Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Mannaseejah 2 70.144.70.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 2.1 Prometheuspan 3 Wolfstar legal threats 4 Alkivar phone number vandal 5 Admin abuse - William M. Connolley part 2 6 Personal telephone number of an Admin 7 JayJG and DakotaKahn 8 Aloha1212 (talk · contribs) 9 User:Encyclopedist 10 Copyrights at Preying from the Pulpit 11 Personal information posted 12 Phish reversions on May 9 13 CIAB -- personal attack 14 User:Cyde again 15 User:Prasi90 16 User:NawashiTatu 17 User:Doct.proloy 18 Blocked user evading block 19 User:Gangsta_B_Nigga and Haley york 20 recommend blocking 216.125.36.3 21 tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22 Crawfords.com 23 Block of User:220.227.152.109 24 Ghostalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 25 User:Malber / User:DyslexicEditor 26 ESoW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 27 User:Airport Manager 28 190 Proof blocked indefinitely 29 Iranian peoples 30 Hoaxers 31 Posting another editor's phone number 32 Indef-block of Avillia 32.1 the unblock and reblock of Avillia 33 User:Thewolfstar and the community's patience 33.1 Phone Convo with Thewolfstar 34 Resolving Clive Bull 35 User:Gpscholar and Petticoating 36 user:AlexPU: maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki 37 Naan_Kadavul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 38 Vandal reached limit 39 User:198.237.180.60 40 216.13.88.86 (talk · contribs) 41 Multiple page move help needed 42 Help with large undelete?

[edit] User:Mannaseejah

greetings. i'm in need of a bit of intervention. this mainly stems from a dispute at the Manna page. A User, at times the anonymous IP User talk:136.245.4.252 or User talk:208.47.97.198, other times User:Mannaseejah. the user continually posts strange religious (an unencyclopedic) rants and posts strange pictures. the user has been asked to stop on numerous occasions and now he/she is posting their weird rants on my talk page, User Talk:Sparsefarce. this person is starting to scare me, not to mention get on my nerves. [1], [2], and (more or less blanking of a talk page with the rant) are some examples. [3] is the rant he put on my talk page. any intervention would help. thanks! Sparsefarce 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

please help. he won't stop. he thinks Manna was psychadelic mushrooms and keeps writing all these drug induced things. he's starting to realize that he can't put his stuff all over the article, so now he's claimed the talk page as his own soapbox for druggy weirdness. he even keeps trying to link readers to the talk page inside the article. Sparsefarce 23:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. It's getting really ridiculous. JaKaL! 15:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've stuck it on my watchlist. WP:NOR means that the psychedelic mushroom stuff has to be kept out of the article (it's not looking too bad at the moment), unless there's a reputable source for it. --ajn (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have now accepted that Wikipedia isn't the place for this. --ajn (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 70.144.70.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Request investigation and/or intervention into user's mass modification of (European) football-related articles to include an external link to [4]. -- Robocoder 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

they've stopped for now, and CambridgebayWeather has warned them as well. --Syrthiss 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheuspan

User has continuously vandalized my talk page with personal attacks even after being confronted with an NPA warning. --Strothra 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I {{npa3}}'d him. --InShaneee 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If that person isn't a strawman then I'm J. Edgar Hoover, by a complete coincidence, i actually am J. Edgar Hoover, but that doesn't really have any baring on this--64.12.116.65 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC) As an aside. Just because i am actually very neutral doesn't make me a straw man. And calling me a vandal is a bold faced lie. Prometheuspan 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

hey strotha? Sorry if you feel i was spamming you. Of course, you started it, lied, and then attacked me with a pretty graphic. Bad sport. Really, strothas big problem is that this prooves he doesn't know squat about law.

---

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write! Jump to: navigation, search May 2, 2006

Legislators in three states have introduced resolutions calling for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Wikipedia has one or more articles about 

Movement to impeach George W. Bush Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush.

US state legislators Karen Yarbrough of Illinois, Paul Koretz of California, and David Zuckerman of Vermont have each introduced resolutions to begin impeachment proceedings. Yarbrough and Koretz are Democrats, and Zuckerman is a member of the Vermont Progressive Party.

Yarbrough's resolution charges Bush with directing the National Security Agency to perform surveillance without a warrant in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; violating the torture conventions of the Geneva Convention, and "leaking classified national secrets to further an agenda." Koretz' similar resolution also calls for Cheney to be impeached.

Zuckerman introduced a resolution last Tuesday in the Vermont House of Representatives that asks Congress to "initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush." The resolution says "George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States." Twelve Vermont state representatives (Democrats, Progressives, 1 Independent) have endorsed the resolution.

The Illinois resolution invokes Section 603 of Jefferson's Rules for the national House and Senate, which allows for the introduction of impeachment charges "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory." Section 604 also states that an impeachment charge brought by any means would be a privileged motion, superseding most other business in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As of April 30, the Illinois resolution has been referred to the Rules Committee and has been sponsored by 17 representatives including Yarbrough.

In response to the Vermont resolution, the state's Republican Party Chairman James Barnett said, "If this is the best they can do at this late hour of the legislative session, then it's time to close down shop and go home for the summer so they can explain to their constituents that they didn't reform health care because they were too busy trying to impeach the president."

According to a CBS poll, the President's public approval rating has steadily declined, and is so far at an all time low of 33%. Prometheuspan 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfstar legal threats

User:thewolfstar, in addition to recent blockable behavior, has now made vague legal threats against the wikipedia community. It's probably blather, but it's definitely a legal threat:

"Merecat I'm so sorry about everything these low lives are doing to you. I didn't even know you were blocked last night, never mind all the horrible stuff they are doing to you now. I have some friends in here, you have a lot of friends, plus there's a lot of help I can get you in other ways. They're not going to get away with any of this. I have enough dirt on them now to hang them in a court of law. It's that bad. We'll get you out of here. Hang in there, friend. Maggiethewolfstar 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) "[5]

I post this here hoping an admin will review and if appropriate, provide wolfstar some guidance as to how to avoid banning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't sound vauge in the least. I'd recommend banning outright for legal threats (though I'll wait to see what anyone else thinks about that). --InShaneee 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed they're clear threats - I was referring to the intentional vagueness of the target. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours...I'm trying to assume that this editor was being argumentative so I am allowing this editor to post a response on their talk page and if the response isn't satisfactory in regards to the meaning of the comment mentioned, I will extend the block to indefinite.--MONGO 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, given the previous explosiveness of Wolfstar and the near-LT's made before, this is quite too far. I know it's a p.i.t.a., but mediation is the next step, I'd say, unless anyone really thinks that an RFC will be controversial. I note also that the "have dirt" phrasing is familiar. (I try to take a shower once a day and not let dirt get "on me.") Geogre 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I expressed the opinion to her that making legal threats is against the spirit of Esperanza, which she recently joined. Her response to me wasn't much of an acknowledgement. This whole thing just bugs me from an Esperanza point of view, I guess. I know Wikipedia:Esperanza doesn't exercise enforcement power, and neither can I, but... I don't know. It still bothers me. --Elkman - ^(talk) 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm underhanded and despicable for revealing that Merecat has been using anonymous IP accounts to avoid his block for disrupting AfD. She must not have read my argument in the actual AfD. Thatcher131 03:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have unblocked TheWolfstar and offered advice. Her comments can be viewed on her usertalk. Ift he events reoccur just once more, then do what needs to be done.--MONGO 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Compare new thread "User:Thewolfstar and the community's patience" below. Bishonen | talk 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Alkivar phone number vandal

He usually uses throwaway login sockpuppet accounts, but for one of his edits he used an IP address. The contribution has since been purged from the database (still accessible to admins though, at a different location), but the IP and timestamp were:

• 70.49.111.121 (Sympatico, Canada's largest ISP: [6])
• 2006-May-05 16:25:00 UTC (= 12:25 Eastern Daylight Time)

This is the same "Dicky Robert" vandal who was active some months ago.

Anyone who wishes to express their concern can click on the above link, note the contact info for the Sympatico abuse department, and make a phone call or send an e-mail message: 1-877-877-2426, [abuse@sympatico.ca]

Since this vandal's actions are particularly reprehensible (posting personal information as an implicit incitation to real-life harassment of User:Alkivar), there really should be some WP:OFFICE type thing set up to handle persistent vandals and contact ISPs. There is Wikipedia:Abuse reports, but it would be much better if abuse reports were made in the name of and on behalf of Wikipedia, rather than private individuals making a phone call and hoping to get the time of day. -- Curps 00:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you run CheckUser on his puppet accounts? Unless the vandal slipped up, the IP is likely public. Myciconia 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. He did slip up, one time, and used an IP, which is therefore public. For the others, he used throwaway sockpuppets and checkuser would be needed as you say. -- Curps 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

He's still at it, as of less than an hour ago (latest sockpuppets = User:Dangermou and User:Danooker), contributions may have been purged from the histories by the time you read this. -- Curps 01:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Take all of the sockpuppets to WP:RFCU and they will be able to find the IPs used behind them. I saw one of the attacks at the Cuba article, the people who are doing this are complete cowards. They take offense to a user who is brave enough to post his real identity, and respond by hiding behind thier keyboards launching these petty attacks and chatting about the guy on discussion boards. I hope you can somehow turn the tables on them! Good luck Myciconia 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the WP:RFCU process doesn't publicly release IP addresses of persitent vandals (even though, arguably, persistent vandals' IP addresses are fair game for publication per clause 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy which reads: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. So for the purpose of this notification on WP:AN/I, only the one case where the vandal publicly released his own IP address is fair game for publication, so that those who wish to can express their concern. -- Curps 01:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that in this particular case, clause 6 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy would also apply: Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. And since he himself is publishing another person's direct personal information (a phone number), he could hardly have grounds to object to the public release of indirect personal information (a temporary IP address) for his logged-in sockpuppets. -- Curps 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From my experiance, the CheckUser doesn't have to be public. The cowards don't deserve the attention. This is a clearcut case of IPcheck-and-ban. Myciconia 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Post by banned user Andrew Morrow, in this case 71.139.196.143, removed by me. Sorry to leave your response hanging, Deskana, but this creep is to be reverted on sight. Please see the thread "Amorrow again", below. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Don't even try to rationalise what that vandal did! It is never acceptable for someone to post someone else's personal details! If Alkivar wants to post his phone number, that's fine. It is not acceptable for anyone else to do so, regardless of whether they think it is or not! In my opinion, such vandals should be blocked without warning- they know what they're doing is not acceptable, otherwise they wouldn't put the phone number in the edit summary and post it in the main page featured article. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I bet you didn't ask (oops I mean ASK) him if he minds either. I suspect he does mind, since he could publish his phone number on his user page if he wanted to, and has not. Even if he didn't mind, the rest of us do. Wikipedia edit summaries are not the place to publish phone numbers of individuals, with or without their approval. Quite apart from the privacy and harassment issues, it also involves vandalism of articles prominently linked from the main page.

Pretty much every single ISP in existence has a terms of service agreement that forbids harassment or infringing privacy: Sympatico's is here. Pretty open and shut if you get the attention of the right person at the ISP. -- Curps 08:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Such charming and diplomatic people we're dealing with here: [7]. -- Curps 08:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a good reason to get a dev to start working on the individual revision deletion (forgot the bug number), considering the amount of time it takes to get the phone number removed from articles (and highly viewed ones at that) currently. --Rory096 08:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, all they'd have to do is add a "select all" checkbox to Special:Undelete. We could then select all revisions, and then unselect those ones we want to keep deleted. It's hackish, but it's easy to do on the devs' part and it addresses most of the problem. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In case other admins don't know, if you shift click the first and last edits on the restore page it will serve the same function as a check all button. I just now figured that out, so hopefully it will help some other admins also. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's extremely helpful to know... Raul654 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse - William M. Connolley part 2

User:William M. Connolley has used the administrators' priviledge of rolling back to remove my remarks on his user talk page [8] [9] [10]. — Instantnood 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So? --Calton | Talk 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Others' comment on user talk page should not be removed, and even if he wants to remove them, he shouldn't have used the priviledge of adminsitrators (see also Wikipedia:Rollback). — Instantnood 10:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Others' comment on user talk page should not be removed...' Really? Which guideline states that?

...and even if he wants to remove them, he shouldn't have used the priviledge of adminsitrators (see also Wikipedia:Rollback. Hmm, and he shouldn't have used rollback why exactly? Hint: "Because I said so"? Not adequate. --Calton | Talk 12:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure they can be removed. I remove rude or insistent comments on my talkpage now and then, and so do most people. It's not like removing vandalism warnings, you know. Not using rollback would have been better, since you weren't posting over and over (where people do that against my express wish, I do use rollback, and have no apologies for it) but taken together, this has to be one of the pettiest "abuse" complaints I've seen on this page. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Still, different people have different opinions on what constitutes "rudeness". It's happened to me many times that people removed my comments from their talk page where I was mainly pointing out that they had made an error somewhere. It annoys me when people call other people "vandals" even though there is no vandalism going on, just an edit conflict. I usually leave a message on the user's talk page asking them not to do this, and then my comment is usually removed, probably because people don't want to have anything critical on their talk page. Personally, I remove profanities, but anything else anyone posts on my talk page stays there until I archive. jaco♫plane 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley is doing it again [11]. It's fine if he doesn't like my message, but he shouldn't have abuse his power as an administrator to roll back. The rollback button can't be used for purposes unrelated to the responsibilities of an administrator. Even worst was that he blocked me for three hours for " trolling on [his] talk page " (13:39, May 7, 2006 William M. Connolley blocked "Instantnood (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (trolling on my talk page) [12]). — Instantnood 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Gosh, me again. In has been trolling on my talk page (even editing my archives, gasp!) and is trolling here. I've just blocked him for 3h for it William M. Connolley 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. He does the same on my talk page, re-factoring my own comments. SchmuckyTheCat 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{unsigned}} is not "re-factoring comments"... Ashibaka tock 05:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But user:SchmuckyTheCat is not abusing the rollback button. User:William M. Connolley is. — Instantnood 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, constantly using the verb "abuse" doesn't actually make it so. Hint: the phrase "can't be used for purposes unrelated" or any variation I can think of doesn't appear on the page you wave vaguely as your justification. Are you planning to explain exactly why you're using the term, or will you continue to pretend you haven't been asked? Oh, and to help you, --Calton | Talk 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not constantly using the verb abuse, and I'm not justifying with that page. Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? — Instantnood 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not constantly using the verb abuse. You used it twice in the last two comments, Perry Mason, so you can't even dodge the subject well.

Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? Bzzt, wrong question. You claim it can't: the burden is on you to provide a shred of evidence this is true. Try again. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Twice = constantly? Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? That's a priviledge granted only to administrators for them to fulfill their duties. — Instantnood 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Twice = constantly? Those were only the first two immediately at hand, not the sum total, Hell, let's throw in the section header, to boot, and your lawyeresque nitpicking looks more and more pathetic.
• Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? That's a priviledge granted only to administrators for them to fulfill their duties. Bzzt, wrong question. You claim it can't: the burden is on you to provide a shred of evidence -- other than the question-begging claim -- that this is true. Try again. An actual quote from an actual guideline or an actual quote from an actual ArbCom decision, say, as opposed to vigorous handwaving. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you'd better work out the sum total before you accuse anything, and check carefully who add that header [13]. The Blocking Policy has no provision for him to rely on to block me, or to remove my messages by rolling back. For actual quotes, see [14] [15] [16]. — Instantnood 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked the comment Instant left on William's page. I don't think William should have reverted. I think it wrong that William, a disputant by then, blocked Instant. Mccready 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he have reverted? And why shouldn't he have blocked Instantnood? --Calton | Talk 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should somebody be blocked just because she/he has say/done something an administrator personally doesn't like? — Instantnood 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Nothing to do with what's going on, but a good question anyways. As long as we're asking irrelevant questions, let me ask, why in America do people drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?

In any case, for your situation the word "disruption" comes to mind. Also "repeatedly", "vexatious", "pestering", "wikilawyering", "ArbCom", and "probation". Lord knows why. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one way to put it. :-P --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way is my messages left at his talk page disruption? Why is it related to ArbCom and probation, etc.? — Instantnood 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean the constant whining? The constant lawyersque nitpicking of details? The refusal to answer direct questions? The sanctions from ArbCom that you have consistently ignored? The attempts to get your own way, regardless of consensus or majority opinion? Man, it all seems familiar, somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Instantnood, if someone does not wish to entertain your thoughts on their talk page, best not to impose. Best also to not charge admin abuse without clear evidence grounded in policy & common sense. El_C 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it common sense, no matter there's policy or not, that administrator priviledges such as block and rollback shouldn't be used beyond administrators' duties? Is it a good sign to remove anybody's message from one's own user talk page with no reply and no edit summary? — Instantnood 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please cite and/or quote those instances if it really seems familiar. Thank you. — Instantnood 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WMC appears to get a lot of complaints. Usually admins getting a lot of complaints on Wikipedia signifies either that the admin is particularly good, or particularly bad. I know which one this is (hint: it's not the second one). Stifle (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal telephone number of an Admin

Hello Admins,

I thought i would report that User:Elasticgasket has mentioned an Administrator's telephone number in an edit summary [17]. I have told the Admin involved, but i guess it should be dealt with ASAP. Rockpocket (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems someone dealt with it already. Johnleemk | Talk 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I have removed that edit from the history of the page. Can I strongly recommend that all admins go here to find a quick way of checking all boxes when doing a partial restoration of a page. In this case, there were only eighty-something versions, but in a page which has several hundred, it's fantastic to have a way of checking all boxes immediately, so that you can just uncheck the box for the two or three edits that you want to remove. AnnH ♫ 07:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to another admin, all you have to do is select the first checkbox, then press shift and select the last one. I have no idea if it works, though. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It works for me in IE6 and the most recent versions of Firefox and Opera. I don't know how other browsers respond. —David Levy 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to use 'Ctrl-Shift' rather than just 'Shift' in Firefox 1.0.7. --CBDunkerson 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also one of these in (deleted for privacy), but if I tried to deal with it I'd break something. Henry^Flower 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and emailed Brion about it. --InShaneee 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to delete the page for ten minutes, but couldn't do it. Snoutwood (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried as well, but kept getting an error message. AnnH ♫ 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I emailed Brion. :) --InShaneee 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's gone now. —Encephalon 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JayJG and DakotaKahn

JayJG removed sourced material from Arabs and anti-semitism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial, which I had added. One of these was a sourced material on current events involving documents from the British National Archive which prove the Nazis shipped weaponry to Muslim groups in Palestine during World War 2.

I left him a message asking him NOT to vandalize wikipedia.[18]

In response, DakotaKahn (whose own talk page cannot be left messages on) wrote me a message accusing me of "vandalizing" Jayjg's talk page and started chain reverting me.[19][20]

Please do something about this abusive user DakotaKahn. ForgetNever 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DakotaKahn continues, including chain-reverting MY OWN TALK PAGE and stalking me, removing my edits from other pages and talk pages too. SOMEONE PLEASE DO SOMETHING.ForgetNever 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This has now been resolved and I thank the admins who did follow up after being informed in IRC chat. ForgetNever 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ForgetNever is a rather transparent sockpuppet of Enviroknot, KaintheScion, ElKabong, etc. In addition to the page interest and edititg habits, many peculiarities of IRC discourse match. Demi ^T/_C 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, this reminds me of my own sockpuppet, User:Never Forget. El_C 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aloha1212 (talk · contribs)

He keeps removing the POV tag from University of Ottawa. Ardenn 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems more like there is an attempt to keep the article hostage with the POV tag. Much of the discussion seems to be about statements which while somewhat laudatory in tone are really quite uncontroversial. Martinp 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC), uninvolved but marginally knowledgeable about the U of O.

[edit] User:Encyclopedist

Long time user Encyclopedist has decided to finally burn his bridges with the project. (See here for info on what lead up to this.) He is now asking for his contributions to be wiped from the project. Obviously this cannot be done for him, but he's also asking for the pages in his user space to be wiped, including User, Talk, etc. He says he wants to see a "red link" where his talk used to be. This step I'm less certain of. What generally is the policy on user-requested deletion of User space stuff? Delete none? Delete all? Delete all except the main User and Talk? - TexasAndroid 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

All pages in a user's userspace should be deleted at the user's request. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as a general rule, pages can be deleted upon the author's request. However, there are exceptions. In this case, I believe the former user pages are a useful record of past events and should not be deleted. Friday (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Admins can always undelete, or at least view deleted material if it ever becomes neccisary. For the time being, if he wants his pages gone, they ought to be deleted. --InShaneee 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Sigh. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have some idea that deleted revisions may become permanently and inaccessibly deleted after long periods of time with some kind of Flushing of the Server™. Is that true, do deleted pages eventually get flushed? or am I just dreaming that? Anyway, I note that this high-schooler has been User:Dbraceyrules and User:V. Molotov before he was User:Encyclopedist. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw another incarnation of this phoenix rising before too long. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Errata: apparently this chap is actually a college sophomore. We regret any inconvenience this error may have caused you. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, he is welcome back. He should serve a block, definitely, but the total exodus is his choice at this point. Yeah, he did go out in a blaze of vandalism, but it was all directed at one user, who has pretty much ignored the whole thing. But he was definitely a productive editor before this recent meltdown. So while he should definitely take some time off, I have no real problem with him returning under this or another user name at some point in the future after he has cooled off over all this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TexasAndroid (talk • contribs) .

Why should we welcome someone who has admitted to using over 40 sock puppets to terrorize and bring ill repute upon another user? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he's done decent work and people reform. Snoutwood (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a really poor example, consdering how frequently Mike Garcia is blocked for 3RR violations. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that he's now making constructive edits despite once being one of the worst vandals in Wikipedia history. Snoutwood (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If Encyclopedist's the same fellow as User:Dbraceyrules, because Dbr & I have crossed paths I'll vouch for his basic good nature; in a way, he reminds me of myself 30 years younger. Some days I wonder were I his age if I would get in as much trouble. -- llywrch 05:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it as a question of, what would have happened to him if he had done all the vandalism he did, but not asked to be blocked and basically left the project as he did? What would have been done to him in that case? Would he still have been indefinitely blocked? For me, personally, especially considering his long history as a valued editor, I would likely have given him a nice block, somewhere from a week to a month, and let that be it. I would not have given an indefinite block for a meltdown like this had he not asked to be blocked. But he did ask, so I did block. But given that I would have given a finite block if he had not asked to be blocked, I cannot see the "indefinite" part as being up to him. Should he return in a few months to a year much calmer, and hopefully repentant of his actions during this meltdown, I would have no problem giving him a second chance. Just my personal view of the situation. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but such information should be available to non-admins as well. There's no reason to hide this stuff from public view. Snoutwood (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages should not be deleted. Other user pages, including subpages, may in general be deleted at the user's request. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Talk pages should always be left unless there is nothing useful there (insignificant contributor - all silliness) or their are personal/privacy considerations. I was of the opinion that leaving talk pages intacy was the established norm. I am minded to undelete the talk pages, unless someone can give me a reason why not. --Doc ^ask? 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, it appears they are not currently deleted. --Doc ^ask? 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be in keeping with WP:UP. And it makes sense, right? A user talk page is a record of interactions, and has been edited by many contributors, so deletion probably shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the user. But every other page in the user's userspace (presuming it's solely the user's work) can be speedied, I think. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, there is currently a page there, but it's not his talk page. The talk page was deleted, and replaced with a template, and then protected. There are 3 visible edits versus 500 deleted edits. If you feel that user talk pages should not be deleted, then there is still a job for you to do there. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The history was undeleted, but because he used page move archiving, the history of the talk page only goes back a few months. The talk page archives would have to be undeleted to have the whole history. NoSeptember ^talk 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted his talk page and talk archives, since they were created by moving parts of the history. They remain blanked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with the extraordinary exception in cases like Gator1. Snoutwood (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me a clueless question: Blocking reason was "After being identified as abuse sock-puppeter, admits this...." That makes it sound as if he was identified before he started talking about sockpuppets. Was he? His sockpuppet rant seemed incoherent to me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out the link I gave in my first comment at the top. It's to the spot where I let User:John Reid know that his personal vandal had been identified. He was identified by CheckUser. This was several days ago. The IP responsible was blocked for a day or two over it all. Today Encyclopedist returned, as himself, blanked all the pages in his user space, and hit John Reid's pages for one last wave of vandalism, this time as Encyclopedist himself, no sock puppetry. For the earlier vandalism, look back through the history on User:John Reid and User Talk:John Reid for a series of sock puppets, all reverted, in the last couple of weeks, starting with a chain of them that twisted John's user name in various ways. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, sorry, I skipped over that link because I saw Encyclopedists' latest edits on it through diffs. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Shocking. I'm sure there's more to it than meets the eye. DJ had exhibited difficulties with conflict resolution and temperment before. Hopefuly, these are areas that will see improvement in his life. El_C 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights at Preying from the Pulpit

The afd for Preying from the Pulpit resulted in no consensus. Now three users who wanted the material deleted are claiming that LINKS to partial audio clips of the broadcast violate copyright violations. These three user just happen to had called me names and broke WP:CIVIL over past disagreements related to the subject. Some more opinions are welcome. Arbusto 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The AfD resulted in one person besides Arbusto voting "keep" and eight others voting to get rid of the article about a non-notable topic. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're just links they can't be considered copyright violations, despite the fact that people like SCO may think otherwise so my suggestion is just to ignore them and revert if they try to take it into their own hands and remove the links themselves without a discussion or a good (and valid) reason to do so. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're just links they can't be considered copyright violations. Wikipedia policy specifically states that we should not link to things that are suspected to be copyright violations. And also, there are court cases where "contributory infringement" has been found to be actionable. Providing links to download sites where copyrighted materials are believed to exist is considered contributory infringement. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be nice also if someone would confirm whether or not the tapes by themselves are fair use. If they are then it renders the matter moot. JoshuaZ 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

39 total minutes, amounting to 5/7th of the program called "Preying from the Pulpit" is not "fair use". The wordings most courts use for educational fair-use are "limited amounts", "brief quotes", "short passages", etc... and even then they must be used for comment and criticism. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. There is a policy about not linking to sites that violate copyright. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if it is "fair-use", then it doesn't violated copyright. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Have I got the essentials right, here?

• Preying from the Pulpit was a six-part series of reports, aired as part of the regular 10:00 news by WJBK in Detroit. PftP was one segment of the half-hour news program.
• Linked are audio recordings of five of the six PftP segments, taken from the news hour without permission.

It looks, in that case, like we've linked to audio of the majority of the content discussed in the article, without the copyright owner's permission. On the article's talk page, a couple of putative 'fair use' arguments have been presented.

First is the notion that since the PftP segments linked represent only a small fraction of the week's entire newscast, this constitutes fair use under some sort of de minimus criterion. We've linked nearly all of PftP; it's the subject of the article, and the entire creative work being discussed. It's obviously a complete work in its own right; claiming that it's just a small part of the entire newscast seems irrelevant.

The second argument is that since we've only linked the audio, it should be fair use. I suspect that if we 'only' linked to the audio of (for example) two thirds of Star Wars: A New Hope, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. The audio is an essential part of the work, valuable in its own right. As far as the information content of PftP goes, the audio is probably more useful than the video.

I really don't think we can link to this stuff with a clear conscience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we can link to this stuff with a clear conscience. Me either. Not unless the copyright holder decides to give permission. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some private web site is hosting copyrighted material without permission. Posting a link here does not create any wrongdoing on wikipedia's part. The question per RS is do the audio files accurately represent the content of the original broadcast or have they been altered in some way. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that would should judge external links by our consciences. N, V and RS should be enough. Thatcher131 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that would should judge external links by our consciences. N, V and RS should be enough. There is another policy you need to judge links by, Thatcher131. It is at WP:COPY. It says, "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. " Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fear not—I'm not really suggesting that individuals should listen to their consciences. It was just shorthand for our external links policy:

...Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us...

We try to respect the copyrights of others, just as we expect others to respect the copyrights of Wikipedia and its contributors. The online recording obviously represents a fine source from a verifiability and reliability standpoint, but it isn't kosher for us to encourage our readers to (perhaps even unwittingly) infringe someone else's copyright. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the fight over this article and these links is due to their use as a reference for allegations about Jack Hyles. -Will Beback 06:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The show referenced was in 1993 and the person it was about is dead. Why is this an issue now? --John Nagle 06:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal information posted

Can someone delete some changes at homosexuality, about 3 or 4 on total with persoanl inforamtion. It has been reverted, warnings are on the way. Kim van der Linde ^{it's a girl} 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also at AIDSKim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also done. Vandals blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Snoutwood (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My great pleasure. Snoutwood (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We admire you...for what you've done.Mikey1204 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rival website"? That came outta nowhere! Ashibaka tock 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no rivals.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, thank God for you guys.CheerleaderFight! 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, Ashibaka, meet socks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Socks, meet Zoe and Ashibaka. JDoorjam Talk 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a tip to User:CheerleaderFight!. Your username could possibly get you blocked.

....See, I told you that I was friendly.FriendlyFreddy 02:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone's having fun. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The AN:I troll yet again...seriously, I have yet to see a stranger MO. --InShaneee 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phish reversions on May 9

At Phish, User:68.112.25.197 continues to wholesale revert the entire page back 5, 10, 15, 20 edits to a version he seemed to like better. I left a message asking him or her to list his troubles with the article on the talk page rather than simply revert so many good faith edits. I am hoping for an intervention of some kind, because myself, User:Moeron and User:MusicMaker5376 are putting quite an effort into paring down the article and makingit reader-friendly. Thanks. BabuBhatt 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that the page has been disrupt by 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs). They continually tried to remove {{fact}} templates that were placed in the article without providing a citation, even resorting to attacks. Examples include [21] and [22] --Moeron 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the short block I've given doesn't get his/her attention, we'll try a longer one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you GT for your swift help. Cheers! --Moeron 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —  MusicMaker 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIAB -- personal attack

New article CIAB is a personal attack against someone named "Chad Irwin", and speedy delete tags added by several editors have been immediately removed by the original poster, Mikeystohlman (talk · contribs). The usual warnings were placed on the user's talk page and were removed by that user. Request appropriate corrective action. --John Nagle 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cyde again

I trust that this, from WP:UBD was intended as a joke; nevertheless, an admin who declares

• "our" intention to ignore a part of the voices on one side of an issue
• and "our" lack of appreciation for other arguments on that issue

should really not be closing or kibitzing such debates. Someone might take him seriously.

Doc suggested two interpretations of the "we" here. There is another one; [23] Cyde is an editor; although he doesn't seem to have done much with article text lately. There was a time when he thought there were more imprtant things he could contribute to the encyclopedia than fighting the UserBox Wars. [24][25] which also demonstrates his one-time conviction that Process is Important for admins. Perhaps he will recollect himself. Septentrionalis

I decided not to post this; the offending message is gone now, and the discussion in question closed. But then I ran across Wikipedia:Deletion review/Automobile and Motor Manufacturer CFD, which suggests Cyde may not have been joking.

• There was a Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24#Automobile_manufacturers_categories CfD about renaming categories of automobile manufacturers by country.
  • Fairly early on, a amendment was suggested, making the categories for the UK and the Dominions Motor manufacturers instead. It got a sound majority; I would count it 7-2-2.
• Cyde did the renaming, making all the cats Automobile manufacturers instead.
• When asked about it, he cited a slogan of his own, that Consistency is God as though it were policy; all this just to start an Anglo-American usage dispute.

This is no way for an admin to behave. Septentrionalis 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this more appropriate for RFC? This doesn't seem appropriate for ANI. I have a current RFC you can piggyback on if you wish; others certainly have! --Cyde Weys 07:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there is an ongoing RfC, best to place any evidence there – in a stable framework. This board is for incidents of an immediate nature. El_C 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that a stable location? Bishonen declared the original complaint to be unvalidated, on the grounds that it was one user and anons, who had not attempted dispute resolution; it is therefore subject to deletion. (I would strongly deprecate any such deletion.) Septentrionalis 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

there are also various users complaining about off topic complaints.Geni 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Prasi90

I am assuming after over 130 substantive edits to wikinews that have been decent, there is a chance that Prasi90 has reformed. I won't go into the details for those unfamiliar with this situation..it's long and boring...but I have unblocked Prasi90 and will assume good faith.--MONGO 07:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to know this matter appears to be tending in the right direction. —Encephalon 11:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:NawashiTatu

Well, if you search on 'tatu' in Wikipedia search, you come to the site 'Tatu', a redirection page to t.A.T.u., and that's what it's supposed to be. There's a link to Tatu (disambiguation) in the beginning of the t.A.T.u. article to differ various uses. On that page, there's a link to a japanese erotic artist called Tatu. Now the user in question constantly reverts the 'tatu' search term to the pornographic artist, which I believe is not what many users seek when they want to search for 'tatu', in the most cases, it's t.A.T.u. they seek, but we also give the chance for other uses. It annoys me that the user don't even uses talk pages to explain himself, he just want this bondage rope artist to be the first thing people must enter when people search for supposedly t.A.T.u. Need help, he won't listen. Thanks in advance. Shandris 09:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm deliberating protecting the page. Blocking the user if he continues seems harsh, but protecting the page seems over the top for one disruptive user... I've reverted the changes and left a note on the user's talk page. I think the subject of his article falls under CSD A7 anyway. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Doct.proloy

I see some rather eccentric contributions from Doct.proloy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). See in particular this, this, this, this, this, etc. I don't know whether it's vandalism or just a clueless newbie, and I wouldn't like to block without being sure. Could someone keep an eye on those contributions, as I'm quite busy today. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 09:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It reads like a newbie. It's probably best to assume good faith and offer some form of guidance. The contributions are quite innocent, so we're in a position to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. If it escalates, we can always resort to heavier means. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It reads more like a platitude bot to me. This one suggests some degraded code. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

A platitude what? Kimchi.sg 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Bhatta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ([26], [27]), Ph.D.Nikki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (already blocked for 24h) and Peter.M.D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ([28], [29]) are making edits similar to these. Kimchi.sg 14:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Strange, all four use degrees in their usernames. Doct, Dr, PhD, and MD. Time to sift through today's user creation logs for more accounts. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also a little unusual: there are no spaces before or after the titles in their usernames, which is not how most people would type them. Kimchi.sg 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is yet again evading his indefinite block as 216.194.58.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (evidence: [30]). Can an administrator block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gangsta_B_Nigga and Haley york

This user (with a patently offensive username) has only made one contribution, creating a blatant attack page. I have nominated the page for speedy deletion and request that the user be blocked or other appropriate action taken.

Blocked indefinitely for inappropriate username. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recommend blocking 216.125.36.3

I recommend blocking this IP address. I just reverted vandalism to "Nuclear and radiation accidents" and noticed that this user already has a long history of vandalism and vandalism warnings. I think it's time to follow through with those warnings. Karn 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place to report such vandalism for fastest response. - TexasAndroid 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

He keeps removing disputed and afd tags from Age of consent in North America. Ardenn 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

you moved article w/o discussion, or EVEN a summary. removed comment. nominated articles for speedy deletion w/o any reasons. and now you have enough courage to blame someone else? shame on you. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, I was trying to have the title be more accurate to the content. Ardenn 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also within my right to dispute the content. Until it is settled, it is vandalizm to remove the tag. Ardenn 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He added those yesterday, too. I reverted his tag (NOR is not a reason for speedy, and they weren't even original research in the first place) and I got a boilerplate vandalism template on my talk page. He seems to be disputing something in the article (I can't tell what) and trying to delete all Age of consent-related articles.

I blocked him for 48 hours for continuing to remove tags and showing no signs on his talk page that he plans to stop being incivil any time soon. --InShaneee 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Ardenn has acted agressivly, as is his penchant in disputes, to wikilitigate this entire affair. I suggest that an adminstrator might want to look at his editing history and determine to what extent his desire was to resolve a dispute, and to what extent it was to agitate his opposition, and review said block in that light. Clarifier 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also recommend another admin (I am not one) look this over. I see aggressive behaviour by Ardenn which provoked Tasc into a borderline uncivil discussion with InShanee on Tasc's user talk page. A well chosen calming word combined with a second admonishment on not letting oneself be provoked would have made sense. A 1-2 hour block to make the point might be appropriate. A 48 hour block seems way excessive. Martinp 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC), an uninvolved party who visited after commenting on another AN:I incident involving Ardenn above.

I've closed the AfD nomination as speedy keep, as the consensus was obvious and the nomination was invalid anyway. If you want to discuss the correct name for that article, the proper place for that is WP:RM. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I just recieved this email from Tasc: "in case you haven't noticed. you are an idiot and i'm not going to explain you why. i can bet you wouldn't be able to comprehend a single thought." If anyone wants to extend his block, I won't object in the least. --InShaneee 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crawfords.com

I don't understand why my link was blocked or deleted. I was trying to further edit the page but ran into this problem. Others have their links so I don't think I did anything wrong. Please explain and I apoglise has a new user if I violated some rule. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garycrawfordusa (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody will have a clue what you're talking about unless you can show us exactly what page you're referring to. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is in reference to Crawfords.com. JDoorjam Talk 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:220.227.152.109

This user was causing disruption on Talk:Khalistan and was blocked for 48 hours. In my eyes, this block is unjustified as he was not warned before-hand on his talk page. I see that it is difficult to assume good faith with this editor with the edits he has made on the concerned page, but warning him before hand would have been as per the protocol. Please unblock him or reduce the duration. --Andy123(talk) 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to unblock him. JoshuaZ 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghostalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I've blocked this user for a week for this very nasty comment and his further threats of incivility afterwards. Do you think this warrants a longer/indef block? --InShaneee 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to leave it as a week (so as not to feed the trolls) and then re-block for longer if behaviour continues on return. Petros471 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, wait a week, and if he hasn't figured out WP:CIVIL in the interim, mopsmack him off the 'pedia for a longer period, maybe an indef. The project doesn't need editors who express that sort of vitriol toward their peers. JDoorjam Talk 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Malber / User:DyslexicEditor

Moved from WP:AN:

Is constantly erasing any comments a user makes on an article talkspace reportable? in Talk:Daniel Brandt User:Malber erases anything I say no matter what and games the system as his reasons.

I think these edits by Malber explain things personal attack and two. Also User page vandalism and he was blocked for other personal attacks and again for talk page vandalism (which he still does)

So can I report him here? I ask first because I feel the wikipedia bureaucracy is corrupt. Malber is probably a sock puppet of some admin who hates Daniel Brandt's website about wikipedia and complaining about admins is a bannable offense so I don't want to complain about him unless I hear back from people here. DyslexicEditor 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do DyslexicEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) a favor and outline the events:

• After noticing an off-topic post by this user at Talk:Daniel Brandt, I decided to refactor spam links to an administrator attack site. [31]
• Then, after further consideration, I decided to remove the comments as being off-topic and per WP:RPA. [32]
• User reinserts reference to attack site and adds personal attack on me. [33]
• I remove the new personal attack [34] and add the {{NPA}} warning to user's talk page. [35]
• User then focuses an off-topic discussion about the aforementioned attack site and myself which I promptly remove. [36] [37]
• User then procedes to insert comments about this issue in several talk page discussions I have been active in and to spam various other user talk pages. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

I have tried to remain cool and have left the user the appropriate warnings on his talk page. I don't wish to debate this issue further. I think there needs to be some administrator intervention here. I leave it to the administrators to review this issue and do what is best. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For starters, it might be a good idea to quit deleting other people's comments. Unless a comment is a pure personal attack that does not express a view on any subject at hand, it's probably best to leave it stand. If someone makes dumb comments, that reflects badly on them; if you delete a comment that's not entirely dumb, that reflects badly on you.

It's a particularly bad idea to delete accusations that you have done something wrong. Even if you don't regard those accusations as worth responding to, deleting them makes it appear that you can't answer them. Let petty remarks stand for what they are. By deleting them, you make them appear more important, important enough that you want to silence them.

In short: Just move on. --FOo 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Another good rule of thumb: NPA is not a policy, but rather a guideline. However, if it were a policy, all elements of it would need to be followed, and what is often overlooked is that, when a personal attack is removed, it should be archived, with a note left in its place explaining the deletion and linking to the comment's new location. I.e. it's never simple deletion. It's removal (to another location). I haven't reviewed this case and have no opinion on whether any one side's behavior has been an outrage, but it's worth reminding all readers from time to time that personal attack removal is not personal attack erasing. Geogre 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If it were simply a personal attack that was on-topic, I would have either refactored it or archived it. But not only was it a personal attack, it wasn't even on the topic of the Daniel Brandt article and warranted deletion on that basis alone. If the user wants to discuss why a user thinks an administrator is good, take it to user talk. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not doing personal attacks. Someone said these two people are the best here and I obviously wondered why so I plugged them into google and the links I gave are the first google results off wikipedia (mirrors included). Deleting things in talk pages is just plain bad. No matter what one claims as talk page comment is, if someone puts it in talk, that means it's not in the main article. I tried many different versions to please Malber, but all failed. In Malber's contributions, he removes comments from talk pages constantly. In my opinion he's a sock puppet of a more experienced editor who has an intense hatred of certain topics on wikipedia and instead of doing trolling and vandalism on their main account, which would bring it shame, they use a second account for the unsavory alter-ego edits. Malber basically goes around acting like he can do whatever he wants and always get his way. I believe he lied about "I have tried to remain cool" because talk-page-section-blanking-vandalism and harassment with giving a type acronym as the reason in attempt to game the system is not remaining cool nor is his trying to cause trouble for me on this page. One thing he cites of me was me editing my own text I had written, another is me asking the question to the original person I asked in the Brandt article on the original person's talk page (I included complaints about Malber's abuse toward me because I was upset and wanted to explain), another thing he cited was when Malber warned someone for making nonsense vandalism and I looked at the contribution and they only removed some POV adjectives and it looked like Malber warned someone out of sole enjoyment, and the last was Malber doing website-bashing disguised by gaming the system and the edits Malber has made that were attacks on the people who ran the site are notable so I alerted someone to Malber's strong POV.

Also Malber's account is kind of untruthful, he says I reinserted the same thing and it was a much toned down version. I did mention Malber's talk-page-section-blanking vandalism as I felt trying to censor myself to please Malber would make me look bad. Malber so far had just basically at that point been reverting and gaming the system to give a reason--and in my humble opinion he reverts out of sport and enjoyment (this is not something particular to him as I've seen many people do it across the wikis). He claimed he gave a warning and he leaves out that I responded to it, disputing his claims and after. Then I go through his contributions and find he does abuse to everyone. Also he violated the 3RR rule for constant reverts. None of what I put in was the same information. I ask an injunction against Malber for 3RR violations and talk page vandalism, preventing him from blanking my comments. I did not make any attacks--and any criticism was made by others (such as a forum on a website). DyslexicEditor 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ESoW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

odd behavior from newbie/vandal account, could someone please undu his pagemove, probable vandalism, editor unresponsive--64.12.116.65 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• hello, pagemove vandalism just waiting to be reverted, I did a copy/paste job but it would be better if someone could do a formal pagemove to fix this--64.12.116.65 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Its only response so far has been to threaten legal action against wikipedia for defamation, it's only edits before this have been borderline vandalism, please someone look into this--64.12.116.65 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been dealt with (by other admins after I rejected AIV). An honest, if incorrect, effort to give someone their due in a page title is not vandalism. RadioKirk talk to me 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment 10 seconds worth of examination of the history of this article has yeilded the source of the problem.. the first and only person to call him a doctor is himself, here on wikipedia and based on the apparent timing, it seems as though he's still doing it, only with a new account. The only interest I had in the article was that I noticed the intial pagemove, and brought it here--64.12.116.65 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, it's a case of original research, and the user(s) will need to be advised. If it continues after the notification, then it's vandalism. RadioKirk talk to me 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User appears to have stopped after being informed of the three-revert rule at his talk page. Isopropyl 02:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Only just seen this here (I responded to the WP:RFI report- note: please don’t cross-post there and here, or at least say that you have). I blocked for 24 hours, for continual reverting against consensus (breaking 3RR). Even though the user stopped after the last 3RR warning, that could have simply been the user having to stop editing for whatever reason. The edit summaries showed no signs of wanting to seek consensus, and previous warnings had been given. In addition this is likely a sock account, so I'll place a WP:RFCU if they continue. Petros471 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just indef-block anyway. It's either an abusive sock or a plain-vanilla POV-pushing vandal. Whatever, I'd say it should be shown the door. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

152.121.18.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is continuing the same sort of behavior, I would block but I'm too involved in the article. JoshuaZ 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, as it looks like the same person. As for indef blocking ESoW, I'd rather there was concrete evidence of it being sock account, or a clear indention to keep breaking the 3RR on return (which looks likely). Petros471 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Airport Manager

Just declaring a sockpuppet account. It's being used to maintain a separate watchlist and will not be making any edits. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really unnecessary to post this here. It's already flagged on the userpage, that's good enough. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I know but better everybody knows about it because sooner or later I'll forget and make an edit with it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not many people complain when I make edits from my sock accounts.Geni 06:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because they're called Genisock*. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 190 Proof blocked indefinitely

I have stuck my neck right out by blocking 190 Proof indefinitely. His user page, his talk page, his edits, his edit summaries are all chock full of abuse, obscenity, and hate speech towards Muslims. The depth of 190 Proof's hatred and anger really comes across in his contribution history, and it is blatantly obvious that he is unwilling and possibly unable to reign in his emotions to write from a neutral point of view. I have extended an invitation to him to appeal his block if and when he is willing to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:V.

I have no idea if my actions are in accordance with policy, but I'm damned sure they're good for the encyclopaedia. If you guys disagree with my actions after reviewing 190 Proof's contributions, then of course I am prepared to have the block overturned. Snottygobble 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Seems determined to assault all who cross his path, and no evidence of reform. --InShaneee 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(IANAA) I almost always look with disfavor on indef blocks (especially for users with few contributions, who may later comport themselves with Wikipedia policy and become productive editors, irrespective of initial volitional disruptions) and almost always oppose blocks that rest in substantial part (this one likely doesn't) on a user's contributions to his/her user page, even where those contributions tend to defame classes (as against individual editors), but, having reviewed the user's contribs, I agree wholly with this indef block. As a non-admin member of the community, then, and in view of the community patience blocking criterion, I support Snotty's indef block. Joe 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that 190 Proof is a sockpuppet of user Enviroknot, banned by the Arbitration Commitee. While Snottygobble obviously didn't know this at the time, the block should stand, as the account is a sockpuppet of a banned user being used to evade the ban. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian peoples

Could anyone please pay attention to edit warring at Iranian peoples page? An anonymous user keeps including Azeris into the list of Iranian people despite them being Turkic speakers and the inclusion not being supported by voting on the talk page. It’s not a violation of 3RR yet, because the anon is not acting alone, but it is a blatant POV push. Grandmaster 10:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxers

Hard2Explain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to have created several hoax articles: plank cricket & Robert Dawson. Strongly suggest that 82.110.217.131 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and Fusen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are one and the same user, and are trying to mask their hoaxes by asking questions about the subjects on the talk pages. Do people think a CheckUser is a good idea? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia:Abuse reports is the forum for schoolboy vandalism. Dr Zak 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting another editor's phone number

Just a query — if an anonymous IP or a newly registered account makes an edit saying in the edit summary "Admin Bishonen's home phone number is (telephone number redacted)" (I made that up, by the way, so if it really is Bishonen's phone number, that will be the most amazing coincidence) and putting that text into the edit as well, what is an admin supposed to do (over and above rolling back the edit and blocking the account)? I wouldn't hesitate to delete the page and restore all versions except the offending one if it's a page with a few hundred edits, and I know that one can contact a developer for removal of personal information on larger pages (or for removal of personal information so that even admins can't see it). But there's always the suspicion that it's a time-wasting hoax, and that the editor's number isn't that one at all. Last year, an anon posted my address and phone number to my talk page in the middle of the night (Irish time), and an admin (I wasn't one myself then) very kindly did a big delete and partial undelete. But in fact, it wasn't my address or phone number at all; it was just a made up one. I saw it happening with a talk page this morning (not Bishonen's number, someone else's) — it was rolled back by another admin — and I did a rough count of versions in the history. There seem to be approximately 6,000. I did a deletion/part-restoration of a page with over 3000 versions at the Easter weekend, and my arm was aching at the end. (By the way why doesn't someone invent a button that you can click that says check all boxes, so that you can quickly carry out the part-restoration?) I don't think I'd have time at the moment to do that job, and I'm not even sure I should with such a big page, as it could cause the server to crash. And, in all likelihood, it's a hoax. Comments please? AnnH ♫ 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a common problem we were having yesterday. The history that contains the phone number should be deleted, and the article should be restored without that history. This happened to all of the pages that are linked from the Main Page. I think the way to do this is restore only the offending history, move it to another page, and then restore the rest. You don't have to click the box.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Now why didn't someone tell me that at Easter Weekend (groan)? Many thanks, Kungfu. It's extremely helpful to know that. If done the job. I tried it out as an experiment on one of my own subpages first, so that I wouldn't lose anything that mattered. AnnH ♫ 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked about this myself on the Help Desk the other day. There is a way to check all revisions of an article so you can just uncheck the one you want to delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the link either, but I know it's out there. What you want is a bookmarklet that ticks all the boxes. Create a new bookmark in your browser and paste in the location/address: javascript:for (i=0; i<document.forms.length; i++) { for (j=0; j<document.forms[i].elements.length; j++) { f= document.forms[i].elements[j]; if (f.type == 'checkbox') f.checked= true; } } void 0. Then all you have to do is select that bookmark when at the restore page.--Commander Keane 16:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the database crashing thing, I've heard it happens but I'm not sure how much information there has to be. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid that's too complicated for a poor musical linguist. I did it the way Kungfu suggested. Maybe I'll think about your method another time. It sounds like something worth knowing. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just imagine all that hideous code (in the different font) actually says "Fluffy kittens, I love fluffy kittens, everyone loves fluffy kittens" and all you have to do is find out how to make a new bookmark and copy and paste "fluffy kittens" into the URL field. In Firefox it's 'Bookmarks/Manage Bookmarks' in the menu, then the 'New Bookmark' :button. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried my method on my sandbox and it worked like a charm! I suggest however, protecting the page before you delete it, and restore the protected version and the bad history. Move that to the Article name/bad then restore the rest. Revert to the reversion before the redirect, and you are done!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, don't forget to delete the bad version when you are all done.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't forget that! And just an update — I've tried what Commander Keane suggests, and it works! I didn't try it on a deletion. I went to my watchlist, and then to "display and edit the complete list", and then went to the "Check all boxes", which I had entered into my "Favorites" and instantly, they were all checked. Thanks again to everyone. AnnH ♫ 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another way is to shift-click the first and last boxes. Apparently the developers don't want to add a "check all" button; I've requested it, but it's been denied. Ral315 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Add User:Cryptic/toggleundelete.js to your monobook.js but I agree it would be good to have a button as standard. the wub "?!" 14:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just attempted my first delete/restore (after testing, of course) to Great Wall of China to remove a phone number (there was no area code, but it could theoretically have been traced) and it appears to have worked like a charm :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef-block of Avillia

I have indef-blocked Avillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) after a string of very serious incidents. I'm bringing it here for review:

• 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).
• Reposting of private IRC logs onto Wikipedia.
• Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism.
• A similar thing was done with VandalProof, another piece of software that has a check feature.
• A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DCC exploits that affect me and others on the #wikipedia channel.

This is clearly not the kind of user we need to put up with having around. Please review. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Support completely. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

support blocking under the "exhausted community patience" section of the blocking policy Benon 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Cyde. This user has hacked AWB in bad faith, bragged about it on IRC constantly, and invited people to vandalize wikipedia with it. He has been given quite a few chances and has not reformed. In fact, the next time someone does this, I suggest we don't wait a month to block. pschemp | talk 01:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, note I was the one who was reverting Avilla on Criticism of Wikipedia and he was removing parts that he wanted from the article, even though I agree with Avilla on a few things though and removed them myself. That's not enough for a indef block but the other things are serious and I endorse the block. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, enough is enough. Avillia has made a few useful edits but the majority of his braggings "hacking AWB to bypass authentication" then complaining when an IP using the hacked version was blocked claiming we have no policy for it, to the freenode hacking, Avillia just raises major problems here and elsewhere. -- Tawker 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Another support here. Ral315 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I just accidentally stumbled upon Avillia's request for unblock, and I hate to go against so many respectable admins, but I have to disagree with this block. I've been fed up with Avillia since day one when he started harassing me about WP:VandalProof and posed serious threats to the project's survival; then I came across the FreeAWB incident and suggested that the user be blocked or taken to an WP:RfC; then I came across the IRC logs incident; then I saw the WP:RfC his opened for Tawker and Essjay; then I saw the personal attacks on his userpage, and I was utterly convinced that the user should be banned. However, since then the user has calmed down quite significantly, has removed FreeAWB links from his page and apologized for the incident, has apologized to me, and he has now actually begun helping me out with WP:VandalProof, providing a lot of very useful input about how to improve the tool. Maybe I'm just assuming way, way, way too much good faith here, but I feel the user may actually be making an honest attempt to improve. I feel he may be able eventually to contribute quite a lot to the encyclopedia, and I certainly don't think he is a lost cause. I understand that he has exausted your patience, and I don't blame you one bit, but perhaps a shorter block (maybe 3 months?) with continued probation thereafter might be more appropriate, rather than an indefinite ban. In any case, it's likely quite inconsequential--I have no doubt that after the user is banned, he will return again anonymously as a sockpuppet, and perhaps he'll continue down the same road or maybe he will actually help to build an encyclopedia. In any case, I certainly don't want this to appear as support for Avillia's actions; rather, I would just like to ask you all to maybe consider a less permanent "punishment." AmiDaniel (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is just wrong.

• 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).
  • Support a 24-hour block for this.
• Reposting of private IRC logs onto Wikipedia.
  • Support a ban from #wikipedia. But he was trying to justify himself, not troll. Good faith.
• Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism.
  • I don't think this second claim is accurate. Also, anyone can do this. It's an open source tool that edits pages for you. This possibly is a stress on the community's goodwill but it is only tinkering. At most, this deserves up to a week-long block.
• A similar thing was done with VandalProof, another piece of software that has a check feature.
  • I don't believe he actually accomplished this.
• A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DCC exploits that affect me and others on the #wikipedia channel.
  • I would support a ban from #wikipedia.

Avilla is clearly an excellent hacker who could make good contributions if he were to be banned from messing around with semi-bots, or something like that. Ashibaka tock 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, what? We can trust him as long as the rest of Wikipedia stays on his good side?! With all respect, not even WP:JIMBO should have that kind of power... RadioKirk talk to me 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ashibaka (glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this is harsh!). He did threaten to remove authentication from VP, but as source code was never provided, he never accomplished this. I was also not sure about the anon who vandalized with FreeAWB (I was just returning to ask about that when I saw this comment), as I think that may have just been a rumor. I would entirely support a ban from #wikipedia, but his actions off-wiki should not result in his being banned here. I might also note that, when Avillia first began posting IRC logs, it had not been "officially" made policy that doing so was prohibited--the majority of his actions following that result from confusion regarding the, in his opinion, unprovoked deletion of the logs and threats of being blocked, for something he did not know was prohibited. Naturally, he didn't deal with the situation well, and he is kind of a hot-head, but I'm not sure that's a reason to be banned. Oh, and I didn't see this until the edit conflict--I totally agree that any future attempts to remove authentication from semibots, deface tools, or encourage others to do the same should result in an immediate block (call it a semibot probation). AmiDaniel (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Avilla has caused nothing but grief for essjay, tawker, shanel, pathoschild, firefox, freenonde and countless others, unfortunatley despite sometimes appearing to be working constructivley. I'm a great beliver that a user can change but a long forced wikibreak is defintly required here Benon 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also with regards to logs, it has *always* been policy that #vandalism-en-wp should only be privately logged although i understand there was some confuison. What I and others objected was to avilla then continuing to game the system by restoring them after deletion Benon 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Has it? I wasn't entirely sure about that, but I was under the impression that the policies were changed during Swatjester's RfA. In any case, I'll admit that I wasn't particularly involved in the conflict between him and Essjay, Tawker, etc. From the involvement I've had with them, I entirely trust their judgment (especially Tawker); thus, if they feel the dispute they had with him alone warrants an indef block, I will beyond a doubt support it. I just wanted to state that I no longer hold anything against Avillia for his disputes with me, and I don't feel the points about VP, FreeAWB, 3RR, and IRC made above warrant an indef block. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It has. The policy was clarified because rules lawyers like Avillia tried to scream they weren't given due notice, but I personally talked with Avillia before he was given access to #vandalism-en-wp, and outlined our rules specifically. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he was being given an extraordinarily rare second chance (he'd already been refused access by at least two others), and that it was his responsibility to make himself aware of and abide by all channel policies. #vandalism-en-wp does not operate under the same policies as the #wikipedia channels, and has always had a policy against logging, as evidenced by the dozens of people who came out immediately to tell him he was violating it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A ban from #wikipedia?! Hah! He's getting K-lined from all of FreeNode! Do we really want to allow someone to edit Wikipedia who has been banned from an entire IRC network for using malicious exploits to disconnect other users? --Cyde Weys 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that getting banned from some network or another doesn't preclude the privilege of editing... he has been a bit annoying sometimes, and his recent activity might be grounds for a block of some length, but I don't think he has actually harassed anyone. Ashibaka tock 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to actually undo the block or anything, it is all too likely that you're more knowledgeable about this than me. Ashibaka tock 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning from non-Wikipedia networks is not by itself a blockable offense. Presumably if a convicted murderer was making good edits we would let the murderer edit. On the other hand, disruption of #wikipedia is in its own special category because it is almost an appendage of the Wiki. The best argument for an indefinite ban is that Avillia has simply exhausted the community's patience by his actions. As to that claim, I am not convinced of that (having only actually seen the Wikipedia half of this problem and not the #wikipedia part). I would like to give Avillia one more chance and if any out of the line behavior occurs, an indefinite block will result. JoshuaZ 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAA, but I certainly agree with Joshua and was about to make a very similar case myself. Joe 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ as well. I feel that off-wiki actions should not be grounds for a block here, though his actions on #wikipedia do suggest a threat to Wikipedia itself. In any case, if Avillia is as good a hacker as he has made himself out to be, whether we block him or not will not disable him from disrupting Wikipedia. I also feel that his on-wiki disruptions seem to have been primarily provoked by the fact that no one, myself included, ever even tried assuming good faith. Nonetheless, I am very bothered by his earlier attacks on Wikipedia, claiming it is built upon a "cabal" mentality, and that coupled with his skill at hacking suggests that he may well seek to disrupt Wikipedia. Yet I feel we may just be poking a sleeping beast by blocking him, and his actions on-wiki, though frustrating and annoying, have not been sufficiently hazardous enough to warrant an indefinite block. As I said before, a ban really does nothing--he'll create a sockpuppet and return, perhaps quietly, perhaps not. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a block for a few months, and then let's give him a chance to make constructive edits--if he continues in this fashion, then we invoke an indef ban. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, those creators and users of peripheral software are, I would guess, already working on plugging whatever holes can be plugged. RadioKirk talk to me 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the connection until reading it here, but over the last 6-10 weeks I have been getting disconnected from Freenode (with a generic mirc error message), and I think Avillia is responsible. I asked in #wikipedia, and got a message shortly thereafter purporting to be from avillia in which he admitted responsiblity. Raul654 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the #wikipedia channel operator who has banned Avillia on that IRC channel. It was in response to an assertion by a Freenode staffer that Avillia was the user who had been maliciously disconnecting users from IRC using a couple of exploits. I will reiterate that banning from #wikipedia should not be seen as being at all related to a user's editing privileges. They are two entirely different spheres. There is not even 100% proof that Avillia was the offending user. So please do not even consider off-wiki behaviour in this instance. - Mark 05:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A freenode staffer has confirmed on the #vandalism-en-wp channel that it was avilla so im now getting confused :S Benon 05:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This has not yet been confirmed, as far as I've been able to find out. Avillia claims that someone faked his identity and hostname, and apparently Lilo will be able to confirm/disprove this tomorrow by checking logs. If it is found that he was not actually responsible for the IRC exploits, then the list of reasons for this indef block has been whittled down to: 3RR, IRC logging, and the removal of authentication from WP:AWB, which I personally don't feel warrants an indefinite ban. If he is found to have been responsible for the IRC trolling, then I could support a somewhat longer block, but again not an indefinite one. I might also note that Avillia is a self-admitted member of GNAA, though he has not participated in the trolling of Wikipedia, and he claims to have not been involved in the freenode trolling either. That may or may not influence this decision. I feel that most of the support for this ban has arisen from speculative and circumstantial evidence, and I certainly don't think any decision should be finalized until some of these points can be proven. I might note that two of these speculative points have already been disproven: no anon vandalized using FreeAWB, and the authentication was never removed from VP, and the final point has also been disproven insofar as no one has yet confirmed that Avillia was indeed involved in the DCC exploits. Morning may reveal more. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

lilo = Rob Levin = head of freenode Kotepho 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an easy way to settle the matter; someone who feels strongly enough that the block was out of process should file an appeal on his behalf to the Arbitration Committee. I'll be more than happy to make the case that he and any reincarnation should be banned indefinately. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Woa, I think invoking the ArbCom at this point is quite unnecessary--I thought we were just having a discussion about the matter. There's no need to get defensive, though I totally understand why you feel so strongly about this. I'm just asking that we look at this a little more closely and try to see if Avillia's claims are valid or not--then we can take it from there. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least; the Banning Policy specifically states: "Community-derived bans may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee". Avillia has been blocked, we assert it is a ban by the community; the appropriate resolution is for someone who believes the community is wrong to ban him to step up and appeal his case for him. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the idea of a community-based ban is that a user is blocked, possibly out-of-process, and absolutely no administrators are willing to unblock him. It is essentially a form of IAR that says we shouldn't keep somebody that nobody wants around unblocked just because there's no justification under the blocking policy. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is either excessive, unnecessary, or disruptive. Given Avillia's actions it makes perfect sense to bring this to ArbCom if, for whatever reason, this block doesn't "stick". --Cyde Weys 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom recently rejected a request to review a "community ban" citing that it is up for the community to decide. [43] It doesn't really matter what the banning policy says if they aren't going to do it. Kotepho 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't want to appeal the ban, but rather I want to wait for more hard evidence to come in, see what I feel after that, and see if the admins here still feel that a ban was necessary. The only reason for taking this to the ArbCom, in my opinion, would be if the admins could not reach a consensus after that point, and if it showed signs of becoming a wheel war (which the preemptive removal of Avillia's block already indicates might be the case). If the admins seem generally to agree that this ban is necessary (which they don't at this point, but may after more evidence comes in), I will certainly drop it. If, after the rest of the facts are made available, the admins generally agree that the ban should be lifted, then I'd assume others would also have the same decency to let it go. I certainly don't want it to appear that I'm debating, I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter. As I've said before, I totally understand why you so passionately oppose Avillia, as I've felt this same disdain for him as well; however, I still feel it necessary and decent to investigate the possibility that he may have been unfairly treated. AmiDaniel (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're conducting a character analysis of Avillia this Slashdot post may be relevant. Magnetism 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the unblock and reblock of Avillia

I didn't read through the whole conversation, but it seems like some of the justifications for the block are for off-site incidents. IRC, sourceforge, hacking of other software. None of those activities took place here on en.wp, therefore indefinite ban based on them is wrong (no matter how harmful those activities may be). On the other hand, 3RR here on WP is a clear violation. Deserves a block, but not a permban. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading more comments here, and on the user's talk page, I see that there are some signs of reform, and perhaps even some evidence that some of the "crimes" were not interpreted fairly. The only on-site wp violation that I've seen alleged against this user is a 3RR violation, which is not enough for a permban. I have unblocked this user. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking without consensus is a good way to start a wheel war. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But I have a very conservative view about permanent blocks; they should only be undertaken when we're absolutely positive. The comments above do not reflect that, so I had to unblock. For what it's worth, the wheel war is underway; User:Kelly Martin has reverted my unblock. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert lethe's unblock; rather, I blocked Avillia for her edits after lethe's unblock. Let's be clear about this. Also, I remind people that blocked users may participate in an Arbitration case by email to any Arbitrator or clerk; it is not necessary to unblock an editor to allow an arbitration to proceed against them. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin has blocked Avillia for one week; let's leave it that way for now, please. I personally feel that removing the block entirely went against the discussion here, as I feel there are definitely grounds for blocking at this point and that most everyone here has agreed upon that. The only question is how long the block should extend, primarily whether it should be indefinite or not. Though there do seem to be a lot of people opposed to an indef block at this point (and people, like me, waiting to hear all of the evidence before making up my mind), it would seem few object to at least a week's block (though some have suggested a 24hr block instead). I'd just hope the admins here would refrain from wheel-warring, both from removing the block and lengthening the block, as that just complicates matters further. In a week's time, there may be consensus to unblock, to permablock (though that's looking less likely), or this may go to the ArbCom; in any case, it doesn't seem to make a difference whether she is currently blocked for a week or blocked indefinitely. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a one week block. Note that I think all parties involved should have discussed this before carrying out the blocks and unblocks, but on balance I think the one week block is the fairest. Petros471 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is serious objection to the block, then we can't consider it a community decision, can we? Since lethe objects, send it to ArbCom to reinstate the indef block (however long that process will take). ArbCom gets it right typically and why should we invite wheel warring when we have ArbCom? (For example, I am happy with how ArbCom stepped up with the new ruling in the StrangerInParadise case, instead of their leaving it to any random admin to decide whether to impose an indef block.) Until ArbCom decides something on Avillia, he can be blocked as any other user can be for infractions, just not indefinitely. In due time, ArbCom will make the right ruling. A one week block seems good for now. NoSeptember ^talk 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd hoped bringing in the ArbCom wouldn't be necessary, but as it's now turned to wheel-warring, this seems to be the only solution. As NoSeptember said, if the block is this controversial, it can't be a community decision. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I'd like to add that I personally believe that a one week block suffices, unless I see any evidence of misconduct to change my mind (including if Avillia is found to be responsible for the IRC abuse). AmiDaniel (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A week long block sounds fair. Indef seems excessive (blocking established users permanently should only be done after careful thought). BrokenSegue 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say fair opposition, I'd say its still 70/30 in favour of keeping the block up. If this GNAA posting on Slashdot is still the same user, it does bring very big questions about the users actions, I think its best for ArbCom to take a look here -- Tawker 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not clear on what Avillia's infraction was beyond 3RR, so 1 week sounds longish to me, but I'm not going to wheel war over it. And I'm not going to take it to court either. I can live with a week. Of course, just a comment to you, September: if we do send it to ArbComm, then we cannot reinstate the permban, as Avillia will have to be expected to be able to edit his ArbComm case. Isn't that so? -lethe ^{talk +} 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has in the past temporarily unblocked users so that they can add their comments. But that is up to ArbCom. Further, I doubt ArbCom wants to jump into a decision whether to indef block here. The case has to proceed through the normal dispute resolution steps as any other case does before they will even accept the case. NoSeptember ^talk 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The other steps in the dispute resolution process also require that the user be unblocked. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A seven-day block is not appropriate for this level of disruption. He must be blocked indefinitely; it's the only way to treat a troll of that type once he has shown his true colors. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a hater. Ashibaka tock 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate the silly troll. I just advocate indefinitely denying him access to our wiki. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've been waiting for some time for Lilo to get back online so I can ask him to confirm this (and I will post again once he has); however, as I have come to understand it, freenode officials after reviewing the case today have concluded that there is no definitive evidence that Avillia was involved in the IRC DCC exploits and the malicious and intentional disconnecting of several users from freenode. As there is no evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that his story, that someone impersonated him by faking hostnames and identities, is still a possibility; as such, I feel the claim that "A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DDC exploits that affect [Cyde] and others on the #wikipedia channel" can be disregarded as invalid. I might also note that, again to my understanding, Avillia is not currently k-lined, though he is banned from #wikipedia. In any case, I still feel that, even if Avillia were found to be guilty of this accusation, his actions off-wiki should not result in banishment on-wiki.

With the IRC issue disregarded, the VandalProof claim disproven, and the claim that FreeAWB was used for fast-paced vandalism left unreferenced, unconfirmed, and unproven (not even the IP address has yet to provided), we are now left with the following three reasons for an indefinite ban: (quoted from Cyde above)

1. 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2. Reposting of private IRC logs onto Wikipedia.
3. Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage.

The links to FreeAWB were taken down by Avillia after being threatened with a RfAR, and Martin has expressed no interest in pursuing the issue further. Similarly, this user has made ammends with me over his threats to the WP:VandalProof project, and I no longer wish to pursue that matter further. (As I said above, the user has actually now approached me with helpful ideas for improving the tool and seems to have recognized that his earlier actions were misguided.)

I might also add that Avillia is a self-admitted member of GNAA and has participated in trolling on other sites, though he now claims to be inactive in the organization. At the same time, there are several members of GNAA on Wikipedia, even some who troll Wikipedia, who have not been blocked and have had no administrative action taken against them. Anyway, you all know my stance on the issue, so I won't bother repeating it--I just wanted to get the facts straight. Sorry for my long soliloquy, and this will likely be my last post (other than noting when the opening statement has been personally confirmed) on the issue unless it goes to ArbCom. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One more note. Avillia just contacted me and confirmed that he was the Avillia responsible for this Slashdot post. In response he said, "Yeah. It was a really stupid slashdot post...One first post on Slashdot with the GNAA signatory, watching a idiotic but hilarious movie filled with racial and ethnic slurs, and answering 20 questions about aforementioned movie, given by means of IRC bot" (republished with his permission). It certainly doesn't do much to boost his character sketch, but I still don't feel it's a reason for an indefinite ban. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal with IRC logs is. I note that wikipedia talk pages, wiki-en mail list discussions and USENET discussions are available to the entire internet in perpetuam. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that emails are publishable by either side taking part in the discussion. Given that the IRC cabal sometimes has an effect on WP policy, I don't see any reason why they should expect to have their conversations guarded in perfect secrecy. Just because people don't like having their IRC logs posted doesn't explain why it's a blockable offense. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on it either, but apparently it has to do with privacy policy violations and laws prohibiting the unconsensual logging and publication of online, two-party chats. This is, perhaps, related. It would be nice if someone could point to where this is outlined in more depth than it is in the IRC channel list on meta. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the prohibition on public logging of #wikipedia, it isn't outlined in depth anywhere. It has just been that way for a very long time. The policy is not made by the note on meta; the note is nothing more than a note. Since the channels are services of Freenode, rather than Wikimedia, they first and foremost follow the Peer Directed Projects Centre policies and guidelines. Notable in the guidelines is the following: "If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant." Wikipedia Policy is not made on IRC (or on the mailing list, for that matter), it's made on Wikipedia proper. Taking it a bit further, if admins knew each other in real life and happened to discuss Wikipedia policy on a conference call on the phone, would we not block if someone uploaded recordings of their conversations? I fail to see why one is wrong and one is okay. - Mark 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The DRV dicussion notes that that was a recent change to include that rule, even if it was an unwritten one beforehand. Even then, I fail to see how PDPC rules apply to Wikipedia actions. The channel in question is also #vandalism-en-wp, not #wikipedia (AFAIK, going from Pathoschild's DRV comments again). I don't think we should block someone for uploading a recorded conference call either, if they capitulate and do not persist in reposting it (AGF and all that) and I do not know of Avilia reposting the logs on Wikipedia after being told not to. Kotepho 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to weigh in on here except the unblock while discussion of the block was specifically ongoing and most people agreeing at least some block was needed is absolutely the wrong thing to do. No one should ever revert another admin's call (much less many admins agreeing with the call) unless there is consensus to do so. Following that would prevent all wheel wars. There are few admin actions so urgent they can't wait for consensus to develop, especially after the least risk option has been chosen. - Taxman ^Talk 05:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. I apologize for the o'erhasty action, and will be more careful in the future. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a complete unblock should not have been done, but the way community bans are normally described is that someone indef blocks them and no one is willing to unblock them, since lethe is/was willing to unblock it really isn't a ban then. It would make more sense to block for a week, post here, and if there is support for an indef block/ban go through with it. There is no rush to indef block someone. Even if consensus cannot be reached or there is some bizarre delay you can always reblock for another week them while discussion continues. Kotepho 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted troll, he glories in it. He must be blocked indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For those not watching closely, he's currently blocked for a week by Kelly Martin. I think that's appropriate for now, and we should revisit this discussion if he continues to be disruptive once that block expires. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've talked with Avillia on IRC today. I shan't reccomend a block or unblock, though I'm worried that if (s)he continues this way, (s)he will end up permanently blocked fairly soon. Kim Bruning 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thewolfstar and the community's patience

Has Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) exhausted the community's patience yet? She's currently blocked for the fifth time in two weeks for this sally. I might add that if she'd been blocked for every foul personal attack and other disruptive post in that time, it would be more like fifty than five. She's been a subject on ANI several times already, compare the thread "Wolfstar legal threats" above.[44] SlimVirgin, the latest blocker, has made some interesting observations on her lack of edits to the mainspace. Besides the personal attacks, thewolfstar daily expresses her politically motivated hatred of the project and the community as a whole. What are we, masochists? Indefinite block, anybody? Bishonen | talk 05:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

What is kizzle? What is firzzle? p.s. Marry me! El_C 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle! firzzle! swizzle! and wheeeeee!! are what happens when we do, hun! Bishonen | talk 08:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Bye...Bye. I tried to talk to her to get her motivated into some avenue of productivity here, but I guess my advice is worthless to her. Can anyone point out even one major contribution that has been positive? I'm not going to block her, but endorse at least a month long banning. Indef is fine with me too.--MONGO 07:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All my questions remain unanswered. :( El_C 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualms whatsoever with disinviting disruptive and unproductive people from the project. I have not personally investigated this case but I trust my fellow admins to make judgements on whether a users is going more harm than good with their presence. --Cyde Weys 07:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interiot's tool shows just 53 edits to articles, but 434 to user and article talk (338 to user talk), many of which are personal attacks or in some other way very aggressive. The attacks are unlikely to stop, given that her response to my pointing out the ill-advisedness of telling a user to "wipe the snot off his nose and the front of his shirt" was that it wasn't a personal attack [45] and "He WAS acting like a SNOT." [46] Time for the parting of the ways, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pull the plug. A random sampling of early edits shows only dubious punctuation-fixing and edits to insert her personal point of view, and things just seem to have become worse and worse. --ajn (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll give it a few hours more, to give the many American editors a chance to wake up, including some that unlike the above have normal, decent sleep patterns. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, for asking for community consensus first, instead of the all too common practice of indef blocking first and only then asking for ratification of the block. A short block can be used in these cases while we discuss things. It is the preemptive indef block that can create the conditions for wheel wars. I just wanted to thank you for doing it right. (Sorry I have nothing to add about wolfstar) NoSeptember ^talk 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been more than three strikes (as an American with decent sleep patterns, I can use an Americanism). I have all sorts of dark suspicions, and they're all irrelevant, because what's overt is simply beyond the pale (oops, and now a Gaelicism). We needn't forgive more than the offender is willing to repent, as the quality of mercy is not strained (and now an Anglicism). Geogre 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do it. —Encephalon 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support completely, this is not only appropriate but past due. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Good morning from the west coast. I've been a close follower of most of Thewolfstar's contributions for several weeks now. I've even grown to share some of Geogre's irrevelant dark suspicions. Thewolfstar is hurting a good bit and hasn't helped at all. Ever. Block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Time to act. This is exactly the kind of conduct that damages the community as a whole and skyrockets the levels of Wikistress of those truly interested in improving this place. There are no excuses for such incivility - I'll never understand why people who clearly hate Wikipedia choose to spend their time making life miserable for the rest, instead of investing it into something more positive. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, it is done. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

• • • My 2 cents: get her out of here. She's had her chance, and been slapped in the face with it enough times that if she can't realize how to fix her behavior she never will. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• I mentioned to her a few days ago that, although she's a member of Esperanza, her legal threats were definitely not Esperanzian. Apparently, that didn't have an effect -- and I suspect her continuing escapades were part of the recent meltdown at Esperanza. As far as the low number of article edits is concerned, that just indicates that she was mainly here to argue, or something. I'm not sure. --Elkman - ^(talk) 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfman has another account User:Macai, and is currently using it to edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Macai's user page says "Hello, my name is Luke Laupheimer. I live in New York."; User:Thewolfstar has always claimed to be Maggie Laupheimer, from New York as well. So if they share an IP it's not surprising. Looking at Macai's edits, which appear productive, I see little indication they are the same person. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg has check-user access, I'm assuming he means the technical evidence shows that they're editing from the same computer. Also, Macai's third edit was to Thewolfman's talk page. [47] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser has no means of distinguishing these users. Macai says he's thewolfstar's son. I've spoken with him on IRC, and assume good faith and believe him. I have just posted a message to thewolfstar urging her to stop trying to edit, as she keeps activating the autoblocker (I've been unblocking it several times), which stops her son from editing. Jayjg and others, please don't block the IP. Thewolfstar has referred several times, before she was in quite so much trouble, to her 18-year-old son that lives with her. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

If they are the same computer, they've made edits 3 minutes apart. Check user contribution time and dates.--Tbeatty 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

TWS has been lawyering non-stop to earn an unblock. Should she be silenced completely (her talk page protected)? 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the clout — less than 1200 edits for me, sadly. Cool Cat could definitely help you. Here, I do have something to say before I leave — hopefully it will not vanish! ~C

To any administrators

The charge leveled here is decently serious. What you are doing is only a few steps away from impartial arbitration. Have some food for thought.

Did you know that a person's stance on human rights reflects their assumption of good faith? Supposedly, liberals assume more good faith, while conservatives reflect bad faith. That amuses me, especially in the face of the comment above, asking for more American administrators.

Anyway, it looks to me like you all have been rather aggressive. I can see the politics running through all of your comments, interpreting her edits as politically motivated and responding according to your votes. I can understand bias — only the ignorant masses do not understand bias! But, I can't sit back and just let this happen without standing up and saying something.

Hah, silly to think that my words matter. You all are administrators, warriors charging into battle against the vigilant vandal, the persistent POV pusher, and the unctious usurper. You bravely go into the history and block logs, looking for places where the bureaucracy's policies tell you to block or ban. Above all, you do not question, especially when it comes to policy and opinion. You do not care anything for nothing, unless it is in the page or in your heads. That is you.

This is me. I'm an average editor. I've made roughly 1200 edits, according to Interiot. I usually don't do a lot of radical things. I'm not stupid, like the masses are. I'm well aware of your love of the block button, your tendencies to quote policy, your official bearing and high stature. I'm even aware that at the moment, your finger is moving towards the "Block Corbin" switch while you prepare to quote WP:NPA, saying "Your post at WP:ANI was considered a personal attack. You have been blocked for 24 hours," leaving me with a note on my talk page and a day of no edits or contributions.

The sad thing is, you would think that what I have just said is a personal attack. After reading your posts, I am not so sure anymore whether or not any of you would be capable of leaning back and assuming good faith from me. I am not so sure whether or not you could look at my words and think of them as a critique of the administrator system as a whole, rather than as an attack on each administrator individually.

Coming full circle, this is where we reach Thewolfstar. I'm not sure what to say about her. After all, I've only come to know her personally as a result of seeing a fellow Esperanzian under attack. I can't think of anything in official policy that can help her. These words, assuming they are not deleted, mean nothing when compared to the weight of the administrative community's judgement.

So, here is what I'd like. This may seem arrogant, and will certainly fly in the face of all the community has ever done or seen. I'd like to try something liberal (*gallery collectively gasps*) for a change. Let's have a talk. Not an attempt at concensus, not an arbitration, not a request for comment, not a plea for unblocking, but just a talk. All I want is for people to bring forth their grievances, and for us to see the entire issue laid out on one page. No attacks, no revenge, no anger, just talking. I want to see how much of the community really believes in the assumption of good faith.

After all, I assume that there will be no reprisals for me voicing my view of the issue here, where it stands for all to read and ponder. This is posted on User talk:Thewolfstar, as well as WP:ANI. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has just once again threatened Wikipedia and various editors with some sort of vague off-wiki reprisal. [48].

Not that it'll do any good because it doesn't really matter what you do or what you say. If they want to run an editor out of here they do. Look at Merecat and the harassment he has gotten. And there have been plenty of nice gentle people they have driven out of here through a campaign of harassment. And you have others like RyanFriesling and Kevin Baas and Jersyko that can do any underhanded thing they want and get away with it. Now that I have said that I will remind the admins and the many other cabal editors that I have a lot of resources outside of Wikipedia. The important thing here is the propaganda that is being pushed and the lies that innocent readers all over the world are reading. I won't stand for it. If you decide to long term block me and page protect me, you are making a real bad move. thewolfstar 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected. I'm going to sleep now; if anybody wants to undo the protection for some reason, they have my explicit blessing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

She noticed the same thing that I noticed: There is indeed a high level of corruption here. Her words are much stronger than mine, which is why she was selected for blocking. Of course, the implication that she will somehow get revenge against Wikipedia is against policy, and the implication that there is a cabal (There Is No Cabal) is why she must be silenced. I'm striving to stay neutral here, but the Orwellian implications of what has unfolded here are very hard to ignore. Don't make any bad choices, ladies and gentlemen. Before, I was just going to go to bed and check this in the morning, but now my curiousity is piqued and I just can't wait to see if anything happens after this. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to bed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Corbin, but from what I've seen, your fellow Esperanzan did most of the attacking, herself. I tried to get her to relax and take a wikibreak last week, when it might have done some good. She wouldn't listen, and went back to calling people names. For chrissakes, she put up images on her userpage comparing wikipedia to Nazi Germany, and she expects to be unblocked?? I tried to get her to shut up and give people time to cool off and forget about it. She wouldn't even reply to my latest attempt. I suppose someone must have told her I'm secretly the cabal's towel boy.  :P Go to bed. Maggie's burned her bridges as far as I can see. Kasreyn 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Convo with Thewolfstar

I had a long phone conversation with Thewolfstar. It's my personal opinion that her personal philosophy is incompatible with wikipedia and that’s why she has had so many problems here. We don't need to make up come cabal to explain what happened here.

I had hoped that I had made her understand what was happening here was (at the least) partly her fault. I thought she was going to calm down. It seems like she had corrected some of her behavior. She wasn't making personal attacks any more, right?

Theres alot about the phone call I'm not going to get into but if this comes up again I can offer my two cents feeling that I'm well informed. ---J.S (t|c) 16:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving Clive Bull

Quick summary here: a number of IPs and newly-created accounts have been continuously reverting a rewrite of the article over a period of months. After the page was protected, they refused to work on the rewrite to address their concerns in the least, effectively halting all progress on the article. Currently it has been protected for weeks pending the outcome of a CheckUser, which has fallen through.

I consider "these" roadblockers to be one sockpuppeting editor: hoaxer, page-move vandal, impersonator and general troll ZoeCroydon, based on the fact that no other editors have taken this position, and similarities in style, including some dead giveaways - for example, always incorrectly putting a space after an opening bracket ( like this)[49] and adept wikilawyering (complaints that editors are breaking "the good faith rule" being a favourite). See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon and Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of ZoeCroydon. After these socks were all banned for hoaxing, they seem to have adapted to this more subtle form of trolling, with a host of new socks and a lot of edits from IPs.

Not many other admins have taken an interest in this, which I can understand. I plan to do three things:

• Block the following as obvious sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon: Kerry ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Joanne ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Uni student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Johntheclivefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Peter ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Also tag Clivefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), blocked indefinitely for legal threats, as a sockpuppet - he avoided being RFCUed in the first round due to only making one edit and going unnoticed. He carried a suspected tag for a while before suddenly waking up.
• Post a notice at the top of Talk:Clive Bull explaining that the ZoeCroydon entity is banned indefinitely, and all edits from him/her should be reverted on sight (including edits from his/her anon IPs such as 66.90.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 147.114.226.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and all obvious sockpuppets blocked. Note that ZoeCroydon is not formally community banned at the moment, just prohibited from using more than one account, but unless I hear to the contrary I will assume his/her vandalism has exhausted community patience.
• Unprotect Clive Bull (currently fully-protected).

If anyone has reason to believe I am not acting fairly, please speak up, otherwise I will go ahead and break this deadlock. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go Sam! Block the socks and bann the "entity" per exhausted community patience. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Yah, I was just thinking about poor unchangeable Clive Bull this morning. Sound like a plan. --Syrthiss 13:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: it only took an amazing one day for Zoe's current IP to start posting and reverting again, and he also created another sockpuppet in an attempt to avoid blocking. Which failed, obviously, I removed the conversation (again, apologies that I removed the replies as well, but I don't think we should allow the troll any satisfaction of getting a rise out of us whatsoever), blocked the sock indefinitely and the IP for 48 hours (second 3RR block). I wonder if he's been checking back every single day these past few weeks to see if protection had been lifted yet. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gpscholar and Petticoating

Gpscholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) needs some observation. This user wrote an essay on Petticoat Discipline (cut-and-paste moves at Petticoating, Petticoat Punishment, Pinaforing and now The Art of Petticoating that after discussion at Talk:Petticoat Discipline all were redirected to Transvestic fetishism pending a re-write.

The essay keeps getting re-created and transvestic fetishism is getting moved about. Dr Zak 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The user was blocked, but I've locked moving to admins only for the mean while Will (^E_@) T 17:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't those pages be deleted, recreated and then protected against recreation instead of making them redirects? I think it's unseemly to have activities that are child abuse be redirects to an article (unless its an article on child abuse or something else relevant). -- Kjkolb 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, salting the earth isn't necessary, but you just pointed out a problem with the article. I read "petticoating" as men going out dressed as boys dressed as girls, unfortunately the article makes no effort to distinguish fact and {{fiction}} and pictures it mothers dressing their sons as girls. We aren't censored for the sake of minors (and musnt't forget that we get away with it only because {{unsourced}} claims are fair game for removing). Dr Zak 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:AlexPU: maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki

AlexPU (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has recently popped up after a long wikivacation which, unfortunately did him no good. Before taking a vacation, he turned his user talk into a disgusting attack page and shortly after his yet brief return, he intensified the attacks posted there just with the aim to assault his opponents.

He then made this first upon return entry at the user talk space. I've been around here for quite some time and I have seen a lot (including from him) but this message beats anything I've seen at Wikipedia. This was quickly followed by a whole bunch of other attacks posted to several talk pages. At that point he has been explicitly warned by an ArbCom member who noted that his "almost every single edit since then has been uncivil." The warning received this defiant response and was followed by another personal attack. Due to an incredible patience of the admins who took it upon themselves to deal with him, he still didn't receive a block but instead another two "last warnings" [50] [51]. Still, the very next two entries by this user to the talk space were another set of personal attacks [52][53]. Only then he was blocked for 24 hours. However, judging by his very first entry as the block ended, he still didn't get any message as he instead claims to be issuing the "last warning" to the blocking admin(!), and unleashes another attack against another Wikipedia editor.

This story may seem longinsh but it seems so plain to me that I decided to post this here rather than to start an user:RfC with this or post it to an ArbCom page. From what I've seen at the ArbCom, such cases get rejected with arbitrators' saying that there is nothing to spend time on as the evident block is in order. I could post this message unaltered to an RfC (and this would have been the first user RfC started by me) but again what's the point of waisting some many people's time on commenting on this? Instead I am posting it here directly to the attention of the Admins, as this seems to be a case clearly calling for an admin action rather then the continuation of the endless discussions. --Irpen 06:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU was blocked 24h for WP:NPA violations on 8 May and has only made one edit since, a defiant but tolerable comment on his Talk page. I suggest a longer block for subsequent violations, and if he continues we can raise a user RfC. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

JzG, while I agree with your suggestion to not rush with a longer block (while I disagree that his message was "tolerable"), I see no point in user RfC should this continue (as it most likely will). The point with the user RfC is to bring the issue to a wider audience. This issue has already received a wide prominence as you can see from how many people tried to talk to the guy at his and the article's talk pages where he scattered his offences. By the post above I simply wanted to let others know that the user needs watched since the Admin who blocked him and was in return accused in whatever may perceive that, as the person being attacked, it is unethical for him to block the offender on his own.

As this continues I am prepared to post the diffs above straight to ArbCom as I know that ArbCom members have little tolerance to obvious malaise. It's just that I thought that the case is too obvious to even bother the ArbCom which is already slow due to an overload with the cases much more complex than this. Anyway, let's see what comes next. --Irpen 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naan_Kadavul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Everything this guy does is copyrighted. All of his images and at least some of his contribs (still looking at the rest). Note that he also forged User:Jayjg's signature in his RfA. --Rory096 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked him indefinitely for the forgery. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting diff. --Rory096 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal reached limit

User:207.74.25.131 had last warning from someone else. I stumbled upon today's Phish and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn vandalism. An admin to block would be helpful. BabuBhatt 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:198.237.180.60

I thought I would point out that User:198.237.180.60 (talk | contributions) has vandalised the Grateful Dead page (which I have since reverted). Please take any appropriate actions, since based on the users talk page, this has happened countless times. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] 216.13.88.86 (talk · contribs)

He keeps removing the proposed move tag from Lieutentant Governor (Canada) and not properly moving it, and without consensus. Ardenn 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new editor just drifting by. I decided to edit the Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) article, only to have the above user revert my contributions without reason. I have also been making worthwhile edits that have nothing to do with his spat with other editors regarding the hyphen in the title. This is not encouraging. 216.13.88.86

The problem seems to have stopped. Ardenn 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple page move help needed

User Fearboy3 (talk • contribs) has done a large amount of page renames with no apparent discussion on the talk pages, and is continuing to move pages despite being asked not by others, which is causing some problems (e.g moving martyr to Martyrdom (where the article is written about the topic martyr, moving Alexander The Great to a misspelled Alexender. Not a standard request, part content dispute, part move protection request, part requested moves, so thought I'd post here for some help. Regards, MartinRe 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of really bad, fairly serious moves (Quantum Leap to Sam Beckett? Death (personification) to Grim Reaper?), and his constant typing in all caps does little to inpire faith in him. I'd recommend moving most, if not all of these back and trying to explain to this guy that page moves should not be done lightly. --InShaneee 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just left a warning and I'm about to try to undo some of these... --ajn (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I may have just ballsed up Death Deity and Death deity - would someone else like to take a look, please? --ajn (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. For the record, this isn't the only questionable edit of this user's. He's also been removing tags from pages (as he most recently has here) with no explination, nor any apparent rhyme nor reason. --InShaneee 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I think I've got all the {{redirect|name}} back on top of the articles again, but double checking never hurts :) Regards, MartinRe 17:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This user should be blocked indef. A pagemove vandal has moved Death (personification) to Grim Reaper before; this is obviously a sock. --Rory096 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, it looks identical to indef blocked user Stoneboy3 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Regards, MartinRe 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously the same person, but I'm inclined to assume good faith for a little while longer (well, to assume stupidity rather than malice, looking at the extremely poor quality of the non-pagemove edits). Can anyone see a good, constructive edit from either user? --ajn (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(to clarify above, I was agreeing that it was a sock, not to the indef ban) Also, User:Painboy3 (no contribs yet) was created by Fearboy3, so would it be correct to block it to ensure that at least we are talking to just one account? (I see a trend in usernames, is it possible to search for username matching "*boy3"?) (edit conflict, I see this username has already been spotted) Regards, MartinRe 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can expect that the next user will be User:Painboy3, which he created immediatly after making this user account. .Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this guy gonna stop movin pages, or what? I went to look up the how to move pages article and that page was moved for Chryin out loud!DRRty 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope he doesnt move a single page any more because that would be extremely bad. Oh, the horror..DRRty 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have very little doubt that his time could be better spent.His time would be better spent working to cure cancer, for instance.DRRty 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him first for 24 hours and I thought that might calm him down. I am not adversed to an indef block now.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with large undelete?

Someone posted an admin's personal telephone number at Talk:Abortion twice today, and since there are over 5000 versions in the history, the undelete is going a little slow. I've undeleted back a few weeks, so the current discussion isn't messed with too much - can someone with an automatic box-ticker on their browser help with the rest of the history, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be helpful for the UI of Special:Undelete to have a way to click all the version boxes for you, and then you just uncheck the ones you don't want to keep? It could be a button next to Restore and Reset... ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To check all boxes, check the top one, then hold down "shift" and check the bottom one. Don't know if it works in all browsers. Alternatively, have a look at this which I discovered very recently, and which I find absolutely wonderful. AnnH ♫ 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ann, how do you get that to work? I can't figure it out, and the bookmark thing doesn't seem to work for me. Oh, and note that some Firefox users have to Ctrl-Shift-select. Snoutwood (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

oooOOOooo. I couldn't add a bookmark, but I made a bookmark, edited it, and it works like a charm. Thanks, Ann! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that did the trick! I'm going to add that into the MediaWiki page. Snoutwood (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, I was just coming back here to mention that trick, it's mentioned at the top of the watchlist edit page. Cool. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What I want is an option to selectively delete edits, rather than having to delete the whole page and then restoring selectively. That has the added advantage of being able to use the diffs to find which ones you want to delete. Snoutwood (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made a bugzilla report for that. See bugzilla:5901. Snoutwood (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rockage. I think special:delete (we're talking about deleting edit history/versions) may be a bad name though, once I get an account set up on Mediazilla I will comment further on the bug. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I delete all, restore the bad version(s), move it to /bad and restore the rest. Then I delete /bad. This is quick and works for me. However, these pages with 5,000 some odd edits are tough to undelete because of all the edit histories that have to load.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I use that stratagy normally, but if it is a really busy page, like the article of the day, I've started using this method, with it the page is only down for a second or two. Prodego ^talk 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's "easier"??? holy smokes, that's complex and devious. I love it, but doubt I could do it correctly... ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone would do something so complicated when you can just delete, protect, restore the good edits, and unprotect. If you really want to (I personally think it's a Bad Thing) you can restore the bad edits first, move them and delete them there. FoN's way just seems like that with more unnecessay steps. Snoutwood (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was easy ;-) Prodego ^talk 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also add a step, restore the three edits deleted in the move from Page/bad to Page at the end. Prodego ^talk 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)