pages under CSD G6, since that criterion is expressly for routine and non-controversial deletions, and these are self-evidently controversial; however, I applaud the fact that he has now sent them to MfD, which is entirely appropriate. Depending on the consensus which arises in those MfDs, we may be able to add a paragraph to WP:U detailing precise rules for these types of pages (maybe allowing the deletion of such pages if they haven't been worked on for three months, or something like that). Walton^One 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current practice, however, has it that it is not acceptable to leave deleted material hanging around in userspace forever without being worked on, as an end-run around WP:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do see the sense in that argument, and I have seen such material put up for MfD many times in the past, it has never (for good reason) been eligible for speedy. The problem is, it's often hard to tell whether someone is trying to store their own preferred POV fork of an article, or simply intended to work on the material and hasn't got round to it yet. I don't think speedy was appropriate in such a case, but we'll see what consensus develops on the MfDs. Walton^One 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...two admins attacking each other over some silly user-sub-page deletions. Shame on you both, I would have expected more from admins. JzG, really you should have notified before deleting, and Viridae, just don't undo his actions, take it to his talkpage first.--Phoenix-wiki 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Normally if I see abandoned userspace forks and the user is still active, I WP:PROD them. If the user is gone, and they are obviously left-overs form some long-dead dispute, then deleting them quietly is not usually controversial. I have found that in some cases trying to delete "backup" or "safety" copies of material that was copied to userspace without history during AfDs, causes stpid drama and ends with the same result. In this case, though, see my comment above: I was trying to get rid of well over a thousand links to an inapppropriate source and really did not see any point fixing userspace content forks that had not been touched for months other than by bots. When such pages are MfDd, in my experience they get deleted. I fixed any userspace pages that had current or near-current edits to them. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisting sources

I wonder how can someone unilaterally decide that certain source (say Free Republic) is "unreliable" and then remove it from all articles and user spaces? Was it officially "blacklisted" somewhere?Biophys (talk) O'K, I see it here: [4]. All these sources, including YouTube seem to be unilaterally blacklisted. But on what grounds? Was it a proper procedure? This way one can eliminate a lot of sources. For example, if a site (say YouTube) has occasional copyright violations, should we exclude all links to this site, including those which are not copyright violations? I do not think this is right.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. See, for example Little Tich for an example of a YouTube video that's free of copyright. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. No one should blacklist sources simply because they are deemed unreliable. For example, even if Free Republic is an unreliable source (which is debatable), it still may be appropriate in the article about Free Republic itself. Therefore, the blacklisting and such edits [5] are inappropriate. Especially when the blacklisting was justified by simply telling "Fuck no" (see here [6]).Biophys (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In case it hasn't been brought up (didn't read the above section, just noticed this), in the case of a site that's being widely misused (no idea if Free Republic is or is not), but, is still valid in one or two articles, specific links may be whitelisted... SQL^{Query me!} 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sites he blacklisted were used in too many articles. I am arguing about a proper procedure. If a source is simply "unreliable" (which may be disputed at any time), it should not be blacklisted simply because it is unreliable. Just to clarify, a racist blog like "stormfront" might be eliminated like that, but blacklisting of a good educational site "Spatakus" ([7]) has no justification whatsoever.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic is undoubtedly an unreliable source as far as WP:RS goes, and shouldn't be used to back up claims of fact. However, it might well be a relevant source/external link in articles about Free Republic itself. I do understand, though, that we have to avoid linking to potential copyvios; I'm not an expert on copyright law, so I defer to the judgment of the community on this one. Walton^One 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Free Republic was discussed on WP:RSN and the consensus was that it was unreliable.[8] Aside from being copyright violations, the materials posted there are edited and followed by large amounts of highly POV commentary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting a site simply because a few editors find it unreliable is a very, very bad idea. The purpose of the blacklist is to prevent links to spam sites, sites that might be hosting viruses, etc. It is not there to enforce WP:RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Please note that not only "Free Republic" has been blacklisted here [9], so the argument about "Free Republic" discussion is not relevant. Did anyone discussed "Spartacus" and YouTube? I used this these sites many times. This is not spam. We must follow the existing policies for sources.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

← There is a discussion on the blacklist talk page, and it was absolutely not just my call. The problems with Free Republic include: polemical content about living individuals; egregious copyright violation; lack of editorial policy and oversight. It is simply not a reliable source. Not even slightly. But the major problem was citations to sources flagged as "subscription required (subscription free copy at freerepublic.com) kind of stuff. Simply not appropriate. I removed links to YouTube a long time back (and a few more recently) mainly due to copyright concerns. Spartacus Educational is an odd one; there are a lot of links, and my original research shoewd that a very large number of them had eben added ot the site owner. The content looks good, but there is no evidence of editorial oversight or to support the incredibly wide ranging expertise that would be required of the site owner if all the content is genuinely his own work. I seem to recall some copyvios (from newspapers) as well. This is not really the place to discuss editorial actions, though, since neither YouTube removal nor the few Spartacus links I've removed involved any admin tools, only blacklisting Freep required that, and that was a perfectly routine blacklist following discussion in the relevant places. There has never been any assertion or evidence that Free Republic satisfies our sourcing requirements. My personal page on unreliabel sources is just that: a personal page. It's a work list, of no particular relevance other than that it allowed me to give an edit summary that explained in some detail the multiple reasons why I was removing citations to Free Republic; this was a response to several questions on my talk page. Very few came up after I started linking that in the edit summaries. It's a user subpage, so obviously not asserted as any kind of policy in and of itself, though I reference policy for the Frrep case since that's what I was doing at the time. You'll notice that I also identify Stormfront as an unreliable source; I removed most of the links to that a long time ago and there was no dispute about that. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is not a good idea to blacklist any source simply because it is deemed unreliable by several people. As about "Spatacus", you admit you are not sure if it is reliable or not, but you still deleted some links. This would be better done by users who edit the corresponding articles, after an appropriate discussion, rather than as an administrative action.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that FreeRepublic.com was blacklisted simply because it is an unreliable source, it started out that way as my original question on the Blacklist page shows[10], but my request to have it blacklisted was because it was being used primarly for linking to for its unauthorized reprints of copyrighted material which is in violation of WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted material.[11] Prior to JzG going through and removing a vast majority of the links, there were over a thousand links to Free Republic that were clearly reprints of copyrighted material that was being reprinted without permission of the owner of that material, something Free Republic has gotten in trouble with before.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am sure people would not even have suggested blacklisting if the site was not being linked to excess and in breach of policy. But it was - widely, systematically and in some cases quite blatantly, with link summaries that made it abundantly clear that the material was a copyright violation. Free Republic asserted at trial that hosting copyright violations was protected under the First Amendment; they lost. It's not clear to me what is lost to the encyclopaedia here. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if you can't find an alternative source then I'd suggest the information was pretty fishy in the first place. We wouldn't need to pblacklist it is people didn't use sources that breached our fundamental values and ethos.Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Associated content as an example of using the blacklist for enforce WP:RS. I dont see too many copyvios there. It's not something I would use as a source, but its possible one day I might want to link to it from the WP:EL section, which has looser requirements and allows some self-published material. Having AC on the blacklist interferes with that. P.S. I didn't notice Youtube on either the WP or the global blacklist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viridae and JzG

This really has been going on too long. I'm sure everyone is by now aware of the contempt that Viridae clearly holds for JzG's judgment. His longterm habit of reversing admin actions by Guy that he disagrees with without discussion is totally inappropriate. This is far from the first time this board has wasted time dealing with the fallout. If Viridae thinks JzG has made the wrong decision, there are processes he could use to challenge them. But simply undoing everything is overtly antagonistic. There are over 1,500 admins, I see no reason why it always seems to be Viridae reverting JzG's actions. I think the time has come to ask Viridae to agree never to undo Guy's action however strongly he feels about them - he is clearly not sufficiently neutral to do so dispassionately. WjBscribe 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the Viridae-Guy beef is as well known on Wikipedia as Tupac and Biggie (though my rap knowledge is wanting). Neither should be reversing each others actions. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be productive if both were to agree to not revert or otherwise edit each others contributions - certainly not undo eithers sysop actions. I would point out, to be impartial, that the disrespect between the two parties appears mutual (I am certainly aware of it) and that it isn't only the one who instigates derogatory comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Viridae was clearly in the right as far as reversing the original deletions goes (since it was self-evidently inappropriate to cite CSD G6, a criterion which relates only to non-controversial housekeeping, in making deletions which were likely to be controversial). However, I do agree that, given that he and JzG clearly have an ongoing feud, it might have been better if he had sought a second opinion from another administrator before undeleting, or taken it to DRV as per normal procedure; there was no urgent need to undelete straight away. But the pages are now at MfD - which, IMO, is the correct forum for resolving this - so I think we should leave it be, and close this thread. No harm done overall. Walton^One 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that I only undeleted them after discussion on the subject in which Guy had refused to overturn his own deletions and only undeleted those pages for which the original author/subpages owner had requested undeletion. I didn't go through and undelete all of those to which the speedy had been misapplied. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No other admin seems prepared to point out Guy's questionable actions. -- Naerii 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing them out would be different then undoing them without discussion. John Reaves 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy doesn't really do discussion, though. It is true that he does sometimes listen, but generally only to those people whose point of view he has sympathy with (and vice versa) while anyone else is fair game for his pretty individual interpretations of not quite in violation of WP:CIVIL responses. Discussing Guys actions with anybody else just brings out the "valuable contributor with refreshing bluntness" vs. "rude prat who uses the tools inappropriately" cycle (jerk) responses. Generally, it is best that sysops do what they are supposed to - act in what is believed to be the best interest of the encyclopedia. Afterward we can discuss the whys and wherefores. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say. But as it turns out I've had quite a productive and civil dialogue with Jaakobou. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I am pleased to have been proven wrong. I hope I continue to be shown up as being mistaken; it's good for the encyclopedia, and something that I have been used to (on occasion) over the years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you initially flatly refused to undelete, and despite saying you would provide the info by email at a later stage you didn't offer that upfront, meaning the editor was unaware of that option. Viridae^Talk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And you wheel-warred, forestalling any resolution of that discussion. Just as you undeleted another userspace page which (has now been re-deleted after a very short slam-dunk MfD) without my even having seen it, let alone responded. But that's really beside the point: as noted in several places, and last time you undid one of my admin actions, and the time before that, you are the very last person who should be undoing my admin actions. There are 1,500 admins, leave it to one who is a neutral third party. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voicing in as Jaakobou's mentor, I'd like to respectfully request a strikethrough of the pages from Jaakobou's userspace from this discussion. The recent thread about those deletions was a chain of maybe-not-the-best-decisions by several people that got resolved pretty quickly once they began communicating. Wikipedians have little miscommunications all the time; as long as everyone is reasonable that's not a big deal. So let's pass over this bit instead of letting it plague us. Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Jaakobou agrees with me or not on this; it's a major holiday for him and the middle of the night in his part of the world. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing to clarify: Jaakobou was not singled out for any sanction by the arbcom; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute articles are under general parole. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing more and more admins deleting things outside of the deletion policy. Guy is one of them, WJB is another. Often times these deletions are slipped in there, and if you try to challenge them you're either ignored or written off as a troll. Especially when you already know, from experience, how these editors tend to respond when you question their admin actions. While Viridae's actions were not ideal, I can hardly fault him for correcting an obvious policy violation. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that JzG and Viridae are "involved" with respect to each other. Neither should use sysop tools against the other, nor use tools to undo something that the other has done. To both of you: if you have a problem with the other's actions, get help from an uninvolved admin. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • as I have equal problems with some of the admin actions of both of these editors, does that make me a suitable neutral party? or am i just looking for trouble? DGG (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• You're a militant inclusionist, of course you're looking for trouble :-) Incidentally, can anyone point to occasions where I've reversed Viridae's admin actions? Anything in the last six months should be fine. I'd like to check, because I don't think I have, my policy with respect to Viridae is to leave well alone, the issue is entirely in the opposite direction as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not one for defending JzG, but in this case, I believe he is correct - I have never seen him revert Viridae's admin actions. I have asked Viridae before to just leave Guy's stuff alone, as there's some unfortunate antagonism between the two. I really do wish he would. If he is concerned, post the concerns here and let one of our many admins less antagonistic to Guy (which is {{numberofadmins - JzG - Viridae}} admins, pretty much) respond to it. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil's right. Guy, go <-- way. Viridae, go --> way. Both look away from each other. Now you can't see what the other is doing, and you're all the better for it. Let the people between you, who can see both of you in a neutral light, sort it out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request: please remove the Jaakobou examples from the list of putative problems. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks from User:Jeffmichaud

This user has consistently been unable to discuss policy, but insists on theological discussion laced with continual personal attacks.

• "your finite understanding of this particular subject"
• "You've taken it upon yourself to interpret Explicit Writings"
• "You're making uneducated assumptions without all the facts"
• "Your assertion … irresponsibly concludes"

[12]

• "Pointing out that you're uneducated about "this particular subject" is not a personal attack;"
• "You seem to be suffering from a delusion that your limited understanding of this subject"

[13]

• "you made it up and shamelessly attempted to pass it off as authentic"
• "In fact no reference exists that … are there Mr. Smarty?

[14]

When warned on his user page, these are struck with deliberately insulting edit sums: [15] [16]

Some admin help would be of help. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody, a religious content dispute, with escalating warnings, warnign blankings, and increasingly arrogant tones... whee! but not AN/I material. You've got some ridiculously pontificating content disputes here about the relevancy of Judaic theory to Ba'hai theologies. YOu probably want WP:3O. or WP:DR, but not AN/I, unless you're asking for somethign specific? ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has a long history of being warned and asked to stop insulting his interlocutors directly — passing beyond the pale of WP:CIVIL. I can understand strong language directed at the opposing POV and arguments, but I thought WP:NPA was clear that points directed at the other party are out-of-bounds. Wikiquette alerts are cute, but have no teeth. (Been there. Done that.) There's no dispute to resolve as the editor has caved under WP:UNDUE. Frankly, even a simple {{subst:uw-npa1}} from an admin might get him to argue the topic and not personalities. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted this response below on MARussell's talk page in response to the warning he left on my talk page, but he has deleted it there. I have archived his warnings, but he insists on restoring them onto my talk page and "escalating the warnings"; I guess his talk page is above this policy? This response entails all I have to say on the matter. I feel if this is to be considered that a reply is in order to provide a holistic view as he is here attempting to isolate statements from their context and accuse me of engaging in things we've both indulged in.

"Thanks for the hearty laugh. The funniest being the double standard that you lavishly bestow upon your fellow editors. I'm sure the Incident Review Board will find it compelling that you believe you can snidely reply to my challenge for a reference with sarcasm, but me calling you Mr. Smarty in response is a personal attack. You think you have the right to call my reasoning puerile (you're spelling that wrong,btw), and turn around and extol me to be civil for how I respond? Saying you made something up is an attack? YOU DID MAKE IT UP!!! I didn't realize that was a valid debating technique, or that I wasn't allowed to point it out.

"Mike, you're hardly living up to these lofty ideals you expect from the rest of us, so spare me the lectures. You have the nerve to respond to me in a discussion with snide sarcasm, and turn around and issue threats and warnings on my talk page for my equally sarcastic reply? You're being absolutely hypocritical about this. If you squint your eyes and look closer at these last few discussions we've had together, you might notice that the exchanges are always confrontational from both sides; yet your sarcasm is justified, while mine is uncivil? What a farce.

"Look Mike, my primary interest, namely seeing that our views aren't entirely sanitize from Wikipedia, are increasingly being chipped away and vanishing. After more than two years of revert-warring with Cunado, and being challenged and spoken down to by the likes of you, who could be expected to assume good faith? A better question is why should I care, when you don't extend the courtesies you demand from others? If you intend on dealing with my concerns by intentionally mis-characterizing them in your responses, ignoring and not responding to direct challenges to your reasoning, and consistently speaking down to me with an heir of superiority, then you can expect more of the same from me.

"If you really want to make a case to have me blocked on how I choose to call you out for being disingenuous by making things up, then you have my blessing. I find it utterly amusing what you choose to define as a personal attack; I define them as stating facts. By all means go to the Alert board with me describing your repeated unfounded "warnings" as whining in my talk page edit summaries, and with me calling you a "smarty-pants" while responding to your demeaning sarcasm. Oh the humanity! I'm sure the damage I've done to the Wiki-community has been irreversible. I'm sure to be banned for life. If nothing else I do want to thank you for the hearty laughs your "warnings" have brought me. Cheers." _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This has escalated to harrasment on my talk page with bogus warning tags and reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]

Jeff has deleted warnings off of his talk page, but I apparently don't have the right to police my own talk page? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I was mistaken about removing content from your own talk page, and I apologize. I was only aware of this policy (which is what I assumed was motivating his restorations on my page), and wasn't aware that the talk page policies state you can remove whatever you want. I however have been archiving these warnings, and not deleting them, as I stated in the edit summaries when moving them. I think it's a slight exaggeration to call restoring my comments on his page harassment as they accompanied explanations, and were identical in nature to what has been perpetrated repeatedly upon my talk page by Mr. Russell in recent days ([20], [21]). He himself was restoring his "warnings" to my talk page over and over (after I'd moved them to Archive 2) while "escalating" his warnings. I wasn't in fact removing anything, rather moving them, but he took it upon himself to restore the comments again and again. Not sure how what I did is harassment if what he did wasn't? The actual difference being that I archived his comments, whereas he has been completely excising my reply to what he himself initiated on my page.

Based upon this recent comment to my page, I now understand this crossroads we're at, as he believes his sarcasm is warranted so long as it's only directed at my reasoning, and not at me personally. I get it now. I'm absolutely guilty as charged, as I have indulged beyond this limit to where sarcasm is appropriate. I'm profoundly sorry for the trouble this has wrought. I'm truly sorry that this has devolved into this , and am embarrassed for being responsible for arousing this sheer absurdity. I can commit myself at this moment to vow not to participate, initiate, or react to any sarcastic or snide comments in the future. I can't believe I bothered to participate to any extent as it is. Sorry for the trouble. Cheers. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack by Francis23

This has scrolled by on my watchlist and I think it's blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That guy. I reverted stuff almost exactly like that from anon editors over the last few days. Looking at Francis' 'contrabutions' I see that (s)he has a preformatted insult and just changes a name or so in it. I suspect the editor may have gone IP at this point. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor engaging in pointy editing, using his talk as an attack page, violating WP:OR

Proxy User (talk · contribs) is engaging in some WP:POINTy editing at the Joseph Konopka article. He insists on changing one piece of information about the subject from "computer expert" (which is what the cited reliable source refers to him as) to "systems administrator". He claims that systems administrators are not computer experts and so the article should not say this, however, this is basically a violation of WP:OR. He's been engaging in edit wars at the Dawn Wells article and accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest and of pushing a POV when they have, in fact, attempted to make the article conform to NPOV. Furthermore, he was engaged in some dispute with FCYTravis, after which he posted the following to his own talk page [22]. This persons behavior and attitude are disruptive. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This really sounds more like a content dispute. Perhaps you should seek help from outside parties via WP:MEDCAB or from WP:MEDCOM. In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you want us to do here? JodyB _talk 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I would encourage you all to be very careful about WP:3R. The two of your should work it out on the talk page. To encourage your fruitful communication, I have protected the page for a couple of days. JodyB _talk 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection. I think it's more than a content dispute, as he's attempting to reinterpret what a reliable source clearly states. But maybe that's just me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, "computer expert" is not a term you will find on the resume of anyone actually in the computer business. It is a term that reporters use for just about any form of person involved in computers, even if it is a 9 year old hacker or a grandmother that bought a machine at Best Buy to send email. Thus "computer expert" and "systems administrator" are not necessarily incompatable terms. I do not know the professional experience of JK (or anything else about him), but if he was indeed employed in the computer business his job title was not "computer expert". It may have been sysadmin, or something else. I would suggest that people involved in the article try to find a more accurate citation on the person's actual job description. The current term, while clearly cited, is IMHO too vague to argue over.

The claim that a sysadmin is not a "computer expert" is open to a vast amount of interpretation. I would say the pointy editor was using "expert" in a vastly different meaning than a reporter will use it in a general readership article (the cited reference). Even accepting the alternate definition of the editor, there is not necessarily a conflict. Some sysadmins are complete dunderheads, but a very large number are indeed "computer experts", though typically not "computer programmers", which I suspect the editor may be thinking of. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Tree of Life Time spamming

User Tree of Life has been promoting his personal website on various articles after being told not to do so. His website details his personal theories, including why the historical dates for everything in the first century CE should be reduced by 4 years. The 3 week editing history of Tree of Life has been solely devoted to making these promotions or arguing why these promotions are warranted. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANVASSING by User:Imbris

User:Imbris has engaged in CANVASSING concerning a move vote in the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta article. He has repeatedly been messaging people and trying to persuade them to vote in accordance to his own personal view on the matter. He appears to have ignored my requests to cease, I'm hoping he'd stop if he was warned to stop by an Admin.
links: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

I warned him a number of times to stop, but he ignored warnings and continued today as well [28], [29].
All in all its rather obvious, the best example would be: "I opposed that and invite you to do the same.". Could someone just warn the guy cause he does not look like he's going to stop... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note, however both of you need to step back and calm down a bit from the looks of things. No need to get all frustrated over what to call somebody. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am trying to calm the situation down. It was pretty civil until Imbris joined in, I suppose he's just upset he didn't notice the move sooner. I can understand that, but his reaction is a bit too emotional... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More crazy wacky funtime with American Brit

Please note: I'm only reporting this so there can be no claims that I'm trying to sweep this under the rug.

User:American Brit recently made another appearance, under the guise of User:American Brit the Third (say what you will about him, but I like the easily-named socks). I summarily blocked him as he's been banned by the community. I happened to pop back over, and saw that he'd left a charming message at User talk:American Brit the Third. Because he was making legal threats and personal attacks, I fully protected the talk page, eliminating his opportunity to have a neutral party investigate the claims. I'm posting this here because he's been banned for a year, and this seemed like an ideal opportunity to investigate whether the ban was warranted or not. :)

So, that's that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

American Brit's collection of threats. He was comical while he lasted. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite appropriately banned, I think. Most amusing. Sandstein (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this line: "Just start inviting people to a double funeral because Hanunted Angel and EVula are going tot he grave." [30]. And today. seicer | talk | contribs 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant links: :::Community ban

Checkuser case.

I filed the community ban proposal. Keep him gone. Keegan^talk 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turemetalfan / 98.224.211.86

The above user has been blocked indefinitely from editing on wikipedia as evident here but is still evading the block through the use of that ip address. He is making edits on the Epica page such as this, removing information referenced by reliable sources in the main body of the article. He has also left an abusive comment towards me on my talk page here, calling me a dick head among other things. --Bardin (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Oliver (comedian) just challenged his audience to change entries

Moments ago, on his new Comedy Central special, in the last five minutes of the special, he gave specific, Colbert-like instructions as to specific entries to vandalize. BusterD (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do you recommend protection, then? Is there any specific course of action that should be taken? —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which entries? --Elonka 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Charles Schumer - basketball court halfway toss
• Nancy Pelosi - firestarting gaze
• Karl Rove - Gloria Gaynor tattoo
• Dick Lugar - soluble in water
• George W. Bush - performance artist

These are the "lies" Oliver listed, he said wished to get on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Already seeing some action at Charles Schumer. BusterD (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Schumer's article is protected now. Pelosi's and Rove's too. Bush's article has been protected, and now I'm protecting Lugar's article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Replays in two hours. Unless CC plans on re-running this heavily, 24 hours should be fine. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, these things tend to go on for a while. Maybe preventing them from editing in general will disuade such vandalism in general.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate: Lead pipe. Comatose. HalfShadow (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Better to beat them with quick eyes and disciplined reaction, like we just accomplished. Damage by ips is minimized, echos are very small. He did say some rather authentically nice things about the project (then encouraged everyone to spoil it). BusterD (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nnno, he said nothing nice, but many TRUE things about 'Wikiality', and the ability of any jackass to rewrite history. He got to teh heart of a LOT of the problems with this project. ThuranX (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I just watched that and came by to mention it. He also said that his own bio listed his middle name as "Cornelius", and somebody has already tried that. Might as well protect his entry if you're doing the rest. Probably worth keeping an eye on Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Colbert's favorite targets, too. William Pietri (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Was about to mention that but got a edit conflict(thats like the 8th tonight) БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• This may flush out some sleeper socks; I've already reverted one on Chuck Schumer; first edit, though he has been registered since 2006. Horologium (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Twothreebreak is another such editor. Also ,requesting MOVE protection on the page, cause... well, idiots are idiots. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Okto8's mess at Oliver has been cleared as well (I left the idiotic redirect). I wish a comedian would get out there and made fun of the people who jump and vandalize whenever they tell everyone to. That would be really funny. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up a bit more stuff. I still think his bit was funny, and encourage others to watch the show. I think it's great that we're important and interesting enough to get discussed like this. William Pietri (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all very well, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't want hordes of newbies' first experience of wikipedia to be "this page is protected from editing". And I'm pretty sure Dick Lugar is soluble in water. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost a year ago now, I fell victim on Dutch Wikipedia to nl:Dirk Draulans this journalist claiming that his article on Wikipedia had both his birth date and the name of his wife wrong. A few months later, his wife was in the news and surprise, surprise, the original Dutch Wikipedia entry had been right all along. The journalist obviously wrote that article just to see how fast we would change his article and how fast we would change it back. What would be the policy of English Wikipedia on a journalist who played a trick like that? Stop considering him an RS? Or would the fact that he never commented on it to joke about Wikipedia, mean we forget the incident? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 350,575 Afro-Latinos in Honduras

Someone has decided that there are not the 150K Afro-Latinos in Honduras that our sources tell us, and that the figure should be 350K instead, down from his original count of 750K. No sources for this position, but this has been going on for a while (at least since December 9, 2007), in a wide variety of articles that mention the census. Some examples:

• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

I'm pretty sure that it is all Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The problem is that it isn't obvious vandalism, so people sometimes edit on top of it, making it error-prone to keep out.

Is there any automatic way to handle this? Are any of the vandalbots flexible enought to look for this?

Kww (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if someone would do something. Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) went at it pretty hard tonight, and my report at WP:AIV was rejected without comment. After he noticed the warning, he went at it with 69.118.13.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). This guy needs blocked and blocked hard.Kww (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really feel like I'm talking to myself here. Honduran72 finally got blocked last night, and MTA25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) showed up to continue the fight. I filed at SSP. Faster service than I get there would be greatly appreciated.Kww (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East Pictou Middle School

Could someone semiprotect this for a couple of days? There has been an IP vandal on a series of different addresses reinstating the same vandalism into the infobox every time it is reverted. This has been going on for at least a day, so the semi would probably need to be about 2 days. See current state and diff from my last revert for the standard pattern. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. WP:RFPP is usually a better place to request protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I was watching TV last night and...

I was watching Al Roker's TV show Heavyweights on on the Food Network on Monday, April 21 2008. The show was about the rise of the fast food restaurants Burger King and McDonald's, two Wikipedia article I have worked on extensively. Imagine my surprise when I heard the host rattling off facts and figures about the companies using a script that was verbatim to the text found in those two articles, some of which I had written myself. I was quite awed by the fact that Mr Roker's company had used WP as a source for its data, and was even more surprised that they didn't cite WP for the data in the credits. Ah, plagerism...

Just a little rant.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that companies – even big evil media companies – aren't monolithic entities. More often than not, their right hands genuinely have no idea what their left hands are doing. It's quite possible that the show doesn't know one of its writers is a plagiarist.

A polite note to the production company along the lines of

I enjoyed your program on 21 April 2008 about fast food restaurants. I noticed, however, that some of the host's script appeared to be extremely similar to text from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (link). As a long-time contributor to Wikipedia and author of some of the text involved, I'm flattered that you found my writing suitable for inclusion.

In the future, however, a bit of recognition and credit for Wikipedia's hardworking volunteers would be most appreciated. If material is drawn – essentially verbatim – from Wikipedia, a shout-out during the show or a mention in the credits would not be out of place.

wouldn't be unreasonable. (Feel free to prettify, rewrite, expand as you see fit.) It could be a one-off error where they forgot to credit, or one of the writers had a temporary lapse in judgement. The concern is where one of their writers has slipped into some bad habits to meet deadlines; see for example User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe.

You can draw the problem to their attention, but be polite. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] repeated addition of uncited material to Dubstep

Hi. An editor or group of editors has been repeatedly adding uncited material to Dubstep over the last few days. First it was to Thugstep, an article that was succesfully PRODded, and now it's Dark Garage, an article that's speedied. I've tried to compromise, and I'd like a bit of assistance or a second opinion on this at this point. --Kaini (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

...and now a violation of WP:CIVIL, too; [38] --Kaini (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

two more violations of WP:CIVIL; [39], [40]

[edit] Banning policy etc.

Hi,

could someone look at the edits of the IP 198.203.177.177 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), such as this diff? The users keeps changing the banning-related policy pages and might be a sock puppet of a banned user. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. seicer | talk | contribs 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a public terminal, or at least a shared work IP, as it is registered to United HealthCare Corporation. CheckUser shows the IP has been used by banned user Malber (talk · contribs) before, and this is likely him. Also, matching are Poison Pen (talk · contribs) and Eleven Special (talk · contribs) which are obvious from their edits. Dmcdevit·t 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks blocked. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W.GUGLINSKI again

User User_talk:W.GUGLINSKI was indef blocked (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#User:W.GUGLINSKI) for a long string of pseudoscience article creations, always referencing his book on "Quantum Ring Theory"; he then badgered other editors in one-by-one responses of (and weird "rejections" of) AfD votes. Well, a series of articles were recently created on the same topics (Heisenberg's paradox, Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation, and New de Broglie's paradox‎), all citing the same book. The creator is new SPA User_talk:YURI2008, and the same badgering AfD "keep" votes are rolling in from an array of Brazilian dynamic IPs, at least one of which was the source of an obvious Guglinski edit Special:Contributions/200.141.116.203 in Quantum Ring Theory's AfD. In other words, Guglinki appears to be evading his block with new account User_talk:YURI2008 (probable) and anon logins from 200.X and 189.48.X. (basically certain) Bm gub (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef-blocked YURI2008 (talk · contribs) as a sock of W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs). I don’t have the time right now to deal with all the IPs, though. —Travis^talk 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Crank posts. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am astonished...

Please take a look to what is happening here: it seems to me that a group of editors and admins is trying to ban all the editors who allegedly do not share a certain POV about 9/11 topic, and in my opinion they are doing this with almost inconsistent, groundelss and pretextuous motivations. Can any other (possibly unbiased) admin take a look to what is going on, please?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This certain POV is the verifiable one. You and the others have been banned for disruptively pushing conspiracy theory POV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ban all editors" is a huge exageration, as a matter of fact the first proposal was a topic ban on a certain user, not a full-fleged ban. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't wrote "all the editors", I wrote "all the editors who allegedly do not share a certain POV about 9/11 topic". However do you think it is all ok to "topic ban" selectively the editors according to their alleged POV?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy76 just violated his two month ban.[41] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I though that "ban" was an automatism, not something that I could violate.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Many editors fail to grasp the difference between a ban and a block. Assuming good faith, one must conclude that Pokipsy76 made that post in the belief that it was either okay, or impossible, to do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The block/ban distinction is a good point. It would be helpful if we had a template explaining what the ban meant. Is there anyone template-savvy who'd be willing to do this? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look at it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually... which template am I looking at? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated so far: Template:Banned user arbcom and Template:Banned user. Please let me know if there's any other that need hitting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet of Mike Babic

User:Mike Babic has been warned again [42] and again [43] that he need to stop editing articles using multiple accounts (IP address and user account) because it is against wikipedia rules. His answer on my last warning has been: "forgot to log in that one time" [44] . This answer has been writen on 14:02, 21 April 2008 and only 3 hours latter edited again with his puppet [45] Fact that 24.36.19.38 is puppet of Mike Babic is confirmed with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike Babic.

I am asking only decision in support of wikipedia rules. There is no point that others use only 1 account for editing 1 article if others can use multiple accounts--Rjecina (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, I'm losing my patience with you. Please compare the similar complaint here. It has been pointed out time and time again to you that it is NOT automatically abusive sockpuppetry if somebody occasionally edits logged out. In the present case, he made edits from his well known IP block, and then each time followed up on them with another edit logged-in, thus making the earlier edit easily recognisable as his. Abusive sockpuppetry means intention to deceive; there clearly is no such here.

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([46]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaking but if 1 users is editing article from 2 (or more accounts) article history will show greater support for his positions of what is in reality and this is against wikipedia rules. In reality it is no important if I and Fut.Perf. know who is puppet master but fact that other users think that there are 2 different users which support 1 position and this is false.

I will be happy to recieve new informations if my position is wrong or not ? --Rjecina (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with editing while not logged in. If the user is not misrepresenting his history (and in this case he is openly admitting to the logged-out edits) then this is not a case of sockpuppetry. Campaigning to have editors blocked for such behaviour is harrassment. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. and thumperward/Chris Cunningham. It is acceptable to edit without having logged into an account. If the user were trying to create the impression of multiple people supporting his position in a dispute, then that would be abusive sockpuppetry. Since that does not appear to be the case, the subject should be dropped. Aleta ^Sing 14:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt once again up for discussion

Posting as this has extreme relevance for Wikipedia, and is being held in an area that few watch and less interact on: RFD.

The consensus on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5 is challenged by User:JoshuaZ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Daniel_Brandt_.E2.86.92_Public_Information_Research. As we need to get a final end one way or another to this, please do not remove this notice. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The archive bot only reads timestamps, not English... Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user spinoza1111 posting insult via anon IP

Edward Nilges (User spinoza1111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinoza1111 ) is making posts peppered with insults on talk ayn rand via anonymous IP addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.103.128.42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:116.48.168.16

There may be others. At least one other user with Anonymous IP address has supported him in posts, though I don't think this is the same user.

Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a common problem with him. 202.82.33.202 is his home ip and it is fixed. Any other address he edits from is public and really shouldn't be blocked. He generally loses interest in any topic where his edits are removed all the time. I suggest people stop talking with him on the Ayn Rand talk page and just remove any edit he makes there.--Atlan (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Edward Nilges' rambling comments at Talk:Ayn Rand, full of personal attacks, don't suggest any good-faith desire to improve the encyclopedia or to negotiate with others. The most coherent presentation of his views that I could find is at [47]. He also edits the Ayn Rand article directly, but all his changes are quickly reverted.
• How about two weeks of semi-protection for Ayn Rand and Talk:Ayn Rand? This might cause him to lose interest. If that doesn't work, blocking of some IPs might be considered. (So far we have just the indef block on his named account, Spinoza1111, and no formal discussion of banning that I am aware of). EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of semi-protecting a talk page because of one troublesome editor. A block of the main ip in this case would be more appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the IPs he has used lately:

• 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs) Over 200 edits, running from 3 March 2006 through 22 April 2008
• 218.103.128.42 (talk · contribs) Only six edits, all on 20 April
• 116.48.168.16 (talk · contribs) Only four edits, all on 11 April

Atlan, I assume you recommend blocking 202.82.33.202 for a long period (block evasion) and leaving the others alone. I would support that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that only if he continues this behavior. As he states in his last edit, it was his last and he will now "pursue this matter outside wikipedia". I don't know what he hopes to accomplish there, but it's not our concern. I hope it keeps him busy.--Atlan (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites

A group of new editors who seem to have found an agreement outside of WP (see talk page of that atricle) made big efforts to change the article of Dorje Shugden substentially without any discussion. Any request for discussion on the changes were neglected. Moreover verified passages were deleted and balanced views deleted and insertion from a anonymous website made. I like to ask you for your help by checking the subject, revert or a temporarily block of the article. I have sent all new editors welcomes and ask for collaboration but as you can see from the talk page they just ignore. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's a bit of an over reaction to be honest. A group of editors are attempting to improve one article and there is some concern about it? The worse that can happen is that it has to be restored once they are finished. You never know they might even improve the article! SunCreator (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also they are newbies and they are trying to contact whoever is doing the rollback on the articles talk page. I guess that's you? I think you should discuss with them on the talk page, they seem quite genuine, but have not yet grasped yet how to sign there name with ~~~~. SunCreator (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about User:Wisdomsword who manages to grasp using the ref tags in his first posts. I will leave him a note to describe the links in better detail rather than just listing the top level domain all the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, really interesting. User:Wisdombuddha reverts Kt66 and then Wisdomsword is created who's second edit is "KT 66 is reverting anyone' else's comments with his own sickening and unbacked up bias and i'm amazed he is allowed to do it." Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also kt66 does not seem not to be a neutral editor: [[48]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.238.67 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One quote from an uninvolved editor does not necessarily make User talk:Kt66 out of order. User talk:84.167.238.67, are you an editor who is involved in this debate on the article page? I only ask because this appears to be your first edit.

The entire thing is rather bizarre. I'm not familiar with the subject, but all of a sudden there seems to be 6-8 SPAs filling the page. I don't blame Kt66 at all for bringing this here, and hopefully getting more eyes on the article. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is a related thread on WP:AN. Some of these editors are sockpuppets. The rest are unrelated; I suspect there is a blog somewhere that has raised some issue with this. Thatcher 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Wisdombuddha deleted others' comments from Talk:Dorje Shugden, I issued a 24-hour block for violation of WP:TALK, based only on seeing the thread at WP:AN. Naturally I welcome review. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Loner

A disruptive editor (Mr. Loner) on the Megarachne, Mesothelae and List of creatures in Primeval‎ is continuing to make unsourced claims in regards to Palaeozoic spiders, and whether T. rex is going to be on the British television program Primeval. Other editors have been reverting his edits for a number of weeks, but over the past few days I have left messages on his talk page trying to get him to stop, and recommend he read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability before he makes any future edits. However, he simply blanks his talk page and carries on as before. I fear this is becoming an edit war as I try to undo his edits. Do anyone have a recommendation about what should be done? The best, Mark t young (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One point. The user is perfectly within their rights to blank their talk page. The controlling guideline can be found here, 8th bullet. In general, user talk pages are for communication, and are not intended to be a badge of shame to be forced onto someone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but it wasn't that he was blanking it that is the issue. It was that concerns where made to him, and he reacted by blanking the page and carrying on making disruptive edits. Anyway, he has been blocked for 1 week for edit warring. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There were many posts last night by various anon editors that the T. Rex would be on that TV show. Not being aware of Mr.Loner, I don't know if these were socks or merely something that has become common rumor. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need opinion on Mediation Cases and Point of view pushing

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Alpha Phi Alpha‎
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers‎

There have been a number of reverts to material that I have inserted into the Alpha Phi Alpha article. Miranda has reverted it [49], Robotam [50], and CCson [51].
Based from this [52], It should be noted for the record that Ccson has a direct conflict of interest with the Alpha Phi Alpha article, as he is a member of the orgainization and the article's primary contributor. The vast majority of his edits relate to Alpha Phi Alpha only . This conflict of interest has started to become disruptive as the editor marks changes not made by him as vandalism, issues capricious warnings and is adamantly against the achieved consensus. The article's edit history reflects that. Robotam also has a conflict of interest as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha. This COI is noted as they have both openly declared on their user pages that they have formal affiliation with Alpha Phi Alpha. While this is not directly the issue, it does deserve to be noted because this discussion is happening because of their unwillingness to accept community consensus on the originating discussion and to reflect their desire to have the Alpha Phi Alpha article reflect their POV rather what many sources state.

Now in many of the citations listed in the articles we are given things like "^ a b Wesley 1981, op. cit., pp. 15–16. ^ a b Wesley 1981, op. cit., pp. 19–27. ^ Wesley 1981, op. cit., pp.26–31, 92. " The problem with this is access. Unless you have access to the book this History of Alpha Phi Alpha by Charles Wesley you really can't verify the information. I have listed a book that can be searched by Charles Wesley called "Charles H. Wesley: The Intellectual Tradition of a Black Historian " [53]. This book is by the same author. It also allows references to easily be sourced.

There have been other cases involving some of these users who have run into conflict with other users involving these articles.

• Including Miranda with [54]] [55] Miranda vs Justin1978
• Justin1978 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Infobox Fraternity Justin1978 vs Robotam & Ccson & Naraht
• Justin1978 User:Justinm1978/rebuttal [56] Justin1978 vs Miranda

Which shows some of the conflict that has come about as a result of people interactions in these articles. RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your content dispute on Alpha Phi Alpha, but I'm not entirely certain why I am included, since I haven't reverted any of your proposed changes. The issues that User:Miranda and I have with each other are not related to this content dispute. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Justinm1978 included you because of your past interactions with all 3 of these users. From what I saw here as well. [57]. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. thank you.RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What admin action is necessary here? As these mediation cases were just filed today, I would recommend that you give mediation some time to hash out the issues you raise. Posting the dispute here in addition to those two (very similar) cases is unlikely to be productive. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an admin just to watch, possibly comment on the mediation cases. RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not participating because I think this is a sock of a banned user. miranda 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Miranda did a checkuser on me and I was shown to not be related. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 [58] RobertOgleFan (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First, checkuser doesn't totally prove a sock's innocence. A banned user could be traveling to other computers in other states or use proxies. Second, I feel like that the user is bringing out drama without consulting the steps of dispute resolution. He should start on the talk page. No administrator action is necessary. miranda 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate of a minor Wikipedian

I removed the birthdate of Jacob Green696 from an infobox on his userpage. He's fifteen. I left him a note pointing to identity theft as a reason why posting such information is a bad idea. With minors though, it's even more complicated. Do we have a policy that addresses this? Should the information be oversighted? He also lists his full name. Aleta ^Sing 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, people are allowed to release their own details. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy. There is an essay based on a request for arbitration. --Onorem♠Dil 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be Oversighted to protect the minor. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Personally, I think that if they're fifteen then they're "major" enough to know that it's dumb to give out your details online. If he's an idiot, that's his problem, he must know the dangers. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was not yet fifteen when he added it. He also did not object to the removal, instead thanking me for it. So do I send an email to request the oversight? Aleta ^Sing 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, he states (and I have not removed) what day is his fifteenth birthday, which allows anyone to easily deduce the birthdate. Aleta ^Sing 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every 15 year old knows everything. Yes their told not to put out personal information online, but they don't think anything will happen from it. I know I did when I was that age, even younger. I don't think there is a policy or anything that states minors can't post their birthdates, so I don't think it's much of a problem. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)(EC) I think give him a message on his talk page, explaining what oversight is, and let him decide if he wants it oversighted. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll do that. Aleta ^Sing 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and left a message on his page, feel free to add to it.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did (and apologized for not having notified him of this thread myself). Aleta ^Sing 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for helping me out/backing me up, although I basically did the same thing for you tee-hee. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm here.I guess I proboly shouldn't have put it on there. I was just excited about being to make a infobox I out all my info in there.I'll be careful from now on.Mr. Green^chat 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, I've seen a boy put his full name, school, town and date of birth up before! (I removed it and explained to him.) Merkin's mum 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Leopold

I recently posted on the BLP noticeboard requesting some extra eyes on this article, but I am not sure how much attention that board gets. It seems Mr. Leopold has his lawyer (or someone claiming to be) now editing this article and issuing quite an onslaught of legal threats and the such. Would anyone be willing to weigh in on this? Arkon (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some range blocks here? Grsz^talk 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have full-protected the page on the least-negative version (per BLP, when in doubt, leave it out) and suggest that this be debated on the talk page. It is certainly unacceptable to call someone "controversial" in the first line of their biography. FCYTravis (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who looked at this. Arkon (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also posted about this to the BLP/N and have actually been in contact with Mr Leopold, via an IP address. He's pissed because he believes the article misrepresents some of his statements, makes false statements about his journalistic integrity which he disputes, among other things. For example, one of the versions included the line "past liar, convicted felon and former alcoholic and cocaine addict" verbatim. There's a line to be drawn between "hagiography" and "BLP violation" and this article does not tread it very well. Remember WP:DOLT. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

why are we fucking around here? let's not "revert to the less negative article" - aggressively stub the article and start again from scratch. We are far better off with a stubbed and sourced paragraph than an article of dubious quality. --87.114.40.124 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In general (I haven't looked at everything in the article, I just reverted wholesale removal of cited material from RS's) the article is well sourced for any critical statements. He doesn't like it, that much is obvious, but that isn't reason to stub it. Arkon (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sfan00 IMG#Don't deep Link Google Books PDF!!

What's going on here? Ziggy Sawdust 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult TfD close

The sorts of issues raised in this TfD are not the type of issues normally covered in an RfA. Considering this seems to be more of a factual rather than a consensus dispute, and considering that concerning those factual dimensions I am out of my depth, I bring it before the noticeboard to see what other admins might think (or know). RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Man (comics) problems

I noticed that the history shows some recent tag team vandalism by what looks like an IP and a possible sock situation... user:Kaine65 and user:capitankane seem to be the same, given that capitan came to the article right after, and reverted in such a way that some vandalism was left in. Admin review please? SSP? RFCU? thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inproper language

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singlet_state&diff=prev&oldid=207344815. This concerns a four letter F word directed at my person I can well do without. Can this IP be blocked?, rolling back does not help. Thanks in advance for your reply V8rik (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC}

Wikipedia is not censored. Blue Laser (talk)

True but personal attacks are not acceptable. A brief block was given for all the good it will do. JodyB _talk 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

hmm, looks like an edit war to me Ziggy Sawdust 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but look at the IP's contributions. This attack is not isolated. JodyB _talk 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war or not, that's a clear personal attack and as JodyB said is never acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Roitr sock needs blocking

Can someone block Terikoso (talk · contribs) as a Roitr sock? (See WP:LTA/Roitr.) For the duck test, see this edit by Pasteriso (talk · contribs) (who checkusered as a likely Roitr sock) and the same edit repeated by Terikoso. Kelly ^hi! 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also created this page, a Roitr trick. Someone should probably protect that page against recreation or he will try again with a new sock. Kelly ^hi! 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Given the other day's CU results, it seems this user is more active recently. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ehccheehcche

This user, Ehccheehcche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has vandalized the page Super Saiyan after a final warning was given. I have brought this up here since my last vandal reports at WP:AIV were ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that removing a blank section heading really amounts to vandalism, especially since other editors there agree with the deletion. . This ed. has made a number of constructive edits, including the restoration of articles after vandalizing by anons. I do not think action is called for at this point. DGG (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User 216.47.88.66 seems to be SPA link spammer

User 216.47.88.66 has posted nothing except "spirit shop" linkspams to a number of school articles. This has happened in two batches over a period of a day, so it isn't a one-time thing. I've cleaned up the mess, but is there a chance that this IP is sufficiently static that it can be blocked? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bfair2mychurch

Account name suggests single-purpose account. Hasn't made any productive edits, and history so far, and name, suggests it won't. John Nevard (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive, vandalism and obvious WP:POINT across multiple articles in rapid succession. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV and vandal was indef blocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A minority of Web forum users planning vandalism

Over at WP:AIV someone recently reported this:

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to reports it (sorry, I'm new to this how editting wiki thing), but a webforum I use has launched a series of vandalism against a selection of articles in an attampt to play a game. Details here: http://www.altnation.com/forums/junk-talk/134411-wikipedia-jenga.html

Might be worth watching. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing the forum pages, I notice that the vandalism has been quickly reverted and has resulted in some blocks. I suspect that the handful of vandalism edits the forum will generate will not survive recent changes patrol for long. Keep up the good work, gang! —Travis^talk 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd the articles being used as the latest post is telling users how to evade their IP blocks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to watch out for them changing articles about or relating to Neil Gaimen. There is a meme about him on said forum --86.163.79.85 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Said article is now semi'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted at Neil Gaiman. Can I suggest a permanent block for Bikuki (talk · contribs) for being a vandalism only account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite comical actually. Where else can you get a running commentary on what they're going to do next? Look out for the next instalment: creating the Alternative Nation article (currently a redirect) -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd all the targeted articles (including the Alternative Nation redirect). I'm just about ready to register an account and explain my case over there. I'm going to deal with Bikuki in a moment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave Bikuki the Ace of Spades. Iff (s)he wants to contribute freely instead of participating in such a retarded "game" I'd be more than happy to take it back. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bikukis ace of spades - 'if she wants to I'll take it back' - I can't bloody well explain myself! There are no email addresses, no forum, no way of editting the pages myself... It looks a bit like censure guys. - endless psych (talk)

Also I've altered the title because its not as if the whole of alt nation is planning to vandalise wikipedia. endles psych (talk)

The pages were semi-protected because of this. With the exception of the Alternative Nation redirect (which I will unprotect now), the semi-protection will expire in a few more days. Please note that, if your account is at least four days old, you can edit semiprotected pages. Further, if you are Bikuki, you can still edit your talk page as Bikuki in order to make an unblock request with {{unblock}}. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From AltNation - This is meant to be a bit of playful fun, not malicious, furrowed-browed vandalism. I can assure you that no bad feeling or malice towards wikipedia was or is intended. I think this has been taken a bit too seriously to be honest. - lesmts

Why don't you continue playing with each other and leave Wikipedia out of it? ... discospinster _talk 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Les, it isn't a bit of fun and you know it. For the record, the forum user who reported this wasn't me, I do use that forum and have reverted many similar edits by AltNation vandals, many of whom have also targetted my user page and ridiculed me in public for taking Wikipedia seriously. It's ridiculous, so just stop it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (AKA Addy from AltNation, yes I'll admit that)

I would also like to apologise for the vandalism on behalf of Alternative Nation itself; while a minority of users there have decided to have fun at Wikipedia's expense, I hope that it is recognised that these activities are in no way sanctioned by the website or the infinite majority of its users, and that said majority greatly respects Wikipedia and everything related to it. I have no interest in sticking up for my friends there who have committed acts of vandalism here, especially since I've become the scapegoat there for the - entirely appropriate and reasoned - response of the admins here, but at the same time I would hope that the name of AltNation itself not be sullied by the actions of the inconsiderate few recently. If I see anymore instances of vandalism by them, I'll be sure to revert and report accordingly.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should anyone who would use the phrase ″infinite majority" be editing an encyclopaedia?Potatojunkie (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "a bit of fun" is this: Sure, it's clever the first time. The problem is, the millionth person to do it still thinks they're being clever, when really it's gotten old. Every time someone watches a rerun of that episode of the Colbert Report, there's a chance they'll be inspired to change the "Elephant" article to say that the population has tripled. And every time, they'll think it's funny, and that they're the first ones to actually do it, etc. But in the end, it's just yet another lame vandalism. --Random832 (contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or that Librarians are hiding something. v^_^v -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock of Bikuki

I've gone over and presented my case over at the forum, and per discussion there, I have unblocked Bikuki, as (s)he has stated (s)he's not going to vandalize again. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this case now be marked as resolved? I think they've had their fun and with the existing set up of blocks I don't think anything further is going to be done (though I will certainly be watching the forum for further vandalism)Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think so (I feel it should be an admin that does it though). -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jon Awbrey

Hi there. So, on a Site which Shall Not be Named, two users who appear to be Wikipedia admins agreed that it was a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia, and that something should be done about that. Neither of them, however, was available to do anything about it. User:Jayneofthejungle registered to try to do something about it, and was rather firmly slapped down for it. Of course, she did also create an obvious nonsense page, but that's not related to the issue at hand, which is: should something be done about it? I present the question to the Council of Administrative Wisdom for judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Jon Awbrey refrained for a reasonable amount of time from editing Wikipedia and/or setting up sockpuppet accounts? We could certainly extend the badly named "Right" to Vanish, but not unless he has shown he will never again edit the Wikipedia. This does not currently seem to be the case. --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of editors who use their own names and then get into trouble is complex. However it is the case that the current #1 google hit for Awbrey is an announcement that he is banned from editing wikipedia. I don't advocate deleting the page, but how does blanking it interfere with tracking and blocking his socks, assuming he is still trying to edit? Thatcher 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we blank the page, how can we readily determine that the community ban is still in place? —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The page history and the block log. I said blanked, not deleted. Thatcher 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why is it "a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia"? Should unrepentent vandals really expect that all record of their misbehaviour should disappear down the memory hole after a while? How "fair" is it that the 2nd-placed link on Google for Usama bin Laden is an FBI "most wanted" notice? This isn't a Daniel Brandt-style BLP situation; the prominence of Awbrey's ban is entirely a situation of his own making, resulting from his own actions. Also, I note that WP:RTV applies specifically to users "in good standing", which Awbrey plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing RTV, I'm saying that it is nice to be nice to people even if they aren't always nice to us. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

bin Laden? Really? Come on. That kind of analogy is beyond tasteless and offensive, and not in any way okay. Please don't do it again. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bin Laden's name is linked to bad things because he has done bad things in the real world. Awbrey's sin is that he dicks around with a website that he has a disagreement with. Hardly a fair comparison, and a sign that Wikipedians take themselves way too seriously. Thatcher 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, obviously, that misconduct brings notoriety; and the author of the misconduct has nobody to blame but themselves for that notoriety. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Awbrey has stated the he intends to continue to make socks here to cause trouble (of which he has already created a very generous number) ad nauseum. I fail to see why we should extend a page-blanking courtesy to him until he at the very least shows courtesy to us by making a committment to cease that disruption. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request, I think, although I would be willing to blank the page first and see what happens. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances is this user to be unblocked. Nor should his user page be cleared. He continues to use sockpuppets, creating much work for me (and other checkusers) in blocking his user accounts and ranges. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Nobody was discussing an unblock, and what does the work involved in blocking have to do with his userpage? Is it just "don't screw with us", some sort of incentive, or what?

If he has a problem with the results on his name, he can write OTRS himself, I think, and then we can have this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that we have to have somebody write an email, which may or may not be answered or actioned, in order to do the ethical thing. Blanking the page does not in the least interfere with the work of our checkusers; I am certain every last one of them is well aware of who Jon Awbrey is and what his patterns are. Nobody is suggesting he be unblocked, simply that the #1 Google-hit on his name not be a ban notice from Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have toddled over to the Board of Outer Darkness Where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth myself, and checked whether Awbrey has asked for it himself. He hasn't, not even there, which is why I make the statemen above. (At least I think not, his posts are relatively incomprehensible). I do think that he should at the very least make that much effort. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I won't abbreviate that for fear of creating a post that vaguely resembles what he writes. It doesn't change my position. It's either the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, regardless of who asks for it (and I would think that Newyorkbrad asking for it should count for something) or the way that it is requested. Since so far the main argument is "he deserves it", I think we can do better than that. Risker (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Sometimes the right thing to do is conditional on the expressed preference of the person it most affects. In this case, if he doesn't give a damn, I don't think that it should be necessary to make an exception. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This question of renaming Awbery came up awhile ago, before I knew of his involvement "there". My position was that it would be a humanitarian gesture to rename such accounts. However, I later discovered on "that" site, that he only wished to be renamed if we renamed several other accounts, some of which have nothing to do with living people's names. So since he is opposed to the rename, and clearing his page would make the ban less obvious to uninvolved admins or non-admins working at SSP/AIV, I think we should just leave this the way it is. In the past, I have worked with users who are banned and who have link-able names to communicate with the crats and invoke their RTV via rename, and it seems to have worked well. But if the subject is still abusing the 'pedia, I don't see why we should help them hide that abuse. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, MBisanz. It still comes back to one point: it is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do for another banned user, it is the right thing for JA, regardless of from whom the request originates. How many people at SSP don't know who he is? And how will having a "banned user" banner change that? He is still on our list of banned users, is he not? Risker (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah jeez. Didn't see this here. I went ahead and blanked the user pages because I think they're a BLP problem. It doesn't really matter what he wants done with this or any other account; they can remain where they are, and they must remain blocked. We can simply move the category to a name that has less impact on the google results of a living person. "Do no harm" and all. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid your unilateral decision to ignore our guidelines for dealing with sockpuppeteers - we tag their userpages, and collect lists of their sockpupppet accounts and IPs, to assist in future damage control. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note - BLP is an article space policy, not a user space policy. If a user wants to register under his real name and act like a dick, he has no reasonable expectation that we will treat him any differently than we treat any other misbehaving account. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet guideline that you referred to, Raul, would it be this one: "Sockpuppeteer - The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely." (from WP:SOCK) I note the use of the word "may" instead of "must". I also note that the tag has not been removed, only the page blanked. As to acting like a dick, well, we are back to the "he deserves it" argument. Is that the way we want to operate here? Risker (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, BLP applies in all namespaces. It's been that way for years.

As for the account, that's not the issue. They should all remain blocked. But there's no need for them to have content. They're blocked and full protected—and they should stay that way. If you're really concerned that the check users will forget that the account is blocked and forget how to use the history tab, we could at least move the account elsewhere. See Risker. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the username policy from December 2005, when Awbrey registered, says nothing about, "If you register your real name and then screw with us, it will follow you on google forever." People who do bad things in the real world find their name attached to those bad things, and justifiably so. This is just a website with aspirations of grandeur. Thatcher 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Raul and KC here. There is no BLP issue here, "Jon Awbrey is banned from editing Wikipedia" is a simple, accurate, and trivially easy to verify statement. I was afraid of this with BLP, but we were all assured "This will never happen." Well, folks, it's happening. BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing. Awbrey was well aware of the consequences of his actions (such as, well, an editing ban) when he chose to take them. If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place, and then, and only then, ask for some consideration in return, such as removal of the ban notice. Notices that a user is banned is important for tracking purposes, and if Awbrey chose to create an account under his name, and then chose to take actions which he knew would be in public view forever, and still chooses to continue those actions to this day, he cannot then choose whether or not that page has a ban notice, because we need that notice to prevent the very harm he chooses to continue to cause. If he wants to show us good faith first, by leaving us alone and respecting the fact that he is not welcome here, then perhaps after he has done so for some period of time we can reciprocate that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't blank or change the message on his page. The whole spirit behind BLP is doing no harm on marginally notable people. Why would we relax that spirit for people who are not notible at all? Seems backward...you don't have to be the subject of an article to be harmed by Wikipedia you know. This feels like we're insisting on punishing someone...RxS (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing." WP:UNDUE. --Random832 (contribs) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I think differently because of the Daniel Brandt redirect DRV (which is, incidentally, blanked as a courtesy). The Brandt redirect had very slight encyclopedic value, but helped dominate google results for "Daniel Brandt." We deleted the redirect almost solely because of its impact on google, and it really didn't matter how despicable Brandt might be considered. This is an analogous situation; a hated commentator with a barely-useful user page, which is #1 on google. I really doubt that check users will forget about this user, and many of these comments suggest that we think the notices are some sort of punishment ("If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place"). That's perverse, and wholly out of line with BLP.

I'm not going to edit war on the point though; really, the site should just edit robots.txt so that user pages are not indexed. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that his page should be blanked. Not so much BLP as a basic issue of ethics. No one has actually provided a reason for keeping the notice on his page yet. -- Naerii 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has yet given a substantive reason for giving special treatment to a persistent, unrepentant vandal. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't _be_ "special treatment" - we should treat _everyone_ the way we're proposing. "We don't treat everyone this way, so why should we treat anyone this way" is not a sensible response to a proposal to give everyone some benefit. --Random832 (contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if we're going to be nothing but policy wonks then Wikipedia policy would be more important than preventing doing RL harm to someone. But surely the spirit of BLP is more important than whatever text happens to be there at the moment. Real life punishment is not part of our banning policy...RxS (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is part of real life, and the person editing on Wikipedia is living in the real world. If a real person edits under their real name and screws up and there are consequences to it, how is it that we are doing that person harm in the "real world" by having a record of those actions? They brought the harm on themselves, we are only recording it. There's no conceivable "ethical" reason to remove that record. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I am the first contributor to this discussion who uses his full name as user name, but it's completely incomprehensible for me why this even needs discussing. Is it really necessary to put it the other way round to get consensus for a tiny gesture of generosity? So be it then: wikiversity:WV:SHRINE. I think that speaks for itself, although it refers to vandals, not trolls. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. KC told me when I blanked the page that user "considers it a 'badge of pride' to have been banned." In my opinion, that makes the case for blanking even stronger, not weaker. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the templates off and left the link to the blocking discussion, maybe that's an acceptable compromise. I don't understand how potentially harming someone in real life is part of our blocking/banning policy. Please don't revert unless you have a real answer to that question...RxS (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about don't continue to edit war on protected pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One compromise attempt is not edit warring...WTF, unbelievable. You're the one who reverted a protected page....is it less "protected" when you edit? Unbelievable...RxS (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is still protected. As I stated, I returned the protected page to the status it was when it was protected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer if he unprotected it, reverted, and then protected it? Seems senselessly formal. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The usual process is you figure out what to do with it while it is protected, and then go on from there. I haven't seen that issue come up here as being "We're gonna do this" and everyone agreeing with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "usual process" is that the protecting admin does not revert before protecting the page. But that's unfair. The "usual process" simply has no meaning for editing a banned user page. Do you have an actual reason for reverting? Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply redirect his page to one his socks and add the ban banner there ? Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually WP:DGAF what Jon Awbrey or just about anyone else on WR wants done here, with a few exceptions, like for instance Newyorkbrad, ( a sitting arbitrator, remember? ) who asked that this be corrected, and Alison (a CU and Oversighter, remember? ) who said it would be. WP:DENY has been used many many times to deny recognition to sockpuppeteers who seem to want it, and Jon Awbrey seems proud of being badged this way. So let's deny it to him. Also, I don't see how having this page blanked (not deleted, just blanked) is going to impede operations of CUs ( I'm a CU here and elsewhere, remember? ) in the slightest. BLP applies throughout the entire project, not just in articlespace. This page needs to be blanked. If it requires first getting consensus to unprotect, to satisfy the policy wonks standing on "it's protected, you can't change it", then so be it. But blank the damn thing and move on. Stop with the revenge bit and the "you were a dick so tough noogies" bit... that's so middleschool it's not funny. We should follow the principle of doing what is right, what is good and proper, even for people who are big weenies, as I have said before. I leave it as an academic exercise who is the bigger weenie... ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A forceful statement, but, frankly, I don't understand why that is the "right" thing to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

People need to just tell these chumps to buzz off. Really, OTRS needs to just be a recording that says "go away" or "fix your entry if you don't like it." I think it is totally ridiculous just how much the 'pedia has gotten into busybody meta about how things affect real world people. How can we be NPOV if we are trying to make everyone happy? It's impossible and a recipe for certain disaster. It shouldn't be our job or our goal to be protectors of the world. This is getting to the point of being disruptive with nonsense like the suggestion of mass deleting our biographies of living people because we don't have enough eyes to cover them all. Again, it isn't our job to make people feel good. It isn't that hard, you know. At some point, the foot needs to be put down about these grievers who go whining to board every time something they don't like shows up here. Sorry, but enough is enough. Much too much navel gazing and unneeded bureaucracy is being put in place to deal with problems that don't exist. In fact, we have all sorts of absurd policy proposals coming from the BLP extremists. In this case, we have a request made by someone who continues to be a malicious sock puppeteer, as Raul has pointed out. WHY THE F**K ARE WE GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?! This is a no-brainer, people. Tell the bozo to shove off and accept responsibility for his actions. You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not such a no-brainer. One the one hand, we have 'He made his bed, he lays in it', which some will interpret as either cold and hard, or vindictive and malicious. On the other, we have 'Let's do what's right, even if he doesn't want it', which can look Big Brotherish, or 'the state knows what's best for you', a heavy handed authoritarian reaction. Neither makes us look good, and both are guaranteed to get us criticized at WR and other sites. Neither has the 'right' outcome for us, and neither will get him to stop attacking WP and its' editors. Short of unblocking him and letting him run amuck here, nothing we can do, be it action or inaction, gets WP any positive ground, and everything gets us negative ground. The best we can hope is that by following our policies, we can look consistent. However, we don't have good policy and precedent for this, so we really need to work it out now, before we have to double back on ourselves (Again, given that one admin tried already to change the status quo), and look like bigger fools. We need sokme seriously well thought out logical arguments on both sides of this before we do anything. This situation has existed for months, and JA doesn't really seem to find anything urgent in us resolving this. (That alone ought to be our best guide in this matter, that he doesn't care that it's the top google hit) Let's take the time to really build community consensus for a guideline or policy, instead of just rushign to mark this as resolved. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Dragon695, I certainly feel all foolish now. I missed the part about this being a war, I thought it was a peaceful project, one with high standards where doing the right thing mattered more than getting revenge, one where we were trying to build an encyclopedia. "GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?!" you say? Why stop at keeping his user page (the number one return) all vindictive and stuff.. heck, let us write a bio on him that points out what a weenie he is... that way we all can feel better about ourselves. Would that be better? Don't forget to kick Newyorkbrad while he's down, ok, for being foolish enough to make an honest and sincere request that the right thing be done? That isn't the project I signed up for. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe you are, and this actually IS more like the project I think it is (and want it to be) than a schoolyard pissing contest. Get a grip man, you are racing to the bottom and fast. Maybe this matter needs to go to ArbCom now so they can remind us again that BLP applies everywhere and trumps lesser policies. I'm not saying there aren't nuances to this matter, that some thought isn't required, but a clear cut "F**K OFF" probably isn't the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't have edited the page per my earlier statements, but does this appear to be a good midpoint?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I arrived late to this debacle - I was off teh intarwebz. I've modified Ryulong's edit to remove the 'banned' tags. Folks - this is someone's RL name here we're bandying around. It doesn't matter whether they're banned or not; it's just not right. I see a lot of the comments above and all I can get from them is vengeance and punishment. This is not what we're about here and the sole purpose for tagging a userpage like that is for tracking banned editors. No more. It's not a brand of shame. Frankly, just about every admin know's Mr. Awbrey's modus operandi at this stage, and every checkuser his account signature, so that whole issue is moot anyway. I've recently had my own RL name bandied about by Mr. Brandt and I didn't appreciate it either, especially given the ensuing issues it brought. This is more of the same. Let's move on and leave the man's name out of it. This isn't an appeal to BLP (because it's not a BLP issue), nor is it an appeal to whatever policy documents which could be pointed to (there are a number); I'm simply asking us to do what's right here. JA came to the site here in good faith, from what I can determine and contributed a vast amount of good work. It's all in the contrib history. What's happening now just smacks of punishment and that's not what we're about. Of all people, I have a huge amount of respect for NewYorkBrad and, once again, he's right on this one - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts on this myself: personally, I do think that Jon made his own bed on this, but yes, the "banned" notice is a bit strong. I think the current solution works as well. As for the sockpuppet category... is there any use for these categories? Abusive account is abusive account, whether it's banned or not. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no use for them. Are we keeping count on the socks? Why? I've deleted enough of those categories in the past per WP:DENY anyway and these ones serve no purpose. Some people even use them for bragging - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just delete all the pages. The accounts remain blocked, it remains noted in the block log. I see the question being asked "why should we blank the page a banned user?" I would ask, "why shouldn't we?" It doesn't help us to have Jon Awbrey's #1 hit on Google to be "this user is banned on Wikipedia". Nor does it particularly harm us. Given that, the presumption should be towards getting rid of such stuff. Neıl ☎ 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. If we have a choice between doing harm to a real person, and doing no harm, and neither choice actually benefits us much...let's go with the do no harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will repeat my earlier suggestion: that we rename the master account to something innocuous and then carry on as usual. I would hope that removing the Google bomb would de-escalate the situation anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure forcibly renaming a user's account (yes, even a banned user) without their assent - effectively disappearing their attribution - would violate GFDL in some way or other. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't vanish their attribution, it merely changes the name. I was happy to reassign the socks to a different category (dummy account) but people thought it was a bit much keeping some stuff attributed to a named individual, while listing all the problems they caused somewhere else. I would, in a heartbeat, run AWB and rename every instance of Jon Awbrey outside article and talk, to something else, but I don't think it would go down well. I remain convinced that seeing his name immortalised as a vandal is provocative for Jon, who is I think inclined to be somewhat obsessive anyway. He said, as I recall, that he'd be OK with this along as the same remedy was available to anyone else, as of course it should be. I don't see him emailing OTRS to request it, though, due to all the bad blood. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I would support such a complete renaming. This isn't in mainspace so it doesn't damage the project at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see why we need to be extending favors to one of the worst trolls in Wikipedia history. Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Worst by whose measure? Brandt drove off Katefan0 and Newyorkbrad (the latter at least temporarily). He's splattered the names, birthdays, and pictures of users who contribute pseudonymously on Wikipedia. Both his user and user talk pages have been deleted and salted. Awbrey...well, I don't believe ther's an LTA on him, but as far as I understand he just tries to keep reverting to his preferred version on the Peirce article. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having the socks in a category that collects them together as being related is useful, I think. The category doesn't necesarily have to exist, it can be a redlink, going to the page shows you the socks anyway. It also doesn't have to have his name on it. I think a redlinked category won't show up in searches but I could be wrong. So I'd hate to see the socks decategorised. Changed to a different category, sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Angry Christian

Angry Christian (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Nightscream.

Only one warning was given,[59] at 04:53, 21 April 2008, "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked." At 11:47 Angry Christian replied on his own talk page "What the fuck are you talking about?"[60] and at 16:33 Angry Christian placed a comment on Nightscream's talk page,[61] with the heading "hey what is that crazy shit you put on my talk page about?" and the comment "Seriously."

Nightscream blocked Angry Christian at 17:20, 21 April 2008, with the reason Personal attacks or harassment of other users: User responded to my warnings with profanity on his Talk Page and on mine. and put a block notice on Angry Christian's talk page giving the reason "for responding to my warnings in an uncivil and profane manner on your Talk Page and on mine". A request for unblocking, Request reason: "because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man." was declined by User:Yamla, Decline reason: "Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you."[62]

This block appears to me to be completely unreasonable and unwarranted. I've been participating in work on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article, and have found Angry Christian to be constructive, helpful, and courteous. I've asked Nightscream for diffs and an explanation, but feel that the block should be lifted without delay. .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: at 19:33 User:MastCell asked Nightscream to unblock Angry Christian,[63] with the understanding that he will chill, moderate his tone, and let this go.. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to. With comments such as this, this and this is simply uncalled for and is uncivil. I could go on with the edit comparisons, but the fact is, we don't tolerate such bad assumptions of faith, personal attacks and etc. regardless of the editor. When his block expires in 48 hours, he can constructively contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that these comments came after the unexplained warning and then the block. .. dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps noting that the block then did nothing to stop/prevent the incivility? --Ali'i 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a relatively common, and unfortunate, scenario: admin warns editor, editor makes angry comment to admin about warning, admin blocks editor. I don't think we should block people because they've reacted angrily to a warning we placed. Put another way, we should not be in the business of blocking people because they were rude to us. And it was rudeness, not a personal attack, that triggered the block. If I warn someone and they respond, "What the fuck are you talking about?" - my immediate response is not, and should not be, to block them. That's a bit too close to using the tools to settle a personal grievance. I don't condone Angry Christian's comments before or after the block, but I think the block should be lifted so long as he's willing to let this go and tone things down. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocks should only be used preventatively, and if Angry Christian says he or she will play nicely, we should assume that he or she actually will and unblock. My opinion. --Ali'i 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Block per User:Seicer. It is not true that the profanity started after the block [64] and no indication has been given that the user understands the problem.. As far as the block to pevent further incivility, that's an argument to protect the user talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> This is a bit ridiculous. Angry Christian has been doing yoeman's service in trying to maintain that article's integrity under incredibly trying circumstances. Our number of article views has exploded from less than 100 a day in December to 1000 a day a week ago to around 10,000 a day since the movie was released. We have a flurry of what appear to be sock puppets, meat puppets and SPAs arguing tendentiously about the same issues over and over and over. It is all that the few mainstream editors can do to keep it roughly NPOV and avoid having the entire article replaced with a religious tract.

AC has done great work on that page. And as happens often, sometimes regular editors wear out under repeated assault and say something mildly unCIVIL. So when he responds in irritation to a block, I think this is not that surprising. And the fact that he was unhappy about getting blocked should not be used as justification for the block, post facto. In fact, that really stinks and looks like abuse of administrative tools that is just calling out for sanctions against the blocking admin.--Filll (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock per Mastcell. If we blocked everyone who said the equivalent of "What the fuck", we'd have nobody left to write the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the block. Looking over AC's contributions before the warning, they seem to be constructive and rational. I cannot see any substantial reason for the warning, and I don't think an admin can afford such a thin skin as displayed here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's something missing here--and I also flipped through AC's contributions prior to the warning--Nightscream's failure to justify his warning and his block of AC is a little chilling. An simple explanation of the warning seems like it would have defused the situation. Darkspots (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That puts it pretty well, I think. Escalation isn't always the best solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's nobody unblock till we here from the blocking admin what the original incivility was, OK? No tearing rush. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the user in question might think different about this. No rush, ok, but how long should we wait? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream means well (I say this having met him in person at the NYC meetup) but unfortunately I think his handling of this situation has been less-than-optimal. I agree with Filll's description above (re: Angry Christian doing yeoman's work), and I think this block should be overturned ASAP. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with unblock, and it should be soon. R. Baley (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let's wait for a comment from Nightscream before an unblock, to see if there is any underlying rationale. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, let's not wait and crucify the blocker. Just unblock the user! The idea behind the block was noble, User:Nightscream is trying to keep the page free from off-topic commentary, which sadly occurs on both sides in the debate. The problem is that AC was singled out for reasons not at all apparent to him. And it's not clear to me either why AC was picked out. Most importantly, this was not explained to him, when he asked. Just because he got pissed of for being suddenly warned for something he had no idea about, doesn't mean he should be blocked for bad language. The admin banned him out of frustration. There is no need to fight about who is right or wrong here, do what is best for the encyclopedia and unblock the editor, unless you prefer WikiDrama, because you are about to get some very soon. --Merzul (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock now, and let's not go on too much about the blocker's rash reaction to AC's strong language. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for an unblock here, and I have implemented it. A user who is unfairly blocked deserves to be unblocked as soon as possible. My apologies to Nightscream for not waiting for his input; if there are any problems in the future, a block can always be reinstated but a good faith user driven away by a mistaken block may never return. henrik•talk 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning, Merzul (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Was getting ready to do as much, myself, as I read down the thread. AC's reaction to the warning was imperfect, but who wouldn't be confused and angry when they're suddenly being threatened with a block for reasons they don't understand, when a moment before they thought everything was fine? Looking at contribs, I'm not sure what specifically precipitated this warning, so some clarification on that point might be good for everybody. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, everyone. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read and considered everyone's comments and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here but I appreciate all those who contributed to this discussion. Angry Christian (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is still interested in my responding to this inquiry, since as of this writing it is resolved, but the idea that I did not offer prior warnings to Angry Christians and to others on that Talk Page and one their own Talk Pages is false. All you have to do is look that "Obvious Bias" and "Unthoughtful Article" sections on that Talk Page, as well as my Edit Summaries when deleting uncivil comments or comments not related to the article, as well as the Talk Pages of Angry Christian, Dr. Henley, and others, to see this. Angry Christian responded with a disrespectful, profanity-laden rant on my Talk Page, as he linked to above. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but both you and he have been major players on the Expelled article, on roughly opposite sides. That doesn't put you in a good position to be making hair-trigger blocks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No one is in a position to make "hair-trigger blocks", and since I have not done so, but initiated the block only after repeated warnings, both on the Expelled Talk Page (here, here and here), and on the Talk Pages of DrHenley, Hypnosadist, and Angry Christian, the point is moot. Similarly irrelevant and untrue is the notion that I and AC have been "major players" on the Article on opposite sides. He was blocked for violating policy and ignoring repeated warnings, which is completely irrelevant to my participation in the article. As for "sides", the only "side" I've been on is the pro-WP policy side. I've been deleting inappropriate comments from both those who were pro-ID and accused the article of being too slanted, and the evolutionists who did the same. This is not a "side", except in the mind of those who think that NPOV means that all material should be in perfect harmony with their own mindset. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Block policy states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." It sounds as though you were involved in a content dispute. The policy is quite straightforward; it makes no exemption for blocks arising from civility issues. Your participation in the article is not "irrelevant" as it creates the appearance (however false) of a conflict of interest. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as though I was involved in a content dispute? You mean you didn't actually read the discussion? Why is this? If you actually did so, you'd see that there was no content dispute. There was a discussion on the article's Talk Page initiated by one contributor who accused the article of bias, and others who responded to him. My admonishments to them were made on the basis comments by them that were not pertinent to the article, or that violated Civility, which is what administrators are supposed to do. I did not favor the inclusion or removal of any particular content, and acted in the capacity of a mediator, attempting to respond to the critic's complaints in a way that would preserve the article's factual content accurately without clearly pushing a POV. At that time, I did not have any conflict with Angry Christian over content, nor anyone else involved in that discussion. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Read enough to know that it created the appearance of a conflict. Jpmonroe (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I misread it, but it did (on a quick overview) seem a little quickly done - the commentary and block had happened from when I had looked 12 or so hours previously and when I saw it had happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Nightscream, unfortunately warnings posted on article talk pages are easy to miss or forget, and it's a shame you didn't make this clear to Angry Christian when he first responded, defusing rather than escalating the situation. In my opinion multiple warnings on talk pages are needed in conduct cases. While his language clearly offended you, it's best to either disregard such terms or to give a further polite warning rather than moving immediately to a block. Of course these are value judgements, and it's not so easy in the heat of the moment, but from previous incidents it's become very clear that care to give extensive warnings which set out the problem in some detail is essential in dealing with conduct cases. Tedious, and the exclusion of "involved" admins can be taken too far, but there it is. ..dave souza, talk 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Nightscream, but to me this edit looks like a very bad call. You cannot on the one hand invoke your admin powers and on the other hand join the debate in the same edit. At the very least, this leaves a very bad taste. Also, this edit was not addressed to anybody in particular, especially not to User: Angry Christian. The other two "warning edits" [65] and [66] also do not address User: Angry Christian (and in fact, they seem to primarily address other users), so I find his confusion after your first and only warning clearly addressed to him quite understandable. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from using and even mentioning your admin status in content discussions, unless it is to deal with clear vandalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages, especially Dave and Stephan. I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phone numbers

This has already been posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Prank_phone_calls, but I'm going to post it again because no one is paying attention.

Briefly, there are three users involved: User:Supernatural3, User:Bryanwood343, and User:Specialwolf. All three have very similar user pages and likewise have a history of no productive edits to Wikipedia, just creating inappropriate pages and editing each other's user pages. They might well be the same person.

All 3 posted 2 phone numbers on their user pages. On the first page, User:Supernatural3, and administrator did remove the numbers from history (through deletion) but they are still there for the other 2. They should be deleted immediately. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

this needs oversight right away. Numbers are real, and do go back to a real number in one user's town, so this probably constitutes harrassment, and the number's in enough revisions that the user pages ought to be deleted outright. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. Two of the user pages have some identical text, none of these users has any meaningful project or article space edits and at least one looks like a sockpuppet of another. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed They're all the same nitwit, or at least they edit from the same school and same IPs within minutes of each other. Thatcher 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to hurry up and oversight that page away, because if it's all one loser doing it, it's a sure bet that those aren't HIS OWN phone numbers. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the pages, they contained personal attacks of people. I'm going to block the users as disruptive accounts, unless anyone complains (feel free to overturn it). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like an appropriate response to Beavis and Butt-head-type nonsense. I did not want to overreact, or to overstep policy, but I did not want Wikipedia to be a means of phone harassment for someone when I found the numbers posted. At best these users/this user was using Wikipedia for social networking. Edison (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move cleanup

Can someone clean up the recent sequence of moves of Arabic numerals performed by Agnistus (talk · contribs)? Not only is the current title (Aryabhatan numberals) misspelled, but it's also a brand-new neologism with zero ghits ("Aryabhatan numerals").

I'm requesting this here instead of at WP:RM as there's absolutely no consensus for the move (indeed, it wasn't discussed at all on the talk page), and the only reason that I wasn't able to revert it myself was because the redirects have been edited. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted his edits and restored the header. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've moved the article back, deleted the spurious redirects, warned the user and move-protected the article. Black Kite 06:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup work. Much appreciated. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban proposal re User:Gni

I have proposed a community ban of Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for serious violations of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, including soliciting, directing and leading a major off-wiki campaign of organised POV-pushing through single-purpose accounts. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign#Community ban proposal and leave comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phone numbers redux

This isn't a report of a specific incident like the "Phone Numbers" case above, but more a request for comment on proper procedure for cases similar to this. For instance, tonight in an hour or so of change patrolling I came across 2-3 cases where some jerk has posted a phone number in some random article, claimed it was his, possibly gave what he claimed was his name, and then said something like "I'm horny, call me now!"

This isn't an isolated case, I come across a couple of these most every day. I've usually been doing an immediate AIV report with "personal information" as a reason and then reverting or blanking as necessary. But I don't know of this is the best thing to do or ever the right thing to do. Will this necessarily get the diff removed by whoever handles the ticket at AIV? Will analysis get done and Oversight get called if needed? Should something else be done instead?

I'm not a fan of a rule for every thing and everything a rule, but it seems to me this would be a good case for a semi-formal policy on What To Do. Maybe it exists and I don't know about it?

Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight usually isn't necessary. Any admin can delete the revisions. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another Pinoybandwagon's sockpuppet

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [67][68] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [69]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. Check out his latest contributions. Also, his user page is very similar to one of the sockpuppets of Pinoybandwagon (User:Bad false). -Danngarcia (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sock case and he other things are no proof that Martindanza is a sock. All that proves is that this Pioybandwagon created loads of sockpuppets.--Phoenix-wiki 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to open *another* sockpuppet case for what is an obvious sock just like the ones blocked at that case? The behaviour of this account is totally online with Pinoybandwagon's socks, up to the recreation of the same hoax article that got recreated several times with the exact same text by several different socks already blocked, addition to the same templates, re-naming of the same articles to the same names, exact same wording of some comments, exact same lenghty additions to the same articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I requested block on WP:AIV and got declined for his edits not being actual vandalism (notice I had got confused with another user, hence the re-block request instead of simple block) [70] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This user already has *two* resolved sock cases against him here and here and has even edited the first archived case to blame his blocked User:Map_inc account for some of the socks and salvage some of his accounts --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking at probable sockpuppets and there's any dispute on it, best to just create a new case at the top of the old RFCU. Some RFCU's I've seen have 11 or 12 instances over a period of time within the same report. Unless it's a clear WP:DUCK case and you can prove it, it's safest just to add it. On looking at the guy's edits, though, I must admit he has a good point re the naming, it wouldn't be a violation if Philippine stations are generally known by name as they are here in Australia. Orderinchaos 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a WP:DUCK case, with his user page being identical to other socks and identical edits. I will prove it tomorrow here with damning evidence, I can't do it today --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his characteristic addiction to the use of ALL CAPS to ORDER other editors to LEAVE HIS EDITS ALONE and NEVER CHANGE THEM BACK! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for this user being a Pinoybandwagon's sock:

• user page almost identical to blocked socks, and follows the same layout patterns, compare User:martindanza with 3 differents sock's user pages before being indef blocked [71], [72] and [73]
• same answer to block warnings on talk pages, with emphasis on same words and CAPS use, compare his anwer "There is NO NEED to block me."[74] with blocked user anwer "THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK ME."[75]
• Tries to move DYCL-FM to 96.3_WRock three times [76] [77] [78]. Pinoy also tried the same move [79] and so did Bf2 (a Pinoy's sock) [80]
• edits a template edited by Pinoy's socks and Map inc's socks template history, and make the same noming changes. Compare his name changes at [81] [82].
• same pattern of not following WP:Naming conventions#Broadcasting by not using the callsign as name of the article despite all stations having a callsign. See changes on templates here, here and here, all of them on templates where only socks of Pinoybandwagon have made that type of changes, like [83]. Creating AU_Radio_104.1 instead of DWAU, 107.1 Dwee FM instead of DWEE (I intend to move those articles later), as well as placing the frequency in front of the name. Also moving from the callsign name to that sort of names [84][85][86]. There are dozens of examples of this on the sock contributions, I'll pick some of the most recent ones: creating 98.3_One_FM instead of DZLT, moving from DWKX to 103.5_Max_FM [87].
• Making the same redirect as blocked socks, from 99.5 Campus FM to DWRT-FM here and here again. Admins can look at the deleted pages on 99.5 Campus FM and see the blocked socks trying to create the same page there.
• Recreation of deleted hoax article 99.9 Hot FM (admins can look at the deleted pages and see how it was re-created by at least one blocked sock with the exact same wording on the page creation). See the link reinclusion on a template by martindanza [88].
• similar contribution patterns to socks, like editing always on philippine radio stations and even on the same articles, and not editing on any other topic ever. Also, as explained above, re-creating the same redirects, performing the same page moves, creating article with the same non-compliant names, restoring the same deleted article,

Editor testimonial: I'm sure that User:Orangemike and User:Danngarcia will be happy to confirm that there are lots of evidence pointing unambiguously that he is a Pinoybandwagon's sock --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

need an admin to look at the evidence for the sock status, and make the block if he is convinced. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

still need an admin to look at martindanza and block him as a sock of Pinoybandwagon (see evidence above). Today he has started editing again, keeping the same behaviour as the blocked socks, moving articles to the name he prefers against Wikipedia:Naming conventions [89] [90], and creating unsourced articles about closed stations instead of simply listing the old names under the current name [91], thus causing the philippine radio stations templates to be overloaded with articles about non-notable articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

still need an admin here --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] я вам пишу, чего же боле

I have seen many many IPs adding "я вам пишу, чего же боле" to various articles (reversions:[92],[93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]. And those are just a few of my reversions. User:Thingg and Cluebot get a lot as well.) "я вам пишу, чего же боле" is Russian. It means (per google translator) "I am writing to you, what pain". It appears that the vandal is using a proxy server, and he is mainly targeting random pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and articles related to visas and passports in the article space. What I am asking is, may users file reports to AIV with the first vandalism, and can admins block the vandals for a week the first time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been blocking those accounts like mad today. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's slowed down now, maybe he ran out of IPs finally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting the spambots on m:User:Drini/daylog for blocking on other wikis as well. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs that change that much will continue to do so, especially if the editor is using a service such as AOL. I have a feeling that it will continue despite the blocks. Not to get ahead of ourselves, or myself, but could a range block be entertained at one point? Also, Z, the editing didn't seem to be done in rapid fire succession, how can you be sure it was a spambot? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Targeted based on article title, nonsense in edit summaries, and adding random nonsense in Russian. Very likely that it is coordinated to some degree and not just random vandalism. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One correction: not "what pain", but "what else". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? (I see it does appear on Google in its Latinised form, and has several thousand hits in Cyrillic.) Orderinchaos 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I used Google's automatic translator, and came up with "I am writing to you, what pain?" MasSem (who I assume actually knows some Russian, unlike me) said above that it means "I am writing to you, what else?". Either way, I know one word in Russian, and I do not know how to write that one word in its Latinised form, let alone in Cyrillic. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the opening of Tatyana's letter to Evgeny Onegin; in the Johnston translation, "I write to you -- no more (confession is needed)". I don't know why it is being spammed, though. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record 'bolye' is not 'pain/ache' (cf.'bolyet') but more. 'what more (would one require/need = what else could you want)'. Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And anyone interested can listen to Leontyne Price sing this aria, from the Tchaivovsky opera, here RolandR (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A minority of Web forum users planning vandalism

Over at WP:AIV someone recently reported this:

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to reports it (sorry, I'm new to this how editting wiki thing), but a webforum I use has launched a series of vandalism against a selection of articles in an attampt to play a game. Details here: http://www.altnation.com/forums/junk-talk/134411-wikipedia-jenga.html

Might be worth watching. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing the forum pages, I notice that the vandalism has been quickly reverted and has resulted in some blocks. I suspect that the handful of vandalism edits the forum will generate will not survive recent changes patrol for long. Keep up the good work, gang! —Travis^talk 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd the articles being used as the latest post is telling users how to evade their IP blocks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to watch out for them changing articles about or relating to Neil Gaimen. There is a meme about him on said forum --86.163.79.85 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Said article is now semi'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted at Neil Gaiman. Can I suggest a permanent block for Bikuki (talk · contribs) for being a vandalism only account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite comical actually. Where else can you get a running commentary on what they're going to do next? Look out for the next instalment: creating the Alternative Nation article (currently a redirect) -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd all the targeted articles (including the Alternative Nation redirect). I'm just about ready to register an account and explain my case over there. I'm going to deal with Bikuki in a moment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave Bikuki the Ace of Spades. Iff (s)he wants to contribute freely instead of participating in such a retarded "game" I'd be more than happy to take it back. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bikukis ace of spades - 'if she wants to I'll take it back' - I can't bloody well explain myself! There are no email addresses, no forum, no way of editting the pages myself... It looks a bit like censure guys. - endless psych (talk)

Also I've altered the title because its not as if the whole of alt nation is planning to vandalise wikipedia. endles psych (talk)

The pages were semi-protected because of this. With the exception of the Alternative Nation redirect (which I will unprotect now), the semi-protection will expire in a few more days. Please note that, if your account is at least four days old, you can edit semiprotected pages. Further, if you are Bikuki, you can still edit your talk page as Bikuki in order to make an unblock request with {{unblock}}. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From AltNation - This is meant to be a bit of playful fun, not malicious, furrowed-browed vandalism. I can assure you that no bad feeling or malice towards wikipedia was or is intended. I think this has been taken a bit too seriously to be honest. - lesmts

Why don't you continue playing with each other and leave Wikipedia out of it? ... discospinster _talk 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Les, it isn't a bit of fun and you know it. For the record, the forum user who reported this wasn't me, I do use that forum and have reverted many similar edits by AltNation vandals, many of whom have also targetted my user page and ridiculed me in public for taking Wikipedia seriously. It's ridiculous, so just stop it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (AKA Addy from AltNation, yes I'll admit that)

I would also like to apologise for the vandalism on behalf of Alternative Nation itself; while a minority of users there have decided to have fun at Wikipedia's expense, I hope that it is recognised that these activities are in no way sanctioned by the website or the infinite majority of its users, and that said majority greatly respects Wikipedia and everything related to it. I have no interest in sticking up for my friends there who have committed acts of vandalism here, especially since I've become the scapegoat there for the - entirely appropriate and reasoned - response of the admins here, but at the same time I would hope that the name of AltNation itself not be sullied by the actions of the inconsiderate few recently. If I see anymore instances of vandalism by them, I'll be sure to revert and report accordingly.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should anyone who would use the phrase ″infinite majority" be editing an encyclopaedia?Potatojunkie (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "a bit of fun" is this: Sure, it's clever the first time. The problem is, the millionth person to do it still thinks they're being clever, when really it's gotten old. Every time someone watches a rerun of that episode of the Colbert Report, there's a chance they'll be inspired to change the "Elephant" article to say that the population has tripled. And every time, they'll think it's funny, and that they're the first ones to actually do it, etc. But in the end, it's just yet another lame vandalism. --Random832 (contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or that Librarians are hiding something. v^_^v -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock of Bikuki

I've gone over and presented my case over at the forum, and per discussion there, I have unblocked Bikuki, as (s)he has stated (s)he's not going to vandalize again. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this case now be marked as resolved? I think they've had their fun and with the existing set up of blocks I don't think anything further is going to be done (though I will certainly be watching the forum for further vandalism)Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think so (I feel it should be an admin that does it though). -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jon Awbrey

Hi there. So, on a Site which Shall Not be Named, two users who appear to be Wikipedia admins agreed that it was a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia, and that something should be done about that. Neither of them, however, was available to do anything about it. User:Jayneofthejungle registered to try to do something about it, and was rather firmly slapped down for it. Of course, she did also create an obvious nonsense page, but that's not related to the issue at hand, which is: should something be done about it? I present the question to the Council of Administrative Wisdom for judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Jon Awbrey refrained for a reasonable amount of time from editing Wikipedia and/or setting up sockpuppet accounts? We could certainly extend the badly named "Right" to Vanish, but not unless he has shown he will never again edit the Wikipedia. This does not currently seem to be the case. --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of editors who use their own names and then get into trouble is complex. However it is the case that the current #1 google hit for Awbrey is an announcement that he is banned from editing wikipedia. I don't advocate deleting the page, but how does blanking it interfere with tracking and blocking his socks, assuming he is still trying to edit? Thatcher 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we blank the page, how can we readily determine that the community ban is still in place? —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The page history and the block log. I said blanked, not deleted. Thatcher 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why is it "a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia"? Should unrepentent vandals really expect that all record of their misbehaviour should disappear down the memory hole after a while? How "fair" is it that the 2nd-placed link on Google for Usama bin Laden is an FBI "most wanted" notice? This isn't a Daniel Brandt-style BLP situation; the prominence of Awbrey's ban is entirely a situation of his own making, resulting from his own actions. Also, I note that WP:RTV applies specifically to users "in good standing", which Awbrey plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing RTV, I'm saying that it is nice to be nice to people even if they aren't always nice to us. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

bin Laden? Really? Come on. That kind of analogy is beyond tasteless and offensive, and not in any way okay. Please don't do it again. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bin Laden's name is linked to bad things because he has done bad things in the real world. Awbrey's sin is that he dicks around with a website that he has a disagreement with. Hardly a fair comparison, and a sign that Wikipedians take themselves way too seriously. Thatcher 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, obviously, that misconduct brings notoriety; and the author of the misconduct has nobody to blame but themselves for that notoriety. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Awbrey has stated the he intends to continue to make socks here to cause trouble (of which he has already created a very generous number) ad nauseum. I fail to see why we should extend a page-blanking courtesy to him until he at the very least shows courtesy to us by making a committment to cease that disruption. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request, I think, although I would be willing to blank the page first and see what happens. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances is this user to be unblocked. Nor should his user page be cleared. He continues to use sockpuppets, creating much work for me (and other checkusers) in blocking his user accounts and ranges. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Nobody was discussing an unblock, and what does the work involved in blocking have to do with his userpage? Is it just "don't screw with us", some sort of incentive, or what?

If he has a problem with the results on his name, he can write OTRS himself, I think, and then we can have this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that we have to have somebody write an email, which may or may not be answered or actioned, in order to do the ethical thing. Blanking the page does not in the least interfere with the work of our checkusers; I am certain every last one of them is well aware of who Jon Awbrey is and what his patterns are. Nobody is suggesting he be unblocked, simply that the #1 Google-hit on his name not be a ban notice from Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have toddled over to the Board of Outer Darkness Where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth myself, and checked whether Awbrey has asked for it himself. He hasn't, not even there, which is why I make the statemen above. (At least I think not, his posts are relatively incomprehensible). I do think that he should at the very least make that much effort. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I won't abbreviate that for fear of creating a post that vaguely resembles what he writes. It doesn't change my position. It's either the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, regardless of who asks for it (and I would think that Newyorkbrad asking for it should count for something) or the way that it is requested. Since so far the main argument is "he deserves it", I think we can do better than that. Risker (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Sometimes the right thing to do is conditional on the expressed preference of the person it most affects. In this case, if he doesn't give a damn, I don't think that it should be necessary to make an exception. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This question of renaming Awbery came up awhile ago, before I knew of his involvement "there". My position was that it would be a humanitarian gesture to rename such accounts. However, I later discovered on "that" site, that he only wished to be renamed if we renamed several other accounts, some of which have nothing to do with living people's names. So since he is opposed to the rename, and clearing his page would make the ban less obvious to uninvolved admins or non-admins working at SSP/AIV, I think we should just leave this the way it is. In the past, I have worked with users who are banned and who have link-able names to communicate with the crats and invoke their RTV via rename, and it seems to have worked well. But if the subject is still abusing the 'pedia, I don't see why we should help them hide that abuse. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, MBisanz. It still comes back to one point: it is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do for another banned user, it is the right thing for JA, regardless of from whom the request originates. How many people at SSP don't know who he is? And how will having a "banned user" banner change that? He is still on our list of banned users, is he not? Risker (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah jeez. Didn't see this here. I went ahead and blanked the user pages because I think they're a BLP problem. It doesn't really matter what he wants done with this or any other account; they can remain where they are, and they must remain blocked. We can simply move the category to a name that has less impact on the google results of a living person. "Do no harm" and all. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid your unilateral decision to ignore our guidelines for dealing with sockpuppeteers - we tag their userpages, and collect lists of their sockpupppet accounts and IPs, to assist in future damage control. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note - BLP is an article space policy, not a user space policy. If a user wants to register under his real name and act like a dick, he has no reasonable expectation that we will treat him any differently than we treat any other misbehaving account. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet guideline that you referred to, Raul, would it be this one: "Sockpuppeteer - The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely." (from WP:SOCK) I note the use of the word "may" instead of "must". I also note that the tag has not been removed, only the page blanked. As to acting like a dick, well, we are back to the "he deserves it" argument. Is that the way we want to operate here? Risker (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, BLP applies in all namespaces. It's been that way for years.

As for the account, that's not the issue. They should all remain blocked. But there's no need for them to have content. They're blocked and full protected—and they should stay that way. If you're really concerned that the check users will forget that the account is blocked and forget how to use the history tab, we could at least move the account elsewhere. See Risker. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the username policy from December 2005, when Awbrey registered, says nothing about, "If you register your real name and then screw with us, it will follow you on google forever." People who do bad things in the real world find their name attached to those bad things, and justifiably so. This is just a website with aspirations of grandeur. Thatcher 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Raul and KC here. There is no BLP issue here, "Jon Awbrey is banned from editing Wikipedia" is a simple, accurate, and trivially easy to verify statement. I was afraid of this with BLP, but we were all assured "This will never happen." Well, folks, it's happening. BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing. Awbrey was well aware of the consequences of his actions (such as, well, an editing ban) when he chose to take them. If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place, and then, and only then, ask for some consideration in return, such as removal of the ban notice. Notices that a user is banned is important for tracking purposes, and if Awbrey chose to create an account under his name, and then chose to take actions which he knew would be in public view forever, and still chooses to continue those actions to this day, he cannot then choose whether or not that page has a ban notice, because we need that notice to prevent the very harm he chooses to continue to cause. If he wants to show us good faith first, by leaving us alone and respecting the fact that he is not welcome here, then perhaps after he has done so for some period of time we can reciprocate that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't blank or change the message on his page. The whole spirit behind BLP is doing no harm on marginally notable people. Why would we relax that spirit for people who are not notible at all? Seems backward...you don't have to be the subject of an article to be harmed by Wikipedia you know. This feels like we're insisting on punishing someone...RxS (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing." WP:UNDUE. --Random832 (contribs) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I think differently because of the Daniel Brandt redirect DRV (which is, incidentally, blanked as a courtesy). The Brandt redirect had very slight encyclopedic value, but helped dominate google results for "Daniel Brandt." We deleted the redirect almost solely because of its impact on google, and it really didn't matter how despicable Brandt might be considered. This is an analogous situation; a hated commentator with a barely-useful user page, which is #1 on google. I really doubt that check users will forget about this user, and many of these comments suggest that we think the notices are some sort of punishment ("If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place"). That's perverse, and wholly out of line with BLP.

I'm not going to edit war on the point though; really, the site should just edit robots.txt so that user pages are not indexed. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that his page should be blanked. Not so much BLP as a basic issue of ethics. No one has actually provided a reason for keeping the notice on his page yet. -- Naerii 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has yet given a substantive reason for giving special treatment to a persistent, unrepentant vandal. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't _be_ "special treatment" - we should treat _everyone_ the way we're proposing. "We don't treat everyone this way, so why should we treat anyone this way" is not a sensible response to a proposal to give everyone some benefit. --Random832 (contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if we're going to be nothing but policy wonks then Wikipedia policy would be more important than preventing doing RL harm to someone. But surely the spirit of BLP is more important than whatever text happens to be there at the moment. Real life punishment is not part of our banning policy...RxS (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is part of real life, and the person editing on Wikipedia is living in the real world. If a real person edits under their real name and screws up and there are consequences to it, how is it that we are doing that person harm in the "real world" by having a record of those actions? They brought the harm on themselves, we are only recording it. There's no conceivable "ethical" reason to remove that record. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I am the first contributor to this discussion who uses his full name as user name, but it's completely incomprehensible for me why this even needs discussing. Is it really necessary to put it the other way round to get consensus for a tiny gesture of generosity? So be it then: wikiversity:WV:SHRINE. I think that speaks for itself, although it refers to vandals, not trolls. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. KC told me when I blanked the page that user "considers it a 'badge of pride' to have been banned." In my opinion, that makes the case for blanking even stronger, not weaker. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the templates off and left the link to the blocking discussion, maybe that's an acceptable compromise. I don't understand how potentially harming someone in real life is part of our blocking/banning policy. Please don't revert unless you have a real answer to that question...RxS (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about don't continue to edit war on protected pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One compromise attempt is not edit warring...WTF, unbelievable. You're the one who reverted a protected page....is it less "protected" when you edit? Unbelievable...RxS (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is still protected. As I stated, I returned the protected page to the status it was when it was protected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer if he unprotected it, reverted, and then protected it? Seems senselessly formal. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The usual process is you figure out what to do with it while it is protected, and then go on from there. I haven't seen that issue come up here as being "We're gonna do this" and everyone agreeing with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "usual process" is that the protecting admin does not revert before protecting the page. But that's unfair. The "usual process" simply has no meaning for editing a banned user page. Do you have an actual reason for reverting? Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply redirect his page to one his socks and add the ban banner there ? Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually WP:DGAF what Jon Awbrey or just about anyone else on WR wants done here, with a few exceptions, like for instance Newyorkbrad, ( a sitting arbitrator, remember? ) who asked that this be corrected, and Alison (a CU and Oversighter, remember? ) who said it would be. WP:DENY has been used many many times to deny recognition to sockpuppeteers who seem to want it, and Jon Awbrey seems proud of being badged this way. So let's deny it to him. Also, I don't see how having this page blanked (not deleted, just blanked) is going to impede operations of CUs ( I'm a CU here and elsewhere, remember? ) in the slightest. BLP applies throughout the entire project, not just in articlespace. This page needs to be blanked. If it requires first getting consensus to unprotect, to satisfy the policy wonks standing on "it's protected, you can't change it", then so be it. But blank the damn thing and move on. Stop with the revenge bit and the "you were a dick so tough noogies" bit... that's so middleschool it's not funny. We should follow the principle of doing what is right, what is good and proper, even for people who are big weenies, as I have said before. I leave it as an academic exercise who is the bigger weenie... ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A forceful statement, but, frankly, I don't understand why that is the "right" thing to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

People need to just tell these chumps to buzz off. Really, OTRS needs to just be a recording that says "go away" or "fix your entry if you don't like it." I think it is totally ridiculous just how much the 'pedia has gotten into busybody meta about how things affect real world people. How can we be NPOV if we are trying to make everyone happy? It's impossible and a recipe for certain disaster. It shouldn't be our job or our goal to be protectors of the world. This is getting to the point of being disruptive with nonsense like the suggestion of mass deleting our biographies of living people because we don't have enough eyes to cover them all. Again, it isn't our job to make people feel good. It isn't that hard, you know. At some point, the foot needs to be put down about these grievers who go whining to board every time something they don't like shows up here. Sorry, but enough is enough. Much too much navel gazing and unneeded bureaucracy is being put in place to deal with problems that don't exist. In fact, we have all sorts of absurd policy proposals coming from the BLP extremists. In this case, we have a request made by someone who continues to be a malicious sock puppeteer, as Raul has pointed out. WHY THE F**K ARE WE GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?! This is a no-brainer, people. Tell the bozo to shove off and accept responsibility for his actions. You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not such a no-brainer. One the one hand, we have 'He made his bed, he lays in it', which some will interpret as either cold and hard, or vindictive and malicious. On the other, we have 'Let's do what's right, even if he doesn't want it', which can look Big Brotherish, or 'the state knows what's best for you', a heavy handed authoritarian reaction. Neither makes us look good, and both are guaranteed to get us criticized at WR and other sites. Neither has the 'right' outcome for us, and neither will get him to stop attacking WP and its' editors. Short of unblocking him and letting him run amuck here, nothing we can do, be it action or inaction, gets WP any positive ground, and everything gets us negative ground. The best we can hope is that by following our policies, we can look consistent. However, we don't have good policy and precedent for this, so we really need to work it out now, before we have to double back on ourselves (Again, given that one admin tried already to change the status quo), and look like bigger fools. We need sokme seriously well thought out logical arguments on both sides of this before we do anything. This situation has existed for months, and JA doesn't really seem to find anything urgent in us resolving this. (That alone ought to be our best guide in this matter, that he doesn't care that it's the top google hit) Let's take the time to really build community consensus for a guideline or policy, instead of just rushign to mark this as resolved. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Dragon695, I certainly feel all foolish now. I missed the part about this being a war, I thought it was a peaceful project, one with high standards where doing the right thing mattered more than getting revenge, one where we were trying to build an encyclopedia. "GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?!" you say? Why stop at keeping his user page (the number one return) all vindictive and stuff.. heck, let us write a bio on him that points out what a weenie he is... that way we all can feel better about ourselves. Would that be better? Don't forget to kick Newyorkbrad while he's down, ok, for being foolish enough to make an honest and sincere request that the right thing be done? That isn't the project I signed up for. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe you are, and this actually IS more like the project I think it is (and want it to be) than a schoolyard pissing contest. Get a grip man, you are racing to the bottom and fast. Maybe this matter needs to go to ArbCom now so they can remind us again that BLP applies everywhere and trumps lesser policies. I'm not saying there aren't nuances to this matter, that some thought isn't required, but a clear cut "F**K OFF" probably isn't the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't have edited the page per my earlier statements, but does this appear to be a good midpoint?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I arrived late to this debacle - I was off teh intarwebz. I've modified Ryulong's edit to remove the 'banned' tags. Folks - this is someone's RL name here we're bandying around. It doesn't matter whether they're banned or not; it's just not right. I see a lot of the comments above and all I can get from them is vengeance and punishment. This is not what we're about here and the sole purpose for tagging a userpage like that is for tracking banned editors. No more. It's not a brand of shame. Frankly, just about every admin know's Mr. Awbrey's modus operandi at this stage, and every checkuser his account signature, so that whole issue is moot anyway. I've recently had my own RL name bandied about by Mr. Brandt and I didn't appreciate it either, especially given the ensuing issues it brought. This is more of the same. Let's move on and leave the man's name out of it. This isn't an appeal to BLP (because it's not a BLP issue), nor is it an appeal to whatever policy documents which could be pointed to (there are a number); I'm simply asking us to do what's right here. JA came to the site here in good faith, from what I can determine and contributed a vast amount of good work. It's all in the contrib history. What's happening now just smacks of punishment and that's not what we're about. Of all people, I have a huge amount of respect for NewYorkBrad and, once again, he's right on this one - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts on this myself: personally, I do think that Jon made his own bed on this, but yes, the "banned" notice is a bit strong. I think the current solution works as well. As for the sockpuppet category... is there any use for these categories? Abusive account is abusive account, whether it's banned or not. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no use for them. Are we keeping count on the socks? Why? I've deleted enough of those categories in the past per WP:DENY anyway and these ones serve no purpose. Some people even use them for bragging - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just delete all the pages. The accounts remain blocked, it remains noted in the block log. I see the question being asked "why should we blank the page a banned user?" I would ask, "why shouldn't we?" It doesn't help us to have Jon Awbrey's #1 hit on Google to be "this user is banned on Wikipedia". Nor does it particularly harm us. Given that, the presumption should be towards getting rid of such stuff. Neıl ☎ 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. If we have a choice between doing harm to a real person, and doing no harm, and neither choice actually benefits us much...let's go with the do no harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will repeat my earlier suggestion: that we rename the master account to something innocuous and then carry on as usual. I would hope that removing the Google bomb would de-escalate the situation anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure forcibly renaming a user's account (yes, even a banned user) without their assent - effectively disappearing their attribution - would violate GFDL in some way or other. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't vanish their attribution, it merely changes the name. I was happy to reassign the socks to a different category (dummy account) but people thought it was a bit much keeping some stuff attributed to a named individual, while listing all the problems they caused somewhere else. I would, in a heartbeat, run AWB and rename every instance of Jon Awbrey outside article and talk, to something else, but I don't think it would go down well. I remain convinced that seeing his name immortalised as a vandal is provocative for Jon, who is I think inclined to be somewhat obsessive anyway. He said, as I recall, that he'd be OK with this along as the same remedy was available to anyone else, as of course it should be. I don't see him emailing OTRS to request it, though, due to all the bad blood. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I would support such a complete renaming. This isn't in mainspace so it doesn't damage the project at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see why we need to be extending favors to one of the worst trolls in Wikipedia history. Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Worst by whose measure? Brandt drove off Katefan0 and Newyorkbrad (the latter at least temporarily). He's splattered the names, birthdays, and pictures of users who contribute pseudonymously on Wikipedia. Both his user and user talk pages have been deleted and salted. Awbrey...well, I don't believe ther's an LTA on him, but as far as I understand he just tries to keep reverting to his preferred version on the Peirce article. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having the socks in a category that collects them together as being related is useful, I think. The category doesn't necesarily have to exist, it can be a redlink, going to the page shows you the socks anyway. It also doesn't have to have his name on it. I think a redlinked category won't show up in searches but I could be wrong. So I'd hate to see the socks decategorised. Changed to a different category, sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Angry Christian

Angry Christian (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Nightscream.

Only one warning was given,[99] at 04:53, 21 April 2008, "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked." At 11:47 Angry Christian replied on his own talk page "What the fuck are you talking about?"[100] and at 16:33 Angry Christian placed a comment on Nightscream's talk page,[101] with the heading "hey what is that crazy shit you put on my talk page about?" and the comment "Seriously."

Nightscream blocked Angry Christian at 17:20, 21 April 2008, with the reason Personal attacks or harassment of other users: User responded to my warnings with profanity on his Talk Page and on mine. and put a block notice on Angry Christian's talk page giving the reason "for responding to my warnings in an uncivil and profane manner on your Talk Page and on mine". A request for unblocking, Request reason: "because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man." was declined by User:Yamla, Decline reason: "Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you."[102]

This block appears to me to be completely unreasonable and unwarranted. I've been participating in work on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article, and have found Angry Christian to be constructive, helpful, and courteous. I've asked Nightscream for diffs and an explanation, but feel that the block should be lifted without delay. .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: at 19:33 User:MastCell asked Nightscream to unblock Angry Christian,[103] with the understanding that he will chill, moderate his tone, and let this go.. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to. With comments such as this, this and this is simply uncalled for and is uncivil. I could go on with the edit comparisons, but the fact is, we don't tolerate such bad assumptions of faith, personal attacks and etc. regardless of the editor. When his block expires in 48 hours, he can constructively contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that these comments came after the unexplained warning and then the block. .. dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps noting that the block then did nothing to stop/prevent the incivility? --Ali'i 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a relatively common, and unfortunate, scenario: admin warns editor, editor makes angry comment to admin about warning, admin blocks editor. I don't think we should block people because they've reacted angrily to a warning we placed. Put another way, we should not be in the business of blocking people because they were rude to us. And it was rudeness, not a personal attack, that triggered the block. If I warn someone and they respond, "What the fuck are you talking about?" - my immediate response is not, and should not be, to block them. That's a bit too close to using the tools to settle a personal grievance. I don't condone Angry Christian's comments before or after the block, but I think the block should be lifted so long as he's willing to let this go and tone things down. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocks should only be used preventatively, and if Angry Christian says he or she will play nicely, we should assume that he or she actually will and unblock. My opinion. --Ali'i 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Block per User:Seicer. It is not true that the profanity started after the block [104] and no indication has been given that the user understands the problem.. As far as the block to pevent further incivility, that's an argument to protect the user talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> This is a bit ridiculous. Angry Christian has been doing yoeman's service in trying to maintain that article's integrity under incredibly trying circumstances. Our number of article views has exploded from less than 100 a day in December to 1000 a day a week ago to around 10,000 a day since the movie was released. We have a flurry of what appear to be sock puppets, meat puppets and SPAs arguing tendentiously about the same issues over and over and over. It is all that the few mainstream editors can do to keep it roughly NPOV and avoid having the entire article replaced with a religious tract.

AC has done great work on that page. And as happens often, sometimes regular editors wear out under repeated assault and say something mildly unCIVIL. So when he responds in irritation to a block, I think this is not that surprising. And the fact that he was unhappy about getting blocked should not be used as justification for the block, post facto. In fact, that really stinks and looks like abuse of administrative tools that is just calling out for sanctions against the blocking admin.--Filll (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock per Mastcell. If we blocked everyone who said the equivalent of "What the fuck", we'd have nobody left to write the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the block. Looking over AC's contributions before the warning, they seem to be constructive and rational. I cannot see any substantial reason for the warning, and I don't think an admin can afford such a thin skin as displayed here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's something missing here--and I also flipped through AC's contributions prior to the warning--Nightscream's failure to justify his warning and his block of AC is a little chilling. An simple explanation of the warning seems like it would have defused the situation. Darkspots (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That puts it pretty well, I think. Escalation isn't always the best solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's nobody unblock till we here from the blocking admin what the original incivility was, OK? No tearing rush. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the user in question might think different about this. No rush, ok, but how long should we wait? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream means well (I say this having met him in person at the NYC meetup) but unfortunately I think his handling of this situation has been less-than-optimal. I agree with Filll's description above (re: Angry Christian doing yeoman's work), and I think this block should be overturned ASAP. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with unblock, and it should be soon. R. Baley (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let's wait for a comment from Nightscream before an unblock, to see if there is any underlying rationale. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, let's not wait and crucify the blocker. Just unblock the user! The idea behind the block was noble, User:Nightscream is trying to keep the page free from off-topic commentary, which sadly occurs on both sides in the debate. The problem is that AC was singled out for reasons not at all apparent to him. And it's not clear to me either why AC was picked out. Most importantly, this was not explained to him, when he asked. Just because he got pissed of for being suddenly warned for something he had no idea about, doesn't mean he should be blocked for bad language. The admin banned him out of frustration. There is no need to fight about who is right or wrong here, do what is best for the encyclopedia and unblock the editor, unless you prefer WikiDrama, because you are about to get some very soon. --Merzul (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock now, and let's not go on too much about the blocker's rash reaction to AC's strong language. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for an unblock here, and I have implemented it. A user who is unfairly blocked deserves to be unblocked as soon as possible. My apologies to Nightscream for not waiting for his input; if there are any problems in the future, a block can always be reinstated but a good faith user driven away by a mistaken block may never return. henrik•talk 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning, Merzul (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Was getting ready to do as much, myself, as I read down the thread. AC's reaction to the warning was imperfect, but who wouldn't be confused and angry when they're suddenly being threatened with a block for reasons they don't understand, when a moment before they thought everything was fine? Looking at contribs, I'm not sure what specifically precipitated this warning, so some clarification on that point might be good for everybody. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, everyone. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read and considered everyone's comments and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here but I appreciate all those who contributed to this discussion. Angry Christian (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is still interested in my responding to this inquiry, since as of this writing it is resolved, but the idea that I did not offer prior warnings to Angry Christians and to others on that Talk Page and one their own Talk Pages is false. All you have to do is look that "Obvious Bias" and "Unthoughtful Article" sections on that Talk Page, as well as my Edit Summaries when deleting uncivil comments or comments not related to the article, as well as the Talk Pages of Angry Christian, Dr. Henley, and others, to see this. Angry Christian responded with a disrespectful, profanity-laden rant on my Talk Page, as he linked to above. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but both you and he have been major players on the Expelled article, on roughly opposite sides. That doesn't put you in a good position to be making hair-trigger blocks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No one is in a position to make "hair-trigger blocks", and since I have not done so, but initiated the block only after repeated warnings, both on the Expelled Talk Page (here, here and here), and on the Talk Pages of DrHenley, Hypnosadist, and Angry Christian, the point is moot. Similarly irrelevant and untrue is the notion that I and AC have been "major players" on the Article on opposite sides. He was blocked for violating policy and ignoring repeated warnings, which is completely irrelevant to my participation in the article. As for "sides", the only "side" I've been on is the pro-WP policy side. I've been deleting inappropriate comments from both those who were pro-ID and accused the article of being too slanted, and the evolutionists who did the same. This is not a "side", except in the mind of those who think that NPOV means that all material should be in perfect harmony with their own mindset. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Block policy states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." It sounds as though you were involved in a content dispute. The policy is quite straightforward; it makes no exemption for blocks arising from civility issues. Your participation in the article is not "irrelevant" as it creates the appearance (however false) of a conflict of interest. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as though I was involved in a content dispute? You mean you didn't actually read the discussion? Why is this? If you actually did so, you'd see that there was no content dispute. There was a discussion on the article's Talk Page initiated by one contributor who accused the article of bias, and others who responded to him. My admonishments to them were made on the basis comments by them that were not pertinent to the article, or that violated Civility, which is what administrators are supposed to do. I did not favor the inclusion or removal of any particular content, and acted in the capacity of a mediator, attempting to respond to the critic's complaints in a way that would preserve the article's factual content accurately without clearly pushing a POV. At that time, I did not have any conflict with Angry Christian over content, nor anyone else involved in that discussion. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Read enough to know that it created the appearance of a conflict. Jpmonroe (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I misread it, but it did (on a quick overview) seem a little quickly done - the commentary and block had happened from when I had looked 12 or so hours previously and when I saw it had happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Nightscream, unfortunately warnings posted on article talk pages are easy to miss or forget, and it's a shame you didn't make this clear to Angry Christian when he first responded, defusing rather than escalating the situation. In my opinion multiple warnings on talk pages are needed in conduct cases. While his language clearly offended you, it's best to either disregard such terms or to give a further polite warning rather than moving immediately to a block. Of course these are value judgements, and it's not so easy in the heat of the moment, but from previous incidents it's become very clear that care to give extensive warnings which set out the problem in some detail is essential in dealing with conduct cases. Tedious, and the exclusion of "involved" admins can be taken too far, but there it is. ..dave souza, talk 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Nightscream, but to me this edit looks like a very bad call. You cannot on the one hand invoke your admin powers and on the other hand join the debate in the same edit. At the very least, this leaves a very bad taste. Also, this edit was not addressed to anybody in particular, especially not to User: Angry Christian. The other two "warning edits" [105] and [106] also do not address User: Angry Christian (and in fact, they seem to primarily address other users), so I find his confusion after your first and only warning clearly addressed to him quite understandable. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from using and even mentioning your admin status in content discussions, unless it is to deal with clear vandalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages, especially Dave and Stephan. I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user spinoza1111 posting insult via anon IP

Edward Nilges (User spinoza1111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinoza1111 ) is making posts peppered with insults on talk ayn rand via anonymous IP addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.103.128.42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:116.48.168.16

There may be others. At least one other user with Anonymous IP address has supported him in posts, though I don't think this is the same user.

Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a common problem with him. 202.82.33.202 is his home ip and it is fixed. Any other address he edits from is public and really shouldn't be blocked. He generally loses interest in any topic where his edits are removed all the time. I suggest people stop talking with him on the Ayn Rand talk page and just remove any edit he makes there.--Atlan (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Edward Nilges' rambling comments at Talk:Ayn Rand, full of personal attacks, don't suggest any good-faith desire to improve the encyclopedia or to negotiate with others. The most coherent presentation of his views that I could find is at [107]. He also edits the Ayn Rand article directly, but all his changes are quickly reverted.
• How about two weeks of semi-protection for Ayn Rand and Talk:Ayn Rand? This might cause him to lose interest. If that doesn't work, blocking of some IPs might be considered. (So far we have just the indef block on his named account, Spinoza1111, and no formal discussion of banning that I am aware of). EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of semi-protecting a talk page because of one troublesome editor. A block of the main ip in this case would be more appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the IPs he has used lately:

• 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs) Over 200 edits, running from 3 March 2006 through 22 April 2008
• 218.103.128.42 (talk · contribs) Only six edits, all on 20 April
• 116.48.168.16 (talk · contribs) Only four edits, all on 11 April

Atlan, I assume you recommend blocking 202.82.33.202 for a long period (block evasion) and leaving the others alone. I would support that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that only if he continues this behavior. As he states in his last edit, it was his last and he will now "pursue this matter outside wikipedia". I don't know what he hopes to accomplish there, but it's not our concern. I hope it keeps him busy.--Atlan (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites

A group of new editors who seem to have found an agreement outside of WP (see talk page of that atricle) made big efforts to change the article of Dorje Shugden substentially without any discussion. Any request for discussion on the changes were neglected. Moreover verified passages were deleted and balanced views deleted and insertion from a anonymous website made. I like to ask you for your help by checking the subject, revert or a temporarily block of the article. I have sent all new editors welcomes and ask for collaboration but as you can see from the talk page they just ignore. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's a bit of an over reaction to be honest. A group of editors are attempting to improve one article and there is some concern about it? The worse that can happen is that it has to be restored once they are finished. You never know they might even improve the article! SunCreator (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also they are newbies and they are trying to contact whoever is doing the rollback on the articles talk page. I guess that's you? I think you should discuss with them on the talk page, they seem quite genuine, but have not yet grasped yet how to sign there name with ~~~~. SunCreator (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about User:Wisdomsword who manages to grasp using the ref tags in his first posts. I will leave him a note to describe the links in better detail rather than just listing the top level domain all the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, really interesting. User:Wisdombuddha reverts Kt66 and then Wisdomsword is created who's second edit is "KT 66 is reverting anyone' else's comments with his own sickening and unbacked up bias and i'm amazed he is allowed to do it." Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also kt66 does not seem not to be a neutral editor: [[108]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.238.67 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One quote from an uninvolved editor does not necessarily make User talk:Kt66 out of order. User talk:84.167.238.67, are you an editor who is involved in this debate on the article page? I only ask because this appears to be your first edit.

The entire thing is rather bizarre. I'm not familiar with the subject, but all of a sudden there seems to be 6-8 SPAs filling the page. I don't blame Kt66 at all for bringing this here, and hopefully getting more eyes on the article. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is a related thread on WP:AN. Some of these editors are sockpuppets. The rest are unrelated; I suspect there is a blog somewhere that has raised some issue with this. Thatcher 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Wisdombuddha deleted others' comments from Talk:Dorje Shugden, I issued a 24-hour block for violation of WP:TALK, based only on seeing the thread at WP:AN. Naturally I welcome review. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)