Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Serious privacy violation attack

There's an editor, Darkness of meta (talk · contribs), who obviously has a number of sockpuppets and appears to be launching a coordinated attack on the Wikipedia attempting to blatantly violate our privacy policy by revealing real names of editors without permission. I have already sent in three requests to the oversight committee and have blocked the main editor account and any other accounts I found. The m.o. is to place the user's real name on the user page and/or user discussion page, or alternatively to move the user and/or user discussion page to a new page in such a way as to violate the privacy policy. I have fully protected my own user page and user discussion page and would strongly encourage any other admins to revert any more instances of this against other people, along with contacting WP:OVERSIGHT to remove the edits from the logs. I consider this a serious threat against my continued contributions to the Wikipedia. --Yamla 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but I would like to politely ask, how does he know some editors real names? Does he know them in real life? Tellyaddict^Talk 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It's not that hard to get access to mine as I participate in unblock-en-l and I use my real name and email address when responding to emailed requests to my username. However, privacy policy makes it a clear violation to reveal my real name on the Wikipedia itself without my permission and I have not and do not grant this permission. I need to maintain a separation between my Wikipedia identity and my real-life identity. I may well have to set up a new email account so this does not happen to me in the future. --Yamla 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the accounts that are committing this attack generally have names like Wikifalls to Oompapa (talk · contribs) or some other variant on an oompapa name. The user may well have other accounts, of course. --Yamla 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not doubting your comments in any way and I symapthise for you, if their is anything I can do as a non-sysop, just leave a message. Thank you - Tellyaddict^Talk 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll wager a guess it is related to this email I received a few weeks ago. He fishes for a response through wiki email and then posts the name on the email account if the individual replies.--Isotope23 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I recieved that email, so did User:Netsnipe and a few more. It's rubbish, but somethings up. Plus clicking on the link of that user. It obviously shows the sockpuppeteer is User:Mr oompapa So do we create a community ban or not? Retiono Virginian 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is related to that, I'm sure, but I did not respond to that message. The user got my real name elsewhere. --Yamla 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That is some deranged shit. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Oompapa has already been indef blocked. He has been creating sock puppets all day today. I have been blocking them on sight when I see them. He obvioulsy changing his IP. I have requested a check user on the 20+ sockpuppets so far to determing an underlying IP range and block it for a little while. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An additional report has been filed here [1]. I see no reason why this user shouldn't be banned. Retiono Virginian 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I recieved one of these emails as well. As Isotope23 pointed out above, the idea behind the attack is that the person will email you with a downright strange message, and then waits for your confused reply (something along the lines of "what are you talking about?" etc.). Then, he's got your email address. Once he's got that, he can easily run it through Google and look for connections between a name and that email address (using social networking sites such as MySpace, LiveJournal, Xanga, etc.). Do NOT respond to the emails, and the attacks will stop. // Sean William 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Setting up a Wikipedia-only email address - even a throwaway hotmail account - can be helpful for security. As long as you don't use it for anything but Wikipedia there's no not-paper trail. Natalie 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also received it, as did two other admins I know. Note that my email address is one that only contains my first name & is effectively a throwaway one. I recommend that others use similar for their own protection - Alison^☺ 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I got it, as well, about two weeks or so ago (I think). I killed it with fire the moment I got it, not that my real name is really any secret :) Daniel Bryant 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the road and can't fill out the "paperwork," but I trust that this is being checkusered? Newyorkbrad 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A request has been filed. MER-C 10:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to quickly clear up a misapprehension - the Privacy policy does not anywhere prohibit third parties naming people without first gaining permission. Common sense prohibits that. Shimgray | talk | 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I should add, he's now appeared on the MediaWiki wiki as mw:User:Mr oompapa and his userpage is a collection of vile personal attacks against users on the English Wikipedia. He even created an attack page too, which has been tagged for speedy deletion there. No doubt if he's reading this, he'll probably attack my pages.... --SunStar Net ^talk 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yah, just saw his userpage over there. More puerile attacks on me and two other admins. WP:RBI applies, or in this case, just ignore will do. What a sad, insecure little man he is. I've semi-protected Retiono Virginian's userpage due to attacks from this guy and RV may have gone on WikiBreak as a result of this harrassment. Can others here keep RV on their watchlists? - Alison^☺ 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He's also disrupting IRC, with oompapa themed nicks. Ugughhtrrrhgh... He's on a dynamic IP too. ~Crazytales 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgh. [2] admits to using open proxies. Thus making it difficult to trace the location. But assuming he's not using an IRC proxy (those seem to be hard to find these days), he's on British Telecom DSL. ~Crazytales 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. British telecom? I don't think that's capable of using open proxies. However, we know he's been using open proxies all the time. As about 20 new socks appear per day. A checkuser was formed and it is impossible to block the Ip range too. Retiono Virginian 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam war

This needs administrator attention:

• User:AlexRadyushin, User:EarthManik123, User:Voyages, User:Tuddy and others (see User:SpamAssasin/Voyages)
• User:Jokum, User:SpamAssasin, User:Beostarling, User:Beostaerling etc.

Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again

I hope this would be the last time i'd deal w/ these childish stupidities. My stance on the matter of pointy and provocative userpages has been cristal clear. My question to the disruptors is Are you here to imporve Wikipedia?

Yes absolutely → Then you are more than welcome and many thanks. Your efforts are so appreciated.

Yes absolutely but it is my userpage and please don't censor it → then you move your ass and look for a web space provider.

The issue has been involving, for a relatively long time now, a few editors. I am talking here about User:Embargo and User:Matt57.

• User:Matt57's case: Level-headed editor Proabivouac had already spoken to him about the matter here after removing a quote of Hadith from his userpage before he reverted back under the pretext that [he's] not responsible for actions of other users.
• User:Embargo's case: I had already blocked him for a 24h period on December 11, 2006 because of provocative userpage after warnings. You can refer to his talkpage and userpage history for further info. Now and after the involvment of many admins, he is still posting a Sanhedrin (Talmud) tractate in response to Matt57's case (according to him).

So, what is the problem w/ both userpages? Well, Matt57 wants to make a pointy argument about the treatment of women in Islam by using such hadith. Embargo, on the other hand wants to make a similar point about pedastry in Judaism.

Please note that i've interacted w/ both users in the past w/ a relatively both positive and negative outcomes. My patience as an admin is almost gone (i hope not) and i think my n-time involvment on this matter would make things worse (i.e. harsh blocks). Therefore i hope some admin(s) can deal w/ this matter once for all.

P.S. I am not sure if there are more similar cases as i am not a policeman but please let me know if there are any. We are still dealing w/ This guy has racist stuff on his userpage!'s case above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both as violations of WP:USER. -- Avi 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. Is there an arbcom ruling on this, or is it obvious from WP:USER? -- Avi 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quote from the Talmud, even though user:Prester John still keeps his Hadith quote. I intend to keep my userbox supporting Hezbollah, if you have heard of the debate (scroll down), and to which user:Ryan Postlethwaite seems to ideologically object. Emбargo 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John's case is dealt w/. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi and Faysal, let me clear this with you - Do you agree with me that ALL religious quotes should be deleted from user pages? See user Itaqallah's page. I'm not trying to be disruptive or proving a point or whatever - the issue is simple. Either religious quotes should be allowed on user pages, or they should not. Please also remove the religious verse on Itaqallah's page. It is unfair and discriminatory to say that one user can have a religious quote to express their approval of a religion, while another cannot have a quote to express their disapproval of the religion. The policies in Wikipedia must be applied uniformly. Besides this user, there are many user pages where religious quotes are displayed. They should ALL be taken down, irrespective of the language, context or nature of the quotation. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do w/ your cases Matt. We are dealing w/ WP:POINT here. You can quote whatever you want as long as it is not provacative and polemical or a campaign for or against anything or anyone. Read the quote below. I hope it is cristal clear.

• Polemical statements:

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

If you can prove to us that you were not making a point then that would be another matter. If you can prove to us that Itaqallah is making a point then that would be another matter as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Matt57 - no religion prostelyzing or bashing. Wikipedia is not the Free speech corner in Hyde Park where everyone gets to take the megaphone and shout to the whole wide world their beliefs, problems, dreams, nightmares or I don't know what. Use Youtube people, it is much more fun and less stressful for that sort of stuff. Or MySpace or whatever.Baristarim 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide me w/ facts (policies and guidelines) re this? Also, where's the youtube stuff at Itaqallah's page? Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove the atheist userbox at your userpage or the Ataturk's Peace at home, peace in the world. stuf? No. Why? Do i have to repeat it again and again? Because they are just NOT PROVOCATIVE! Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove "This user supports the independence of Cascadia" which you were arguing against on another thread? No. So where is the problem? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cascadia box is just for kicks :) Anyways, I will join in the conversation later. Baristarim 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Itaqallah's slogan is borderline. Arrow740 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Borderline or not. The issue is simple: Having religious polemical statements on userpages is not allowed. I can translate my statement into French or Arabic too and could defend doing that but I wont. The simple and correct way is to agree to remove all religious content from user pages and stick to the policies and apply them uniformly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, it is irrelevant whether I'm trying to make a point. If I saw a user with a userbox which I also wanted to copy on my page, does it mean I'm trying to make a point? No. I liked that verse on my userpage. It expressed my disapproval of a religion, just like another verse expressed approval of the religion on another user's page. I'm prepared to take this debate to any length so we can be fair to everyone. The quote you mentioned also said "campaign for or against anything ". Having religious quotes on userpages to express the approval of the user's religion means campaigning for the certain religion. Having my quote was campaigning against the religion, obviously. We must remove all religious quotations - that includes Itaqallah's arabic verse on his userpage. I agree to comply with Wikipedia's policies but they should be applied uniformly. Wikipedia's policy states that campaigning FOR is also not allowed on a user's page. Itaqallah's verse must be go as well. I find Itaqallah's verse provocative, because I dont approve at all of the religion he is trying to promote on his user's page. Policies must be applied fairly so please, remove Itaqallah's religious quotation also on his user page.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed ItaqAllah's polemical statement from his user page. Do we all agree on this? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on which interpretation to favor, but it appears that by FayssaIF's standard, Surah 3 verse 102 is polemical. — coelacan — 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Netscott reverted my removal of Itaqallah's polemical statement on his user page. I want to hear administrator's confirmation (particularly Faysal's) that, all religious polemical text (irrespective of language, text or nature) should be removed from a user's page. As I said, I'm prepared to participate in any amount of debate to make sure that policies are applied uniformly to all users. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, not all religious texts are polemical. Professing a belief is typically less provoking than attacking another belief. Distinction is possible and discression required. "Make a narrow rule, so that I can (barely) honour the word, but ignore the spirit" is not the way Wikipedia works.--Stephan Schulz 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a religious quotation from your holy book is campaigning for that religion. Campaigning is not allowed on user pages: "campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea", said Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. Having a quotation from a holy book is not necessarily campaigning. It can be, but it can just as well be a simple profession of faith, or just showcasing a profound thought or beautiful literature. Like a lot of things, it depends on the details and context. --Stephan Schulz 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So whats the limit to what we can and cannot quote from religious texts on our user pages? Can I quote anything from the Quran? This would not be a big problem if people said NO to all reliogious quotes on user pages. If a Muslim has a quote from the Quran on their user page, then I should also be able to have a quote from the Quran on my user page. Thats all I'm saying. If somoene can express approval of the faith they belong to, then for fairness, I should be able to express my disapproval of the religion. Why is that a big issue? And if you see below, people are voicing their disapproval for having any religious texts on user pages and this is what should be done, for fairness. Either allow all quotes or dont allow them, but DONT be selective about what can be quoted and what not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don'y you suggest it on Wikipedia talk:User page and see how it goes.--Sefringle 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I aready did that on that page last month, and it petered out after a few replies. Tarc 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(dedent)Either allow all quotes or don't allow them, [...] - I guess your world is very black and white. The argument is nonsensical. "Either kill all life on Earth, or don't kill at all." "Either eat all the chocolate in the supermarket, or none at all". "Either allow people to own all kinds of weapons, or no weapons at all." "Either allow driving at any speed, or at no speed at all."...and the list goes on. This world has more shades of gray (and don't let me start about various colours!) than you seem to be aware of. --Stephan Schulz 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent religious quotation comes to mind. It appears in several versions.

1. ""What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." Hillel the Elder
2. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...." Matthew 7:12, King James Bible [3]
3. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you...." Matthew 7:12, New International Bible [4]
4. "Don't be a dick." Wikipedia [5]

That is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee rulings from five days ago:

While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From Billy Ego-Sandstein. Take that as you please. Daniel Bryant 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo (talk · contribs)

Embargo insists on re-adding an inflammatory userbox on his userpage, despite numerous complaints over the past few months on his talk page. This is the current userbox which I have removed, it reads This user supports islamic resistance wikilinking to Hezbollah, now I'm no islamic expert, but I know that in many countries, Hezbollah is very controversial political party (I think the USA still class them as a terrorist organisation). The statement is clearly polemical, as all the similar userboxes have been which embargo has been putting up. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look at the userbox that I removed? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the continued replacement of a quote from the Talmud as a WP:POINT against Matt56 hadith quote (which was removed) shoudl also be reviewed. See rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. -- Avi 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've reverted back to the non-offensive version. This is getting to be an extreme exercise in WP:POINT -M^ask? 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Into the hot water) As much as I despise Hezbollah's acts of terrorism (I cannot call actions which intetionally kill innocent civilians anything else) I do not think that the formulation This user supports islamic resistance (wikilinking to Hezbollah) is per-se so inflammatory that it is not allowed on userpages. Go to arbitration if you must, but I feel repeated editon of another user's userpage in such a controversial case is not "good"; also, what would you do if the text in question was not placed inside of a userbox but *gasp* plaintext on his userpage. Would you still remove it then? Or would you allow it to stand? Where does the right to show bias end? People supporting Israel's retributive actions against Paleastinian acts of violence (and vice versa) would have to remove that information too. And people supporting the Iraq war (or opposing it). And people following radical muslim faith. And radical Christians (time of troubles in Northern Ireland, anyone). And Muslems and Christians and Atheists in general. etc. etc. etc. And then were are left with "This is an userpage" (End of File) CharonX/talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • However, it's clearly a polemical statement, which are against WP:USER, it's not even margianlly an infringement, it's perfectly clear cut. I'm sure Israeili people will be clearly offended by this statement, I think that says it all Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I went and blocked him for 3RR for a couple days until this clears up. I don't know whether or not it's a problem, if this must be taken to arbcom then do so. They may accept it, they may not.--Wizardman 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Technically, you can't really 3RR in your own userspace, but this delightful bit of trolling probably justifies your block anyway.--Isotope23 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that has been discussed before [6] [7]. The behavior of this user has been discussed numerous times as well [8] [9]. Embargo knows what he is doing. He is intentionally being disruptive. IrishGuy ^talk 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I support the block. I know this is getting lumped in with the Matt issue from the other ANI post above, but these are slightly different situations. Neither really should be posting polemic statements on their userpages, but Embargo in particular seems to have a history of trolling.--Isotope23 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just before his block he created a redirect for Islamic resistance to hezbollah. Would anyone support a longer block due to the amount of trolling that he's done in the past? I'm kinda involved so maybe I'm not the best person to suggest this, but I propose moving it upto 10 days. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

............And block evasion??? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. If someone wants to extend the account block I'd leave it to their discretion.--Isotope23 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And 'round and 'round this goes again. As I've said before, Embargo isn't exactly an agreeable person (in a wikipedia editing sense), but can you see where the uneven treatment can make him get a bit steamed? If there's really going to be "no polemical statements" allowed on user pages, then it must be enforced uniformly and this back-and-forth "some admins delete UserBoxA, but a similar UserBoxB is allowed to stay" stuff has got to come to an end. User:Matt57's (not 56 as noted above) quote is at this moment deleted, but when Embargo brought it to Viridae's attention, Viridae responded with "I can't see anything offensive about at all" ? Also note the previous time where Twas_Now was the one who suggested that either "This user supports armed resistance" or "This user supports resistance to hostility" (both with wikilinks to Hezbollah, note) would be, quote, "good for you" to use.

This is really what needs to be addressed; the need fora uniform policy for ALL user pages that will be upheld by ALL admins. Tarc 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Many, many things that may be offensive aren't, this is. Use WP:UCS when evaluating these and all is well. Life is unfair sometimes, it's true, and the onesthat can really be offensive can go, but most aren't offensive, just irksome. -M^ask? 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of BS hypocrisy that has gotten this user into trouble in the first place. Tarc 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this user got in trouble for spearheading WP:POINT, which is what most people who do these sorts of userboxes end up doing. Also the people who go around removing every piece of religious text end up getting into as well. Common sense, its a wonderful thing, any one who doesn't use it often should try it. -M^ask? 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic, Itaqallah, and Matt (arbitrary section break)

I have agreed to the removal of religious text from my page, as long as the policy is applied to ALL, as user Tarc pointed out above. This user Itaqallah also has religious text (it doesnt matter if its in Arabic. It must go as well). I had removed it but was reverted and threatened by a block from Netscott for removing it. Can someone please remove this so it is clear the policy is applied to all uniformly? We're also discussing this 2 sections above this one. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. This should be discussed with the other pages. -- Avi 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am not in agreeance with the removal of User:Itaqallah's Qur'anic quote for the following reasons: (1) It's in Arabic and (2) it is addressed to "those who believe" and (3) the primary reason that its removal has come about is User:Matt57's pointed addition of a "hadith" (I still am very doubtful as to the nature of Matt57's quote due to the fact that I could only find it mentioned on anti-Islam punditry sites). If the quote on Itaqallah's page was addressed to those who didn't "believe" as though they'd be subject to eternal damnation or some other such nonsense then I'd understand the removal but I don't see what User:Matt57 or (User:Embargo for that matter ) was doing as equivalent to Itaqallah's display. (→Netscott) 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that when all is said and done that such quotes would be allowed for the reasons you mention. However, as it is a point of discussion now, I felt it better to simultaneously discuss it here and try and prevent any appearances of impartiality. I would say, that being that this is English wiki, it would be a prudent idea to, at the very least, have an accurate translation of foreign sayings on user pages to help forestall any misconceptions. -- Avi 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo wasn't the only one violating WP:POINT. as i explained to Avi, Matt57 put up that particular extract on his page in order to be provocative, and in particular, bait a response from me [10][11][12][13], despite him believing that scriptural extracts weren't allowed on user pages.[14] ITAQALLAH 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, the language, nature or context of the Quranic verse should not matter. Either all users should be allowed to have quotes from Islamic sources on user pages, or they should not. If I'm not allowed to have an Islamic source on my userpage, then it would be wrong for anyone else to be allowed to have a quotation. My question will then be: Whats the limit to what I can quote and not? I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive. Please read my arguments above. If someone is allowed to express their approval of Islam, then others should be allowed to express their disapproval of the same. If you apply Wikipedia policies, you will arrive at the right decision which is, to not allow campaigning for or against anything. Having this Quranic verse qualifies as campaining for Islam and is thus wrong. I agreed to have my quotation removed and I expect that for fairness, everyone else including Itaqallah should accept the same judgements for their user pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, my actions should not indicate that I agree that no religious quotations per se exist, but there should definitely be no statements that lead to project disruption. Pointed comments about stoning women, pedastery, killing infidels, ritual murder, theft, superiority of any one religion, race, or creed versus others (to name some hypothetial examples) are forbidden under WP:USER. Things like love your fellow man, live in peace and harmony, likely help the project.

In this situation, I felt that possibly disruptive comments should be removed, especially in a foreign language where the intent of the statement is unknown to 99% of project members. This issue needs to be hashed out and a consensus reached. My own personal opinion (FWIW) is that positive comments, even if religious in origin, are likely not disruptions, and should be permitted, but anything that can be considered disruptive should be removed, religious or non-religious. I removed the arabic comment because I could not be sure as to its meaning, and it was brought into a conversation about disruption, and the fairest result in my mind was to remove it for the time being, and reinstate it if it can be shown to be acceptable. It is not a comment as to the nature of the statement, as of now, since I am not certain as to the exact meaning just yet. -- Avi 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. "superiority of any one religion", thats what Itaqallah's verse said: "die not except in a state of Islam.". So not only is this a violation, it is also in Arabic as you pointed out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive"- it doesn't say that at all. you are misquoting a religious text, and this is not the first incidence of such. ITAQALLAH 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, please dont falsely accuse me of misquoting. The verse says what I said it says: "die not except in a state of Islam." --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

you've changed your attribution. it's still a misquote though, as per your partial quoting. you strip it of context to forward your own point. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Itaqallah, in your opinion based on context, what does it mean and what is its purpose on your talk page? -- Avi 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

it means that Muslims should a) have taqwa (the actual word used in the verse) and; b) die as Muslims. it's on my page as i find it an inspiration, and is one of the most well-known verses of the Qur'an, and it has never seemed inappropriate to quote from religious texts, as a large part of the Wikipedia community currently does. it's in Arabic because, as Pickthall and others opine, no translation can fully encapsulate the meaning of the Arabic itself. ITAQALLAH 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, why did you not quote the full verse? It says in addition: "Do not die except in a state of Islam". This means that Islam is a superior religion. I should then be allowed to say "Dont die in the state of Islam", so again - where does it end? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

... please read my comment again. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "one should die in a state of Islam" means campaining for Islam. This is not allowed on Wikipedia according to Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Any other admin's care to weigh in? -- Avi 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

meh, its a non-polemic statement of faith. If it said 'I wish non-muslims would die' or 'I wont work with jews' or 'I worship the grand wizard' or something, thats polemic. A non-offensive statement of faith is fine. Even embargo up there, I believe, would've been fine if he had just had a ubx that said 'I oppose the continued military prescence in the occupied territories'. No, he said he believes in islamic resistence and linked to hezbollah. Just think about these things people. "Will people go apeshit if I do this?" isnt that hard a question to ask yourself. -M^ask? 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The verse can only be taken as campaigning. If the word Mu'minun (the object of address) is taken to be "believer" (though I recently read a paper of Stillman who essentially disproves this), then the verse can be saying that all people who believe in God shouldn't die except in a state of Islam. That's proselytizing. Even if it means only Muslims shouldn't die except in a state of Islam, that's telling Muslims "don't leave Islam." It's campaigning no matter how you interpret it, and the presentation of this message in a foreign language is discomfiting. Arrow740 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it doesn't matter what you think the verse means; all that matters is what Itaqallah thinks the verse means. And the way he interprets the verse, there is no campaigning. --Kirby♥time 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Is he the only one seeing it? Further, as he interprets it, it means, excluding the "taqwa" issue that may be addressed in another place, "Muslims, die as Muslims." So, "Muslims, don't leave Islam." That is certainly campaigning. Arrow740 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. If a Userpage has a swastika, it is not provocative if the swastika in question is being used in the context of a Hindu religious symbol. If someone else interprets it to be a Nazi swastika, that sucks for them.--Kirby♥time 07:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First I should say that not all swastikas should be acceptable. Second, you didn't bother to address the point I will now make for a third time, that itaqallah is at best telling Muslims "stay Muslim." That is campaiging. Arrow740 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not campaigning, that's Preaching to the choir. Campaigning means to go after people with uncertain convictions, while a "Muslim", by its very definition, has a certain conviction. I see his message as harmless as a Christian saying "Christians, believe in Jesus".--Kirby♥time 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a "former Muslim" you must have once been a Muslim with uncertain convictions. The message is (in his interpretation) directing Muslims to not change their religion before they die. It is more strident than your example. Arrow740 07:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. And I fail to see how being a bit more "strident" makes it unacceptable.--Kirby♥time 08:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this issue even exists.

There is no question that Matt57's addition runs afoul of WP:POINT, though I doubt it was intended to disrupt thee encyclopedia. Matt57's quote, designed as it is to cast Islam in a negative light, is somewhat inflammatory, and should certainly stay removed. I take him at his word that he strongly feels that if positive representations of Islam are allowed, so should negative ones. There is a certain logic to this, but let's use common sense: someone saying their religion is right is not quite as inflammatory as saying your religion is wrong, even though the second is logically entailed by the first, because the second is overtly confrontational. I doubt that Matt57 meant to troll per se, but it has a similar effect.

User:Embargo is in an entirely different league; besides his overt antisemitism and paranoia, he is routinely uncivil and appears to be here mainly or only to troll; a Community Ban might be considered.

Now for the borderline case, Itaqallah's quote. The recent ArbCom ruling, "Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV." I belive this strongly disallows Embargo's behavior, weakly disallows Matt57's and allows Itaqallah's. This ruling appears to have been based upon WP:USER, which disallows "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia," as well as "polemical statements." However, there is a difference between "inflammatory" and "polemic." Polemic's Greek root means essentially "belligerent," but nowadays means argumentative, particularly about controversial topics; ArbCom's wording could have (and should have) been stronger. Still stronger is Jimbo's quote, "using userpages to...campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea," but of course that only says it is a bad idea, not that it is disallowed. Itaqallah's quote is not inflammatory, might be construed as borderline polemical, and probably amounts to "campaigning for...anything." It is not disallowed, but it is a bad idea.

Like politics, religion is famously controversial, as it was when Itaqallah's quote was written, and remains so today. Banning all religious and political statements from userpages would discourage factionalization, protect users from being typecast and help us all get along. However, the community is not there yet; too many editors are invested in the notion of userpage as a platform for self-expression, and too many others fail to appreciate the degree to which this contributes to factionalization and battlegroundish behavior on talk space and in mainspace. Even when one edits fairly neutrally, declarations of partiality towards a subject one frequently edits creates the appearance of bias. Conversely, when people are asked to pretend that they are neutral, they will often wind up thinking more neutrally as a result.

To return to my original point, it's unfortunate that this issue even exists. It would be far simpler, and take so much less time for us all to parse, to simply ban all irrelevant opinions from userspace, for it shall be far easier for us to decide which viewpoints are irrelevant than which are unacceptable. I suppose I agree with Matt57 that clear and relatively objective rules are warranted. Barring that, we are doomed by our own hand to repeat these discussions again and again, arguing about what is or is not inflammatory, polemic, extensive, etc.Proabivouac 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Proabivouac on many points → (Itaqallah's quote is not inflammatory, might be construed as borderline polemical, and probably amounts to "campaigning for...anything." It is not disallowed, but it is a bad idea.) It is all about common sense. I must remind everyone that it was me who started this thread(s) and it was mainly because Embargo and Matt57 were making a point and provoking the community. Why? Embargo seems to be a Muslim having a Talmudic quote about pedastry in Judaism while Matt57, while being an atheist (as it is stated on his userpage) was quoting a hadith about the treatment of women in Islam.

Many users use the {{Torah_portion}} on their userpages. Is that inflammatory or provocative? NO! Why? Because they are Jewish and do not intend in any way to provoke anyone. So arguing about Itaqallah's Quranic verse is clearly a pointy argument. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As Prov said, the simplest and best solution for this to have consistent and easy to follow rules: You either disallow everyone to have religious quotes, or allow them. Allowing them causes factionalization as Prov said - thats why Jimbo Wales said its a bad idea (becuase its campaining for Islam). If someone is going to praise Islam on their home page, that is inflammotory to me because Islam says I'll burn in Hell. I should have the freedom to say whatever I want to say about Islam too, if others are allowed. That verse was offensive to me because it said everyone should die in the state of Islam. If thats true, I should be allowed to say everyone should not die in the state of Islam. Both are equivalent statements; niether is more inflammotory than the other - thats the main point here. The only solution is to keep religious quotes and these kinds of separations out, otherwise the question will always be: What is allowed? And as Jimbo said and he was right: campaining is a bad idea. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking, i'll be supporting the idea. However, you fail to understand Matt that your and Embargo's quotes were an intent to provoke others. As for Itaqallah's verse, as he explained, it was his inspiration as it is the case for many Jewish and Christian and other religious users as well as atheists. What i fail to understand is that why are you insisting on Islam while avoiding talking about how Judaism and Christianity view and consider atheists. Why Itaqallah in particular?! Isn't it your own POINT which i've been refering to since my first post above? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What the verse essentially says is that anyone that doesn't die as a Muslim will be punished and burn in hell. That anyone should see something like that as "inspirational" is pretty much beyond my comprehension, but of course anyone is free to choose. Anyway, what matters here is that I believe that users should be able to visit each others user space without having to be confronted with such unpleasant threats, and the problem is not only with Itaqallahs user page. BrandonYusufToropov's user page also "welcome" non-Muslim visitors with a threat about hellfire, and on his page it is written in plain English. I have no idea what his intention was when he added it, and perhaps it has indeed been very much inspirational to him, but I still believe that is more important that users can visit each others pages without being exposed to any such threats. -- Karl Meier 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Karl Meier's removal of this material from User:BrandonYusufToropov's user page.[15] According to current policy, material which is religious in nature is neither specially forbidden nor specially protected; the relevant questions are whether the material is inflammatory, polemic, extensive or campaigning. This presence of this quote is naturally interpreted as promising other editors - and perhaps also wishing upon them - eternal torment, and is plainly (and literally) inflammatory and divisive. "Go to Hell" is an uncivil insult in any spirit; how much more so when it is said in all seriousness.Proabivouac 07:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"What the verse essentially says is that anyone that doesn't die as a Muslim will be punished and burn in hell"- the problem with Karl's point here is that the verse doesn't say that at all, and so i call into question whether or not Karl is aware of precisely what verse is under discussion. ITAQALLAH 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This was another divisive and campaining verse, a stronger one. We must remove all religious quotes. Faysal, my intent wasnt to provoke. Its simple: either everyone should be allowed to have verses or not. The intent is irrelevant. If Itaqallah and BYT wants to educate the public about some aspect of the Quran they want to show to everyone, I did exactly the same. We can end this matter by deciding to remove religious quotes from userpages like Itaqallah's and BYT, because again, that is campaining for an issue, in this case, Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would simply like to see a uniform policy in regards to this situation. I got dragged into all of this because of Embargo's case, where he worked out a compromise with one admin, only to have another admin revoke that, as well as decline to apply the same standard to other users. Whether the ultimate decision is "no polemicals" or "some polemicals" or whatever, I just want to see something that is applied across the board. Tarc 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to take this to Wikipedia talk:User page and discuss it. I believe that we've achieved somehow what this thread has requested. Now, we need to move forward and archiev this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another userpage has been introduced to the discussion,[16] so archiving is premature.Proabivouac 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please fill me in. The reason no one could ask whether I would mind removing this material from my userpage is that . . .. ? BYT 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul654's failure to assume good faith for good-faithed edits

I'm here to raise my concern with Raul654's behavior as of late. Most of this has to do with his failure to assume good faith for good-faithed editors, such as myself (and probably others).[17] Also are the personal attacks he has resorted to.[18] While, of course, this is a result of his recent incivility and disruptive editing[19] and subsequent block[20], this is no new problem that he has had. His actions with respect to his status within the Wikipedia community should be questioned. ~ UBeR 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find that there is any concern with Raul654's behavior as of late, or at any earlier time. He understands his business well, and is able to understand and implement the spirit of all the instruction creep. We can not run the wikipedia by making it look and sound like court deliberations. Certain decisions are always required to be taken very promptly to protect the integrity of wikipedia, and good faith does not mean a license to do whatever one may desire to do here! Perhaps, final rule is to IAR and move forward to protect and value add to the project. --Bhadani (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 is one of the most trusted people on Wikipedia. He is not only an admin, but a bureaucrat and an arbitrator, and has Oversight privileges. You're going to have to go some to get him removed from those important, and well-earned, positions. Corvus cornix 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uber has been a problem user on Wikipedia since about 5 minutes after he got here. He's previously been warned for it, both on his user page and on this noticeboard. His edits to the global warming article have been detrimental, and then have been done in conjunction with a cadre of other users who share his anti-science POV. Using tactics I've outlined here, they repeatedly attempt to whitewash the article, water down the science, and play up the skepticism. While giving lots of lip-service to good faith and a desire not to revert war, they do exactly that in spades. Uber himself has been warned about this repeatedly: [21][22][23][24] Or, to put it a bit different, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." - Wikipedia:Assume good faith In short - Uber's privilege to edit Wikipedia deserves re-examination. I think a community-ban is in order. Raul654 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is yet a further example of how Raul654 is perniciously attacking me, and in a very deceitful and ignorant manner. Raul654 is wrong on many factors. For example, his report of "incidence" against my "trolling" was without foundation, despite repeated request for evidence of any such behavior on my behalf. Needless to say, this was not forthcoming. Next is his attempt to demonstrate my "detrimental" and "repeated attempts to whitewash" the global warming article, while having "been warned about this repeatedly." But lets look at his examples (none of which demonstrate any such behavior) he provided: Skyemoor's contribution to the FAR. The edits that this user provides were found to be in accordance with the consensus of the editors of that article, brought about through discussion on my behalf. Of course, Raul654's involvement in actual discussion to amend that article are nonexistent, and instead he chooses to assume bad faith for every edit I make, despite near unanimous agreement among those who actually choose to involve themselves in discussion, rather than disruptive revert wars. So thus it appears Skyemoor's edits were the ones that were contentious, and is a further demonstration of bad faith in my contributions, which have overwhelmingly been beneficial to that article. Of course, then, is YFB's innocent inquiry on my talk page. He came to me asking about a specific edit I made, and I replied with my response and reasoning. He, nor anyone else (save, maybe, Raul654), disagrees with me regarding that edit. So what Raul654 was trying to demonstrate with that example, I do not know. Third is Mr. Salsman's unfounded and retracted attack on me. He believed I unfairly deleted content, but of course I did no such thing. Perhaps this is why Mr. Salsman withdrew his comments?[25] Of course, Raul654 wouldn't like that to be mentioned. (Also note Mr. Salsman is now banned from editing that article for a period of three months.) Last, then, was Dmcdevit's discussion on my talk page. I'll leave this one for the reader to interpret.

So I believe it's quite obvious Raul654's sentiments based purely on personal feelings and misguided vendettas are completely inappropriate and unbecoming, as are his calls for my banishment from Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Dmcdevit and Raul654 are both notorious POV-pushers and trolls. For sure. And UBeR has never been blocked for edit warring on the Global Warming article, apart from the once. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zomg JzG is right! How'd that escape us! Someone set us up the bomb! *cough* -M^ask? 21:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm here isn't very well appreciated. Your misrepresentations (i.e. straw men) do little to help this discussion. Dcmdevit came to me to noting the ongoing tensions, and I respected and acknowledge his comments on my talk page. I haven't really a clue of what you're trying to suggest here. ~ UBeR 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's our way of saying your complaint is ludicrous. -M^ask? 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to both Raul and UBeR, and without taking any position whatsoever on the merits of either editor's actions, I would prefer not to be used as ammunition by either side in this debate. UBeR, the main reason I haven't added further to that thread is not necessarily because I agree with your (re-)addition (I remain dissatisfied with the wording, notably the use of the word primarily), but because I have been extremely busy IRL and not had an opportunity to discuss it further. I am also beginning to see that getting involved in "discussion" about the Global Warming article is a very good way to get a black mark in one's metaphorical copybook, get drawn into long and unhelpfully pedantic arguments which rapidly diverge from the point at hand, or attract terse dismissals of genuinely good-faith queries. The article has become a battleground where mere mortals (you know, those normal types who don't have a POV to push but would like a good article... remember them?) are ill advised to venture. Every editor at that article/talk page needs to take a good hard look at their contributions and see whether WP:POINT, WP:KETTLE and WP:DICK strike any familiar chords. --YFB ¿ 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with YFB.--Blue Tie 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I sadly believe that UBeR seeks to undermine, harrass, and demote admins active at Global warming that do not hold his POV on global warming[26]. To present a complete synopsis of his antics would require a full time job, so I'll simply show some recent examples. His manner is often sharp and derogatory (here concerning Durova[27]), and he "rapid fired" contentious POV edits[28][29] during a Dmcdevit method event to draw edit warring, wants those who revert his editting blocked, [30], then castigates Dmcdevit for recommending level-headed editting [31]. He's back at his usual games again, so I recognize his tactics for what they are. --Skyemoor 13:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:CANVASS? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or any more so than this? ~ UBeR 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uber spent several months specifically targeting his harassment towards WMC (including Uber's now deleted "hit list"; hit list pt 2). That's why I notified WMC. Uber's multiple canvassing notifications [32][33], on the other hand, cannot be so easily explained. Raul654 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I side totally with the well respected Raul I wonder if just two citations really can be used to invoke WP:CANVASS when the policy/guideline itself references the following - Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.. Just my tuppence worth. Pedro |  Chat  22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal, I think, but the particular phrasing of the message here isn't appropriate--"I understand that your involvement, albeit recent, has come under tremendous amount of attack, despite acting genuinely good-faithed. Recently, I have raised concern with these editors who attacks those who innocently look to amend the article through good-faithed contributions." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed not a big deal. But your cite is better covered by wp:civil so I still feel WP:CANVASS doesn't stand under Raul's comment. But this is pointless and pedantic considering the standing Raul has in the community. Surely time to archive this debate?Pedro |  Chat  23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a sad day when the administrators have to resort to fallacies, like argumentum ad verecundiam, to defend their fellow peers. Look not at your perceived notions, but rather the content of the issue. Do you mean to tell me these remarks are inline for a so-called "arbitrator?" Since when has Wikipedia allowed for personal attacks. This is not the Wikipedia I know. And to quickly address my "inappropriate wording" to Blue Tie brought up by Akhilleus, it is the same wording Blue Tie has used to describe how he has been treated since the get-go on that article, despite his musing and well faithed contributions. ~ UBeR 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, uBeR, but if your note on Blue Tie's talk page can be summed up as "you've been attacked by a bunch of people, and I started a complaint about one of them--come join in," that's a violation of WP:CANVAS. At least, that's the way it seems to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be Canvassing when I saw it, but I have only read that policy once and I am not deeply familiar. When I read it the first time, I did not think it was a good policy. I believe that notifying ALL concerned individuals is ok. I do not believe it is such a good thing to bring in unconcerned or marginally concerned individuals. I tend to think a targeted focus to just your "friends" is probably not in the best interests of wikipedia most of the time. Sometimes I could imagine exceptions. I think it is likely that things go on in email that do not make their way to the discussion pages. As an aside, I would point out that UBeR does not always agree with my edits. I am unaware of any that he has done that I disagree with. Not sure how that adds to the discussion but perhaps it indicates the degree of separation between us. I think that there is no substantive connection but I did post here based upon his notice to me. Otherwise I would not have known about this complaint.--Blue Tie 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR has pulled the rug from under my feet with regards to a couple of edits I've made. And I certainly don't belong in the man-is-causing-global-warming camp. UBeR is consistent in making good-faith edits and certainly discusses possible solutions on how an article should read on talk pages before making the edits, a good example was yesterday on how to formulate an article relating to Global Warming deleting POV and weasel wording. The problem as I see it is that the actual POV pushers who think they know whats best for the Planet naturally feel they know what is best for Wikipedia. Banning UBeR (short-term or long-term) does the community no favours. --Dean1970 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, why is this relevant to ANI? What administrator action are you asking be taken, UBeR? --Iamunknown 23:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read? It says so right on the top opf this page: "This is [...] the Wikipedia complaints department"! ;-). Seriously, UBeR is a very weird editor. In contrast to most of the other "sceptical" editors on global warming (and surrounding articles), a lot of his edits are actually improving the articles. He is incredibly pedantic (which can be good sometimes, e.g. when hunting typos) and relies heavily on rules (and his interpretation of them). He also seems to have take a strong dislike against certain editors, and tries to needle them with irrelevant or plain wrong complaints. See my editor review of him for a slightly older perspective. I would hate to lose his good qualities, but sometimes he becomes unbearable. I don't know what would be best here. --Stephan Schulz 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I went to a different page that read, "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you may do so [at AN/I]." :-) ~ UBeR 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It does say that. But it's still a fair question to ask--what result are you looking for? If your complaint is valid, how could it be solved? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same experiences as Stephan Schulz, but more experience of the bad side than the good. UBeR consistently engages in abuse of Wikiprocesses in the attempt to push his POV. For example, having canvassed votes (Rameses, Brittainia and the rest of that crew) in an unsuccessful attempt to delete Global warming conspiracy theory he justified dispute tags on the article with reference to a post made on AfD by another editor who later changed his vote to Keep. He uses the rules, but he needs to learn to play by them. In these circumstances, it's unsurprising that his good faith gets called into question. JQ 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uber asked me to comment, so here goes. If I have to choose between the two, I'd take Raul in a heartbeat. I voted for him to be an arbitrator, and I support his arbcom rulings (including, paradoxically, the one under which I currently chafe). I'm a believer in the system.

On the other hand (paradox #2?) I also think that Raul fails to understand the complexity of Global Warming. I have read several books over the years on the topic. And the folks here are simply gaming the system on the subject. It's simply a case of might makes right (which I disagree with), but at Wikipedia "consensus rules". And as the bishop of my church says, "You can't make people change."

Bottom line: the global warming articles will remain biased until "enough" editors want it to be neutral. --Uncle Ed 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, Uber does have a good side but the bad outweights the good. He is one of the worst examples of endless pointless talking that amounts to trolling I've seen - his editor review provides good examples of this William M. Connolley 07:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, editors such as User:Ed Poor and User:UBeR are some of the biggest problems we have at Wikipedia. It often takes years to get to the point where actions are assertively taken against them and in the meantime they wreak havoc trying to "balance" articles by inserting their own unduly weighted opinions in hopes that "both sides" can be presented -- even when there are not two sides to present. --ScienceApologist 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that's funny, the last email I got from Jimbo praised my "wisdom". Do you think there are not "two sides to present" on Chinese communism? Or just on anthropogenic global warming? --Uncle Ed 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't rest too heavily on your laurels, Ed. Riddle me this: why do you think that you have been so focused on the existence of two and only two sides for the "issues" you name? Why not three, four, ninety-nine, or a million? Are you maybe thinking too highly of yourself as the king of neutrality? I think so. --ScienceApologist 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one put off when editors repeatedly drop the J-bomb? --Minderbinder 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it irks us all and comes across as very 'my dad can beat up your dad'-ish. I believe we have WP:JIMBOSAID for this. -M^ask? 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be widely differing standards for what a ReliableSource should be for an assertion allowed in the global warming page. One side seems to require that ReliableSources have applied a standard like "Verifiability, not truth" among those in the profession in their own work. The other side seems to require only the very weak standard of "Attributability, not truth" in being able to insert to the global warming page whatever unsubstantiated political propaganda some Senator or political operative has asserted on television. So we might have a timely discussion about what the standard for ReliableSource for insertion to the global warming page should be. --Rednblu 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely - this is the very cusp of the problem. And i'm sad to say that WP:RS,WP:ATT etc. doesn't help much in this case. My personal POV on this is to go for the "verifiability not truth". At the same time i also believe that it is important to gain consensus for the amount of needed documentation - ie. there are trivialities that can be fought out on the Talk pages which do not neccessarily need to end up in a sentence massively overloaded with references for each little nuance. Just my 2 cents. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could get everyone involved with the global warming page to agree on some standard for the ReliableSources, perhaps in the direction of "Verifiability, not truth"? It somehow does not seem fair to exclude "Attributable, not truth" statements just because the editors disagree with what the ReliableSource says, would you agree? --Rednblu 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you can do it (I certainly hope so), but that sounds like a good idea. --kingboyk 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But even if we would get everyone to agree to the phrase "Verifiability, not truth," there still would be about half of the Wikipedia community who would vote in a straw poll that "Verifiability" means the same thing as "Attributability", is that not true? So how do we resolve this? --Rednblu 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie's Experience

I have been asked to comment here. Rather than go into extensive unsubstantiated commentary, I will provide an annotated history of my encounters with Raul, whom I have never had any dealings with prior to March. Despite never having dealt with me before, he was uncivil with me from the start and refused to consider an assumption of good faith even as I asked for it.

Initial Interaction

• 19:54, 26 March 2007 here. Our first “Interaction”. Raul conducts a Personal Attack / Failure to assume good faith.
• 23:45, 27 March 2007 here I post a day later, (but not directly to Raul). In the post, though specifically focused on another subject, I deny that I am a POV Pusher which alludes to Raul’s previous statement but it is indirect.
• 16:27, 28 March 2007 Raul responded to my post, again with accusations of bad faith and declared that my statements were “transparently disingenuous”.
• 17:01, 28 March 2007 I then address Raul directly on that talk page. I describe Raul’s behavior toward me as unethical and ask him to apply standards of good faith. This was AFTER I had attempted to take the matter to his talk page and was rebuffed. (see below)
• 18:02, 28 March 2007 Raul replies that he does not have to assume good faith if he does not think it is merited. That is the second time he tells me this. (see below).

I try to talk with Raul directly

• 23:57, 27 March 2007 I take my complaint to Raul on his talk page - this is the first time I address him directly. I request that he refrain from personal attack and tell him that in his position, he should set a better example.
• 01:34, 28 March 2007 he replies to me declaring my edits to be detrimental, that the people who object to me are all good editors and that my claim to be npov are irrelevant. He apparently is again telling me why he does not have to assume good faith or treat me well. He provides some diffs where he believes my edits demonstrate that I deserve the bad treatment.
• 02:03, 28 March 2007 I respond that he is still being unfair to me but at least he is up front about his hatred for me. Recognizing that he is not open to discussion about it, I let it go.

I present a concept for an article

• 20:30, 31 March 2007 I initiate a topic by describing a new outline that I believe will work better for the article.
• 20:35, 31 March 2007 Raul objects to the order, labeling my outline as a “massive” “POV whitewash” rewrite.
• 10:19, 2 April 2007 I reply that I did not intend a rewrite and was not trying for a new pov.

Raul participates in edit war and is blocked

• 02:11, 14 April 2007 I edit Count Iblis’ entries in the article, based, chiefly, upon lack of cites.
• 02:15, 14 April 2007 Raul reverts my edit calling it “POV whitewashing. This is one of the reverts that led to Raul being blocked for edit warring.
• I had observed his excess editing but was not inclined to report it until I saw him engaged in personal attack, so I contributed one diff to the 5 already presented for edit warring.

Raul has not covered himself in glory in this area. I think a member of Arbcom should behave better, but he is honest in expressing his feelings and biases.

And just as importantly, he is not the only person who has behaved in this way with respect to Global Warming (and related pages). There are other long-time editors there who refuse to assume good faith, who attack new editors, remove comments from talk pages and who, as a group, work to revert the article to their standard. This has deeply hurt the article and the project, in my opinion. There are editors who could be handled, probably by Arbcom, if a complaint were made. I could supply some diffs that show a consistent pattern of egregious behaviors. Instead of trying to go that route, which I believe is hurtful, I attempted a mediation, mentioning behavior and Ownership problems with that page. That mediation closed without even attempting to address the issues I raised. A second mediation was opened and I responded with similar but stronger complaints here and here. That too has just fizzled. No matter how politely I ask for positive responses, no matter how gently I seek redress, nothing happens. I suppose I could take my concerns to arbcom, but I am not sure I want to take the time to do that. Instead I am considering other options. Maybe just leaving the project. It is horrible to spend good time in such a waste. Or perhaps I will just ignore any page where ownership issues are rampant like this. I have not made up my mind, and one reason is that I am not sure just abandoning that page is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I am not sure. But, on that note, I have found several other good editors who have left that global warming page or others like it, or even left the project, directly due to the problems with ownership that I mention here or other conflicts on that page that I have not mentioned. I think that is hurtful to the project. I have previously complained about how that page is "stable" only because a dedicated cadre of "Owners" turn away anyone who is not in perfect harmony with their views. They make it a war zone when it does not have to be. It is sad that it has been permitted to go this way. And I believe that it was not simply neglect but admins and maybe higher authorities have simply turned an eye away from these activities that has led to this damage because it is being done by people within their own ranks. I believe Raul was sucked into this but he is not the only one. It is very sad.

--Blue Tie 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not be fooled. What User:Blue Tie fails to mention is his own willing participation in the Global Warming Wars. WP:KETTLE, in spades. Raymond Arritt 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no attempt to fool anyone. I have not left anything out of my interactions with Raul. I engaged in complete and full disclosure of my interactions with him, to the best of my ability, except for a brief question and answer process on 17 April that was somewhat irrelevant. (Raul, oddly, challenged me on an issue where I was not disagreeing with his view and I pointed that out to him so the discussion ended. I considered it irrelevant to this topic.) In all of the above incidents, I have presented all of the diffs, so editors and admins may judge my actions and statements as well.

As for being a willing participant in the "Global Warming Wars" as you call them, I have worked hard to seek resolution, to discuss things on talk pages. I tried to engage in mediation and actively took all of my concerns to the talk page. I have been polite to the other people on that board and tried to show respect to everyone on all sides. As for being a "willing" participant, everyone is "willing" to edit on that page. I am not different from the rest in that regard. But I am not the cause of problems. I have consistently sought for solutions and resolutions and the response has been that I have been treated badly. Such as this post where I am accused without evidence. I believe a review of my edits will show that I have been polite and reasonable with everyone and sought for resolution without hostility or acrimony. I have made some mistakes, but they were made in ignorance and I do not think I have been harsh or unkind to anyone. I have also repeatedly asked that if I have offended or been harsh with anyone that they would please bring it to my talk page so that I could make some sort of restitution. No one has brought any complaint to me. So if Raymond Arritt has a problem with me, I also ask him to bring it to my talk page so that I may redress the issue. --Blue Tie 14:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle... Blue Tie has been a breath of freash air to the dictators who roost at GW and have driven off most anyone who cares about the article but doesn't always share their views. I wonder what camp Raymond Arritt is in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.20.11 (talk • contribs). — 66.81.20.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Blue Tie has been the only voice of reason at Global Warming. i am absoluterly amazed that Raymond Arritt is taking any position against Blue Tie. this makes me wonder if Arritt is interested in contructive outcomes, since Blue Tie was the main advocate of a positive approach. --Sm8900 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really so very simple

WP:NPOV in a nutshell: we report the established views from reliable sources, giving them due weight as to their prevalence.

It doesn't matter if the scientists are wrong because Wikipedia doesn't publish what is necessarily fact, nor does it undertake original research to find out if the so-called experts are correct. We merely collate and compile our articles from the reliable sources.

Right now, the "scientists' argument" is the overwhelmingly prevalent one, and should occupy (I'd estimate as a lay observer, who only knows of this topic through the non-specialist media) about 90% of the article. The counter-arguments are not widely accepted, and should not get undue weight.

Any editor who is here because they "know the truth" is likely to be blind to the above. Any edits which seek to give undue weight to any argument which isn't supported by the sources is a discredit to the encyclopedia.

The bottom line: in 50 years "we" may have a good laugh at those global warming freaks, but right now the case that global warming is happening and it's happening due to human factors, is the prevalent one. --kingboyk 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it were so simple, it would have been solved by now. It has been called "complex" by the mediator. Anyway, I do not think the problem is just "science vs non-science". In addition to scientists not being in full agreement, there is also the issue of wikipedia standards. So it might not be so simple. --Blue Tie 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not so simple because we're not here to discuss the merits of inclusion for particular information on a particular article. That may be reserved for the article discussion page. I'm here to bring attention to the rude and incivil behavior and attacks brought upon by Raul654, your so called "arbitrator." ~ UBeR 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As the above comments have repeatedly pointed out above, not only is your complaint totally without merit, but a more pressing concern is your repeated trolling on Wikipedia. Raul654 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I provided two clear examples, Blue Tie, a dozen or so. Whether you and your cronies choose to ignore them is not up to me, however. ~ UBeR 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to second that. Minority views on topics such as global warming must follow the undue weight clause of NPOV. The minority view (and we can name the number of prominent scientists that refute GW on our fingers and toes and even most of them only refute parts of the majority findings) should be relegated to a brief mention and a link to expansion in subarticles under appropriate titles.--MONGO 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the number of scientists that we have counted on wikipedia is larger than that. And the Oregon Petition suggests it is thousands. But here is the real problem: describing it as a minority view on the basis of counting (as you suggest) regardless of many or few, requires Original Research. However, I do agree that minority views should not be given undue weight. But even that does not make the issue simple.--Blue Tie 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to wonder why UBeR is spending so much of his time suing people in the wiki courts. Why not argue about edits to the global warming page on the talk page. Even if UBeR is right about Raul, it is not very relevant because if Raul were the only problem then that would not prevent UBeR from eding the global warming page if his edits are reasonable. Raul not assuming good faith? But then why behave like a three year old child and cry? Count Iblis 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. Additionally, I am the one starting discussion on the talk page. Raul654 is the one who is blindly reverting. And your point is incorrect. I made several "reasonable" edits that even William and other dissenters strongly agreed with. Raul654 is in the minority here. ~ UBeR 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the level of antagonism is too high for UBeR's taste. Or perhaps it is the notion that an admin/crat/arbitrator lends support and becomes so deeply involved in a dispute that it becomes personal is an issue. Or maybe something else. But whatever the reason, one does not HAVE to wonder why. Some may WANT to wonder why, but only as a form of personal attack. It is part of the wikipedia process to seek redress if wronged. If there were no systems for this, it would not be a good thing. But there is a system and defaming people who seek to abide in the system is wrong. --Blue Tie 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) blocked User:Tsunami Butler to gain an advantage in a content dispute. This appears to be part of a pattern of behavior on SlimVirgin's part.

There has been a content dispute brewing since last fall. The background to the dispute is that one week after joining Wikipedia in November of 2004 [34], SlimVirgin authored the article Jeremiah Duggan, which she has OWNed ever since. This article is essentially a mirror for the "Justice for Jeremiah" website. That website is a compendium of libels and harsh attacks on Lyndon LaRouche, issued primarily by Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two former leftists who, twenty years ago, received relatively prominent press coverage for their polemics against LaRouche. Not long thereafter they faded into obscurity and the Duggan affair was an opportunity for them to get back into the public eye.

Jeremiah Duggan was a college student who was a casual attendee at a LaRouche conference in Germany. During the conference he committed suicide, for reasons that have never been explained. The "Justice for Jeremiah" project has implied that the LaRouche group somehow caused his suicide, although no motive has ever been suggested. Also, no reliable source has ever specifically alleged that the LaRouche group caused his death, although as SlimVirgin put it, "almost every single source that has written about this implies that it is somehow involved in his death."[35] The idea of an article for the sole purpose of promoting "implications" of involvement in a murder is troubling from the standpoint of WP:BLP. SlimVirgin has insisted on inserting material from this article in other articles, including: Helga Zepp-LaRouche,Schiller Institute, Lyndon LaRouche, Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche movement, and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Meanwhile, during the latter part of that same year, Chip Berlet had begun to edit Wikipedia as Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), and began working as a team with SlimVirgin in POV disputes. Along with Will Beback (who used the username Willmcw) they began to assert ownership over the articles on the "LaRouche template." In June of 2005, Dennis King opened an account as Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), but he did not begin to edit LaRouche articles until November of 2006. His edits of those articles developed into a frenzy of self-citing (see [36], [37],[38])

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) began editing in October of 2006. Among her first edits is a question on a talk page, where she receives a personal attack from Cberlet in response:[39][40]

Tsunami Butler began to put together evidence that Cberlet and Dking were in violation of numerous policies, including WP:COI#Citing_oneself, WP:LIVING#Biased_or_malicious_content, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. This became the basis for a MedCab case (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07.) Four days after SlimVirgin first took notice of this case [41] it was closed without any explanation[42]. The essential content dispute between SlimVirgin and Tsunami Butler was over whether Wikipedia articles should be a soapbox for the theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, in violation of WP:NOT.

Here is the chronology of SlimVirgin's ban of Tsunami Butler:

• April 1, 2007: SlimVirgin asks for ArbCom permission to ban Tsunami Butler. [43]

I won't list all the diffs for the following section, as the material has been neatly archived here: Tsunami Butler ban discussion.

The reason given for the proposed ban is "acting to promote LaRouche," under the "LaRouche 1" ArbCom case, where it says: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." However, SlimVirgin was unable to produce any evidence that Tsunami Butler had violated this remedy. As ArbCom member Kirill Lokshin put it, "The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case."

Consequently, SlimVirgin changes her rationale for the ban. Unable to find evidence of a violation of the ArbCom decisions, she falls back upon the old stand-by, accusations of sock-puppetry. Tsunami Butler has informed me by e-mail that she edits using AOL in Los Angeles, meaning that she has a dynamic IP address. As I understand it, this means that any check user evidence linking her to another user is circumstantial at best; I don't know how many people edit Wikipedia using AOL in Los Angeles, but my hunch is that it is quite a substantial number. SlimVirgin chooses her words carefully when she says: "A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting."

The relevant policy that has been violated by SlimVirgin is the following: Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy)

From the time she launches the campaign to ban Tsunami Butler, to the actual banning 10 days later, I count 133 edits by SlimVirgin to LaRouche-template articles and talk pages, mostly of a contentious nature.

• Example: on April 6, 2007, Tsunami Butler requests that quotes from King and Berlet "be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability." April 7, 2007: SlimVirgin adds new attack material from Chip Berlet, alleging that LaRouche is guilty of secret, coded anti-Semitism: "You would have to listen over time to a ... set of patterns, and you would begin to hear the echoes of the classic antisemitic conspiracy theories." This material is added to Schiller Institute.[44]

This ban should be overturned, and POV pushing at the Jeremiah Duggan article and related articles should be scrutinized. --NathanDW 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty much the same info that was on the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin...it was deleted for a reason.--MONGO 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, NathanDW's post appears to be vexatious. As was clearly explained to him already, Tsunami Butler was blocked for sockpuppetry, confirmed by Checkuser. The block is clearly valid. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I know virtually nothing about LaRouche; he sounds like a political cult figure similar to Ayn Rand, with a small cadre of devoted followers, a few equally devoted opponents, and a majority of the public who has never heard of him. But I find the claims about LaRouche in Jeremiah Duggan to be problematic. There are some weasel words ("The group is widely seen as a fringe political cult"). I'm also not sure whether it's appropriate to mention LaRouche's prison term for tax evasion in an article this distantly related (it is, of course, appropriate to note this reliably sourced fact in LaRouche's own article). I think it's questionable whether allowing significant influence in the LaRouche article from relatively minor figures (Berlet and King) is appropriate under WP:BLP, especially since Berlet and King are Wikipedia editors themselves, and we usually don't allow self-promotion of this nature. While we must be on the lookout for LaRouche POV-pushing (I've seen enough Ayn Rand POV-pushing to know the kind of stuff that got people pissed off here), we must be equally diligent to ensure the articles do not tilt too far in the opposite direction. I would urge Arbcom to revisit their cases on LaRouche in light of WP:BLP, which didn't exist when some of the cases were initially heard. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• tl;dr, and please, cut it out with that funky formatting, it looks like you cut and pasted from a 40 column C64. SchmuckyTheCat 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin explained her TsunamiButler block to User:Don't_lose_that_number, another Larouche rep on WP:

  The permanent block was for a violation of the ArbCom rulings and for WP:SOCK. The accounts are believed to be operated by a banned user. The ArbCom does not distinguish between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and they made that explicit in their LaRouche2 ruling. However, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to have another admin review the block — bearing in mind that seven admins apart from me have commented already — and then it will be as though that admin instigated it; or they may agree with you and unblock. If you want me to pick one, let me know; otherwise you can choose an admin and ask him or her to e-mail me for more information.[45][46]

  I also see no problem at all with this block. It is very common for ArbCom to not distinguish between sock and meat puppets based on their behavior pattern, and once there is such pattern any admin can block, regardless of any content disputes or involvement. SlimVirgin makes it clear that multiple admins reviewed and supported her decision, both before and after, so I think bringing this issue here, without mentioning these reviews and support, including the certification of the action by an ArbCom member, is misleading at best. Crum375 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the block looks good to me, it has received plenty of attention. I do wish you would keep your complaint much briefer though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been handled properly. Not a content issue, but rather violation of Arbcom rulings. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Same as this? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think every i's been dotted here. I would also hope that arbcom can make it crystal clear what LaRouche supporters can and cannot do (apologies if they have clarified earlier rulings somewhere already). IronDuke 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the content dispute, but it seems pretty clear that SlimVirgin was on absolutely solid ground here. Let it go. --Leifern 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Khoikhoi 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

<--Multiple clarifications have been issued, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche_2, as well as the case decisions themselves, which establish a bright line test. Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, sources tied to the LaRouche movement are not considered reliable for use in articles except those that are closely related to LaRouche. I don't see how this is ambiguous, except as you can see from the talk page links, this seems to come up over and over again. Thatcher131 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. SlimVirgin initially posed her desire to ban as an ArbCom violation, but she dropped it like a hot potato after Kirill Lokshin pointed out that there was no ArbCom violation. After that, she had to resort to the all-purpose, "one size fits all" excuse of the ban-happy admin, sockpuppetry (or in this case, meatpuppetry.) But I would also point out that Herschelkrustofsky was banned for very specific reasons, not simply disagreeing with SlimVirgin on content. If anyone who has a content dispute with SlimVirgin is a meatpuppet, then you are giving her a virtual 007 "license to ban" which it looks like she has abused more than once. Please remember that, lacking a valid claim of a violation of ArbCom rulings, the operative policy is Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy) If the basis for banning is supposed to be so solid, what is preventing her from having another admin do it? --NathanDW 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So if some other admin just does it, does that satisfy your complaint? --Rednblu 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely you jest. We are looking at major league POV-pushing by SlimVirgin, Cberlet and Dking, aggravated by the misuse of admin authority to silence any opposition. In my opinion, this is an abuse of trust where the only appropriate remedy would be de-sysopping. The use of admin authority must be rigorously POV-neutral, or it undermines faith in the whole system. --NathanDW 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then your issue is POV-pushing, is it? I don't have independent knowledge of what the truth is. But when I look at a page like Jeremiah Duggan, it looks just about right in terms of a 50-50 turf war over what rumors and hearsay will be allowed on the page. There is a lot of OriginalResearch there--on both sides. I'm not sure it is good for Wikipedia to have such a page--because, by my standards, there are no ReliableSources that have adequately Verified their assertions. Notwithstanding my questions about whether the page Jeremiah Duggan should be deleted, judging from the HistoryRecord and the TalkPage, it does not seem that the honorable User:NathanDW, User:SlimVirgin, User:Cberlet, or User:Dking have any of them singly or together done POV-pushing that is not completely justified from the best available rumors and hearsay attributable to the best ReliableSources. Can you suggest a step-wise procedure that we could both use to detect this "major league POV-pushing" that you see? --Rednblu 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be very enthusiastic about removing the rumors and hearsay from said article, which would leave it as a stub. The article was put up for deletion by one editor, who was promptly blocked by SlimVirgin (see User_talk:IAMthatIAM.)

But, to the larger issue of POV pushing. It's a perennial problem, and there are lots of policies here to discourage it. But my real issue is POV-pushing with abuse of admin powers, which is intolerable, and when someone is caught red-handed doing this, there ought to be consequences. --NathanDW 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is your stepwise procedure for detecting "POV-pushing with abuse of admin power"? I would be glad to try it out. --Rednblu 08:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy one. The tell-tale sign is when you see an admin blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute. --NathanDW 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be circular reasoning. It hasn't been established that Tsunami Butler was blocked to "gain an advantage in a content dispute". That account was blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user based on CheckUser findings. -Will Beback · † · 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question, why was the original RfC oversighted? What policy did it violate? Or are all RfCs permanently deleted once they run their course? If not, why was this one the exception? Cla68 13:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just answered my own question...although several users (including myself) endorsed the RfC, only one was listed in the block for attempting resolution with the object of the complaint. Therefore, according to the rules, the RfC was deleted. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. Cla68 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand right, there was evidence that Tsunami was a sock. The blocking admin, however, was also involved in heavily editing the same article that Tsunami was editing. Thus, it was a conflict of interest for that admin editor to also act as the blocking admin. I've seen the same situation resolved appropriately here in this forum or on the admin noticeboard by the involved admin editor stating the problem, noting that they have a conflict of interest, and then asking another admin to look at the situation and act if action is warranted. That way it won't appear to be a conflict of interest. I guess this is Nathan's complaint and I dont't want to "hijack" it, but that's what I feel is the real issue here. COI more than POV. Cla68 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The block was reviewed in advance by Taxman, Fred Bauder, Jpgordon, Will Beback, Thatcher131, Ral315, and Georgewilliamherbert, all admins. You're beating a dead horse, for reasons best known to yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add my name to the list of admins who have looked at and approved the block. I've seen SlimVirgin on many occasions not blocking, but taking something to other admins, because she was involved herself. Admins don't (or shouldn't) block regular users they're in dispute with; they do block sockpuppets in articles they're editing themselves, when the sockpuppetry is obvious. Can that be abused by an admin accusing an obviously innocent user with the opposite POV of sockpuppetry, in order to block him? Sure, which is why other admins can review the sockpuppetry evidence, if someone thinks that the person wasn't a sockpuppet. That's been done. SlimVirgin was right. Time to move on now. Musical Linguist 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can point me to the diffs that show where those other admins reviewed and commented on the proposed block of that editor before the block was executed, then that should close this discussion. Cla68 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine most of the discussions were made privately rather than publicly; certainly the discussion Slim and I had regarding this were private, as they should be. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page of user: Grace E. Dougle being blanked

Need help with how to leave the talk page of an user who has left Wikipedia: [47]. --Mihai cartoaje 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, that is the user's preferred version; it's filled with warnings, but seeing as how they're the subject of an ongoing RFC, I don't think it's the right time to blank this particular talk page. If they were to return unannounced finding the evidence of the previous warnings would be impossible unless you know where to look. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That user is not the subject of an ongoing RfC. --Mihai cartoaje 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. I striked out that bit of my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is the subject of an RfC [[48]] and is involved in an RfC involving mihai cartoaje, who has been stalking me and harrassing me [[49]] DPeterson^talk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The usernames are significantly different. Could this just be inattention? --Mihai cartoaje 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But the warnings were undeserved. The warnings from RalphLender and DPeterson were for moving threaded replies to comments in a RfC to the talk page, which the RfC rules say we must do.

I think I understand what happened now. At the time I went on a wiki-break to catch up with my income tax filings. Also, I didn't know what to answer the user: being disdainful would be hurtful, but being friendly would make people say "the user wrote a positive comment about you because you are friends." My unexplained wiki-break combined with an user writing a positive comment about me in the RfC made people think that it was an alternate account I had created. That is not true: look at this thread [50]. I'm a guy; hardly a discussion I would participate in. But the suspicions made people bite the user, and Mr. Darcy write a very vitriolic warning which reads "If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks" which may have meant, "if you don't stop complaining, I'm going to indefinitely block you because I think you're a sockpuppet."

I hope you understand now why the warnings were undeserved. --Mihai cartoaje 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find it bizarre that RalphLender and DPeterson were tag-team edit warring to add threaded replies to the RfC, clearly against RfC rules, with similar edit summaries (and similar fake warnings). It's almost as if they were trying to push the user into making a mistake. Here are the relevant edit summaries with a name starred out:

(cur) (last) 13:57, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view)

(cur) (last) 15:18, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - moving comment to talk page, it clearly says users who post in other sections should not post here.)

(cur) (last) 16:02, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (I may be wrong, but I don't believe it is the editor Grace's place to edit this Request for Comment page.)

(cur) (last) 16:06, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D****** (Talk | contribs) (rv and stick to the rules, cut out misleading edit-summaries: I did not edit other peoples comments of course)

(cur) (last) 20:12, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - PLEASE do not edit this page. Leave other's comments alone.)

(cur) (last) 20:43, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (stick to the rules and post in appropriate section, and don't yell.)

(cur) (last) 20:54, 23 February 2007 DPeterson (Talk | contribs) (Please do not move or change my comments. That is for an uninvolved administrator to do.)

--Mihai cartoaje 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've followed this and other disputes of Mihai cartoaje, particularily on the mental illness page and schizophrerna article. He does seem to be hounding DPeterson with something like a vendetta. Mihai's blanking of another user's page is odd and the fact that both he and Grace E. dougle have/had RfC's about their conduct almost makes it appear that he is retailating against DPeterson. JohnsonRon 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited the Mental illness article or associated talk page. And Grace E. D was never the subject of a RfC. Please stop twisting facts. I restored that user talk page to the version it was when the user left Wikipedia. I note that you have changed the section title: [51]. --Mihai cartoaje 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course she was. JonesRD_talk 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar

The user account of Robdurbar has gone crazy. Deleted the main page, blocking everyone in sight. His admin powers need to be taken away quickly. — Lost^(talk) 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking where the stewards are. Agathoclea 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped. – Riana ^ऋ 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for unblocking me. Agathoclea 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about any rude unblocking summaries I may have left. – Riana ^ऋ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck happened there? Was that someone saying goodbye in spectacular fashion, or did a vandal hack the account? Moreschi ^Talk 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was a vandal; that user left several weeks ago. A vandal would probably choose someone who is at their peak of activity. — Deckiller 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of Jeff makes it quite clear that this wasn't a comprimised account, for me anyways. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much this will shake up the RfA reform debates. — Deckiller 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's go and see... Carcharoth 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Merged from separate thread directly above.

What's going on? --Dweller 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping of USer:Robdurbar??? The accounts either compromised, or he's taking the **** Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysop please ASAP. He is unblocking himself, blocking other users (just got me), and creating havoc. Anyone on IRC? – Riana ^ऋ 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped by Jhs. MaxSem 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all his blocks, hope that's OK. – Riana ^ऋ 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're too fast. A pity, I had hoped I'd get an opportunity of unblocking Jimbo once in my life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fast? Tabbed browsing, my friend ^^ – Riana ^ऋ 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheese needs to be undeleted. MaxSem 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good going Riana!--cj | talk 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What now then? Leave him desysopped and blocked, or take it to arbcom to make it official? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No formalities needed. He'll just remain blocked until he comes back with a plausible explanation how this was not him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll need a rather good explanation... no vandal goes and blocks a bunch of established users, not to mention a user the admin has blocked previously. – Riana ^ऋ 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Continue :) Daniel Bryant 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Should this be documented somewhere? Has this ever happened before? An admin goes rogue and got in three edits before being blocked, got in 25 blocking, unblocking, unprotecting, and deleting actions. Can someone confirm all the mess has been tidied up? Carcharoth 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has. Good thing he wasn't pissed off enough to do something that's actually damaging. —Cryptic 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shake up RFA? After this, we'll have people saying that the crats should be able to desysop...which will lead to even higher standards at RfB....arrrrrgggghhh....Moreschi ^Talk 10:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm one who thinks the crats should be able to desysop...but then again, I also feel we shouldn't raise the standards either :) — Deckiller 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need more stewards who are highly active on WP? None of the stewards seem to be half as active as the folk you see on ANI everyday. Standards for stewards seem to be lower than for crats... who wants to have a go next year? :) – Riana ^ऋ 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lower? As in, like, needing to speak ten languages, active participation on 50 WikiMedia projects, and accounts on more? Moreschi ^Talk 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the criteria are different; because of that, I think it might not be a bad idea to consider giving crats the right to desyssop. But I agree that we need more tools to fight hacked or crazy admins. — Deckiller 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before we get too hung up on the idea that we need more stewarts or drastic measures to prevent a rare sysop rampage, remember that this mess started at 09:57 with the unprotection of "cheese" and was over by 10:14 when Robdurbar got desysopped. I'd say the stewarts (and JHS in particular) did a good job. As to bureaucrats getting the right or technical ability to desysop, I have no opinion.--Chaser - T 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah apparently they were alerted on IRC [52]. Will (aka Wimt) 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But is it good or bad that it took 17 minutes to deal with this? To be fair, the smoking gun of Main Page deletion (and edit summaries like "I wonder how long I can get away with this") didn't occur until about 13 minutes before he was desysopped. But is 13 minutes a good response time or a bad one? Carcharoth 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He got in more than three edits. Some of them remained deleted when I restored only the revisions of the main page from before the incident began. —David Levy 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just submitted a patch that disables main page deletion, please vote/comment. MaxSem 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA thread is here. Carcharoth 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... First case of rogue admin I've ever seen. Have to thank your for your quick actions Riana, before he deletes the whole Project... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCheckUser started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the trouble couldhave been avoided if admins could not unblock themselves or .... there would be a 30 minutes delay in unblocking. Agathoclea 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just said exactly the same thing at WT:RFA at exactly the same time! – B.hotep ^u/_t• 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, his autoblocks should also be undone. MaxSem 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I just undid the autoblocks. Can someone check if I've done it correctly? – Riana ^ऋ 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. >Radiant< 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah! That's a mess. From 10:01 to 10:14 on 19 April 2007, in case it scrolls off the screen. Hang on, they are vanishing in front of my eyes. Weird. How does that list work? Carcharoth 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You gotta show me how to do that sometime :) – Riana ^ऋ 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tabbed browsing, of course :) Firefox FTW! >Radiant< 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather freaky demonstration of aberrant behavior... (→Netscott) 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results in - account seemingly not compromised. Moreschi ^Talk 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Robdurbar had logged in with the "Remember me" option enabled, and someone got onto his computer? --Ixfd64 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

---

According to someone (I can't remember whom, I thought it was in one of the IRC channels, but I can't find anything there), people in #wikipedia were panicing for quite some time before someone knew whom to contact (e.g. stewards). What is needed for this kind of situation isn't more stewards or ability for bureaucrats to desysop; what's needed is for people to know where to go when something like this happened, which luckily Peter Isotalo did (and also five or six other people who came in too late). When (or, more optimistically, if) an admin goes on a havoc spree like this, you should go to #wikimedia-stewards and write !steward, and someone will usually respond within seconds (there are stewards from many different time zones). If there are none, developers (in #wikimedia-tech) will be able to do a desysopping. Jon Harald Søby 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem was I couldn't remember the name of the stewards IRC channel: by the time I remembered it, he'd already been desysopped. Thanks for the reminder. Moreschi ^Talk 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem

Of course we did not follow proper process here, because Robdurbar should first have gotten a standardized warning template that deleting the main page is considered inappropriate, and that repeat actions may result in deopping. I have taken the liberty of designing this, Template:Uw-delmain1. >Radiant< 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well done, Radiant. I'm a bit puzzled regarding the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit — admins are not new users as far as I'm concerned (unless the RfA reform goes a little too far, heh). Michaelas¹⁰ 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL :D. MaxSem 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the assessment. By the time I blocked him he had already been vandalizing on top of deleting. Even though the main page was involved I did check if there was a particular issue that needed an emergency deletion. The subsequent re-creation of the page showed a vandalizing intend. I knew that he could unblock himself, but the block would stop further deletions to bridge the time until a steward could be alerted. Agathoclea 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this shows us anything it is that the whole emergency de-admining system works. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's very encouraging. By the time I'd logged into the stewards IRC channel it'd already been done. – Steel 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess that any admin that deletes Main page will be desysopped (probably emergency desysopped) whether the actions are repeated or not. I see no need for a warning for such actions. -- Renesis (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be overly dramatic. As the admin who recently deleted the mainpage said, "Indeed, it was my terrible mistake. Looked at the wrong page, pressed the wrong button. Restored immediately, so no damage was made." They weren't desysopped for it, and rightfully so. Zocky | picture popups 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before today, main page deletions were entirely accidental and were reversed with no warnings. Bad-faith deletions of the main page require emergency de-sysopping. Period. // Sean William 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I was referring to bad-faith deletion, not accidental. And I agree with HighInBC below. -- Renesis (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all tell the difference between an emergency and something that can be discussed prior to desysoping, this would be the former. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, deletion of the Main Page is such a big deal that, even if it was accidental, it wouldn't kill the offending admin to be desysopped until such time as he explains that it was a mistake. If it appears to be an emergency, shoot first and ask questions later. The desysopping "bullet" does no permanent damage. --Richard 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, it leaves the "offending" admin with no way to correct his/her mistake. --Edokter (Talk) 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few hundred others willing to correct that mistake, though. – Riana ^ऋ 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Availability of stewards and emergency procedures

Jon Harald Søby indicated that there will probably be stewards available at any time, as they are in different time zones, but that seems a little bit like wishful thinking to me. There probably are quiet times when no stewards are available, but the only way we will find out, unless a system is set up, is when something like this happens and we find all the stewards are asleep/away/inactive, or whatever. Can we be sure that stewards or developers will always be available? The other point Jon Harald Søby raised was that the people active in #wikipedia at the time didn't seem to know they needed to find a steward. I'm sure a whole generation of Wikipedians will now have this fact burned into their psyche! :-) But seriously, what other enculturation problems might lie ahead? Is there something that you personally don't know how to handle, and who would you go running to if you encountered something big you couldn't handle? The obvious thing that springs to mind is the dark mutterings made by people who, always invoking WP:BEANS, say that there are really destructive things that a rogue admin can do. I have no interest in knowing what those things are (and please don't try and guess), but can I ask if the solution would be obvious if the unthinkable started to happen? Carcharoth 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More Stewards are not necessarily the idea. After all, does it make sense for an incident on the English Wikipedia that lasted only a few minutes warrant more Stewards to cover all time zones? Short of designing a new protection policy where only Bureaucrats can edit a certain page so that people know what to do when an Administrator goes wild (ugh) or a Steward-power bot that desysops Administrators that unprotect the Main Page (ugh), the easiest solution is, of course, make sure it doesn't occur again. Either way, Stewards are a meta thing and whether or not more Stewards are needed will be a meta consideration. x42bn6 Talk 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Steward bot = bad idea. People mess up. Prodego ^talk 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have an alternative idea that could get us along without stewards. What if we made it possible for someone to effectually block an admin (i.e. self-unblocking would be impossible), but only with the agreement of several other admins. The likelihood of more than one account being compromised at any one time would be rather low.--Pharos 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Self unblocking needs to be possible, lest someone manage to block all active admins. Which, by going backwards through the logs with a bot shouldn't be too hard. Having no admins and no Stewards would be pretty bad. Prodego ^talk 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the idea would be that it would take the agreement of multiple admins (possibly three) to make an effectual block. And then, to guard against the remote possibility of more than one rogue, we could also limit the number of such accounts that could be blocked in this way (also maybe three).--Pharos 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Carcharoth's question, I firmly believe that the solution to the really destructive thing we never state is not immediately obvious. How to describe the solution without describing the problem is an issue beyond my current leaps of intuition. GRBerry 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can think of two really destructive things, but probably not what you are thinking. What are you thinking? Prodego ^talk 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail, please, guys... :-) Anyway, I'd hope the developers are aware of any really big loopholes in security and/or vandal possibilities. I suspect some bot-operated thing is one of the big scary things (going backwards through the logs is a clever idea), but the specifics are beyond my intuition as well. Interesting Wiktionary story below, the idea of timing things for a quiet period like that is a good idea. Of course, some planes now allow internet access (I think), so that will soon no longer be a problem. Carcharoth 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez yeah. WP:BEANS and all that - Alison^☺ 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has happened before on Wiktionary

The same thing happened twice before on Wiktionary. wikt:Wonderfool (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Wonderfool on Wiktionary did the same thing twice, once using the sockpuppet wikt:Dangherous (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Dangherous because no one in their right mind would ever sysop Wonderfool after his first rampage. On the second time around, "Dangherous" blocked all of the other admins and deleted the main page. This vandal timed it just right so that all of the stewards were on airplanes coming home from WikiMania 2006, so a developer had to directly tweak the database to remove Dangherous's sysop bit. See wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators/Former#User:Dangherous for some of the details on the Dangherous case. Jesse Viviano 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible technical solutions

If anyone has any ideas on how to allow regular administrators or bureaucrats to solve this problem, please post them in this section.

I am proposing a somewhat technical solution to the administrator turned badministrator (yes, the pun is intentional) problem. If an administrator turns bad, we should have some measure to allow other administrators to temporarily take care of the problem. We should have a system that temporarily remove all rights beyond regular editor from someone for 24 hours if 24 different administrators, or two bureaucrats, give a strike to an administrator in the same minute. I feel that this will give us time to find a steward to fix this problem. I chose 24 because 16 different administrators in one minute will be too easy to overcome for things other than true emergencies, but 32 different administrators in one minute might be too hard to overcome in a true emergency. Jesse Viviano 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a simple idea, why not write a tool that blocks a user every 5 seconds untill a steward can desysop? I could whip one of these tools up in about 10 minutes. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But can't an admin still block users while being blocked? (I don't think they can protect or delete when blocked). --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of an admin acting like this before.

This might take a bit of work, but what if there a way to flag how many times within, say, 5 minutes, a user was blocked, so that if (for example) 3 different administrators blocked a rogue admin within a 5 minute timespan, the rogue admin would be automatically desysopped for a period of time, and the actions of everyone involved could then be reviewed? --Kyoko 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea of auto-desysopping. I hope you mean a software feature though. (I don't think we want a steward bot going crazy. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant a software feature. I wouldn't want to see a malfunctioning steward bot desysopping people... or granting admin tools to everybody in sight, either. --Kyoko 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that an admin should not be able to unblock themself has been rejected because of the danger of all other admins being blocked, but a blocked admin could be able to unblock others, but not issue blocks or unblock themselves. It would then take two rogue admins to cause trouble once the first problem was noted, and this is much less likely than one.-gadfium 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the solution where an administrator can unblock others, but not unblock himself/herself if he or she is blocked. While it would work on Wikipedia due to its army of administrators, it could allow a rogue admin on a small wiki running MediaWiki with few administrators to take over it with no solution but to reformat and reinstall MediaWiki. Any technical solution must be able to apply to all installations of MediaWiki, no matter what size it is. Also, it makes it a pain to recover should an administrator accidentally block himself, or when the administrator intentionally blocks himself for testing purposes, and the test is finished and the administrator must recover from the test. Riana broke the never unblock onself rule when she unblocked herself in response to being blocked by Robdurbar for no valid reason at all, and therefore had a valid reason to unblock that was good enough that WP:IAR easily trumped that rule. I would prefer a solution where software determines that there is a consensus among administrators to temporarily desysop a rogue admin until a steward comes around and solves the situation, so that there is no possibility that a rogue administrator completely takes over a small wiki. Jesse Viviano 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another possible solution that would work on big wikis like Wikipedia and Wiktionary: allow an administrator to sacrifice his or her sysop bit in order to remove the sysop bit from another administrator. This will then generate a message in a log for a steward or bureaucrat to sort out the mess this creates. In this wiki, such a sacrifice should cause someone to initiate a request for arbitration, because someone must investigate the situation and determine whose sysop bit should stay removed. If the sacrifice was done in a situation that warranted such a response, a bureaucrat can then repromote the person who sacrificed his sysop bit. If the situation did not warrant that, then the admin who did this would not get his sysop bit back, but the admin whose sysop bit was taken in this manner would get it back. Of course, this ability should not be allowed to be used against stewards and bureaucrats, because all MediaWiki wikis require them to grant and remove rights. Jesse Viviano 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this is an idea I have not seen before on Wikipedia. I think it could open the door to resolving wheel wars on Wikis. Very promising from a first glance. --HappyCamper 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by IP 61.9.219.49

See see diff here

Anon wrote Don't worry Iwazaki, Raveen is a certified racist who hates the Sinhalese and tries to demonise the Singhalese in all of his Wikipedia contributions. Thanks RaveenS 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Warned. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What happens to to the slanderous and personal attack sentece. Do we leave it there ? Look the behaviour is escalating

Hereand See diff

Please read the removal of personal atacks essay. I refactored it. I also suggest you ignore them and avoid escalation. In case the IP escalates that further, the account would be blocked according to WP:NPA. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked their sock for 31h for reposting the personal attack once again after i reformulated it. I also gave another warning to the original poster. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting continous insertion of unsourced material

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced and unverifiable movies to the filmography of Hrithik Roshan. The trouble started from here - one, two.

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) again added it, with this edit - three. Please note, Sashank-part1 isn't verified and he added Sashank-part2. Moments later zie repeated that - with this edit.

It was after this that he made the page Sashank. Sc4900's added in whoever zie feels like - Arnold S, Hillary Duff, Jackie Chan, and Cameron Diaz! Not a single reference on the entire page, seems like fantastic fictional writing on the part of Sc4900.

A search on Google, such as this one. The only result on the first page that even mentions Roshan is this page, which in fact is an older version of WP, with this rumour attached. Another Google search - this, reveals all the sites which suggest Sashank as a real film are in fact copies of older versions of the WP page of Hrithik Roshan.

I requested Sc4900 to stop adding it, by posting messages on zir's talk page - no response. Instead, these edits were made - again, again, and again, this time reverted by another user.

Recently, Sc4900 has made Killer (hindi film) which also seems to be entirely made up, as noted by Shakirfan (talk · contribs). An entire string of edits to London Dreams, The Time Machine (hindi film), Kabhie Jeene all show the user is trying to propagate rumours.

All of us working on the Bollywood bios would be grateful for any help in this matter. Regards, xC | ☎ 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only positive entry I could find was one that said that Illeana(allegedly to star in Killer) has signed for a Hindi Film(it doesn't metion what and opposite whom). And how can this guy give a definete release date for a film whose Muhurat has not taken place? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is clearly disruptive and totally uncommunicative. I'll leave a stern warning on his talk page and block him upon next violation if I'm online. A Train^talk 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User continues to add unsourced material after last warning. Looks like vandalism to me. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Update:I'd like to draw your attention to zie's latest edits -

• Adding non-existant movies again
• Here the same
• Newest fictional creation of the editor is Kaal 2. A google search further proves that the film does not exist.

There are more, of course, please have a look at Special:Contributions/Sc4900. Please stop this editor, zie's run amok! :P

Regards,xC | ☎ 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy is doing it as some sort of experiment or bet: to see how far he can go writing unverifyable stuff without hinderance.

This reminds me of a similar incident that happened with Nature magazine a few years back. They had published an article from a researcher who wanted to prove that you just have to write anything that seems scientific, with a lot of jargon for Nature to publish it even if it didn't make sense. He then promptly went to the press having "proved" his theory ; to the great embararrasment of Nature magazine.

I feel this guy is also trying the same. I suggest that he be blocked immediately and the articles deleted. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further update:

• Sc4900 had added nonsense to the Priyanka Chopra article.
• Kareena Kapoor was also defaced - one,two.
• This edit shows addition of the same non-existant films.
• Esha Deol also suffered - see this edit.

Clearly, this editor is trying to disrupt the bio and film pages. I've given about a dozen references proving zie's (mis)behaviour. What will it require for an admin to end this disruption, and block this vandal?

Any guidance in this matter would be appreciated. Regards, xC | ☎ 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These movies have been made up by Sc4900 -

• Kaal 2
• Kabhie Jeene
• Sashank
• Killer (hindi film)
• The Time Machine (hindi film)
• Untitled Sangeeth Sivan Project
• Sashank Mavayya

This page is also entirely made up by Sc4900 - Shashank (hero)

How many more nonsensical edits will we have to revert? When will this vandal be blocked?

I was blocked for a revert war on Rani Mukherjee, when I was trying to cleanup the article, remove POV and throw out fangush. Here this vandal's given free reign and allowed to vandalize for almost a week. His first edit as a registered editor was on 16 April, 2007. However vandalism of this nature has been affecting Bollywood bios for many weeks now, thanks to several anon IPs. It may be the same, or someone else, fact is today is the 21st of April. Its been five days (minimum) and nothing has been done yet.

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do. - RickK

Best regards,xC | ☎ 07:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a week and left a message on his talk page. Let's see if he starts communicating. My apologies for the delay in action. A Train^talk 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, A Train, this vandal needed to be stopped. Best regards, xC | ☎ 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with blocking him although there is a chance the user will return with a new name and start it up again. Users like these usually do.Shakirfan 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant attack from user:MarshallBagramyan and user:Fedayee

Upon advise of Arbcom member Thatcher131 I filed RfC request for page Armenian Revolutionary Federation. During deliberations, instead of discussion, my opponents User:MarshallBagramyan and user:Fedayeeare continuesly making personal attacks

• 1 - [53]
• 2 - [54]
• 3 - [55]

--Dacy69 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, but wtf is this? Why don't you stop whining and engage in some conversations. Complaining isn't getting you anywhere and your falsified accusations are inimical to your own cause.

We have already wasted enough of the Administrators' time. What are you really reporting? What personal attacks? Stop considering Armenian editors as your opponents and stop poisoning the well, all of us had a difficult arbitration case; why are you continuing with this? I am willing to discuss when you stop considering Armenian editors as your opponents, when you stop making such remarks: “You are just desperately trying to protect this page from truth.”[56] Or “Editors who refuses to go for DR perhaps have poor reasoning or simply are afraid and protecting pages just like they own them.” [57] Or stop accusing me of ignoring history because I disagree with you. “Fedayee - You don't know the history of that period well.” [58]

Stop dismissing authors because of them being Armenian: “Well, how Armenian origin author Bournatian is reliable.” [59]. Stop considering Armenian editors as your opponents, like the above, or like this “Opponents think that some sources are politically charged. I agree to remove some of them - like Papazian. But the opponent editors seems are not willing to accept any edit in this line from me.” [60] Or this: “I made edit, opponents questions its reliability. I am ready to prove it. That's it. I have 5 references. I am ready to stand behind them and support them with additional references.” [61]

Start measuring your own words and stop accusing organizations of extermination because of them being Armenian (“participation of ARF in terrorist activity and extermination of civilians”) [62]

You already reported us to Tatcher [63], [64], [65]. You already reported us to Arbitrator Kirill [66], [67], [68].

You have reported us here, where will it be next. Fedayee and I were able to debate with people who disagreed with us without major complaints, if there is something wrong it could very well be that your behavior. You came without discussion, you added something very controversial. If you were really expecting to improve the article you would have came and debated with us. You preferred threatening us with this kind of mentality: “If you don’t accept my wording, I will do thist” and started accusing us of suppressing the truth. Hasn't the ArbCom taught you anything?--MarshallBagramyan 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. There's only one common denominator here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I second all Marshall has said, it is exactly what is happening. All that user:Dacy69 has been doing is creating more rift and tensions (how he is doing this is covered by Marshall above). All the reporting games he tries so he could game the system and "silence his opponents" (opponents being a word Dacy69 likes to use, as if we are playing a game or in a battleground...) and all those "this scholar/author is pro-Armenian, he must be bad" dismissals do not help the situation. - Fedayee 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is all started with you and Fedayee. You just deleted my edit even without any explanation. After I comlained you step forward with accusation along ethnic lines. So, you are asking why I haven't debated? Whole ARF talkpage is discussion - look around. But you again - over and over make attacks on editor's personality.

Opponent is a word for person who have different opinion. That's it.

As far as Bournation is concerned - this remarks related to NPOV. I don't have anything against Bournatian. But in issues like this he can be biased. Apparantly we can't use Azeri author for that article. Would you agree to use?

You are refusing mediation. And complaining why I am not engaged? I filed RfC exactly for the purpose of discussion. And what? You and Fedayee continued personal attacks instead of discussion content. this is because you haven't been a part of Arbcom, and Fedayee did not draw lessons from it.--Dacy69 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You never debated on the rational of your wording; you soapboxed the page and then filed for an RfC. We already debated on this particular subject before the arbitration. You came along and threw something and justified that edit by saying that you had provided 5 sources, with the rational of us either taking it or being reported. The discussion you so much talk about has little to do with the edit you have been trying to enforce, but was to use the talk page as a soapbox and pushing us in this too.

Bournoutian is a Western scholar, you could have provided a western Azerbaijani scholar who was peer reviewed and was not accused of bias; you were never prevented in doing it. But you kept accusing scholars because ethnically, they happen to be Armenian. You did this for months and you continue doing this even after arbitration. You are heating the atmosphere and burning it like hell; you are attacking others and blaming them ,then leveling false charges against them.

I refused mediation for a good reason; I refused to your misconception of what mediation is. You implicitly claimed that mediation will prove you right; you won’t be able to convince me to try mediation when you are unwilling to concede anything because such mediation will be a waste of time. I won’t throw my time like this for something which will at the end be a failure (because your mentality of "my way or highway" and the way you view Armenian editors as if we are enemies) for one article. Stop viewing Wikipedia as a battleground.--MarshallBagramyan 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not a member of the Arbitration committee, but a clerk. My role in enforcing these kinds of disputes is as any other administrator, except that I seem to be willing to take on some disputes that other admins won't touch. I'll look at this tonight I guess, although anyone else feel free to step in. Thatcher131 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jiminy Christmas. I want all of you in this edit war to read [69]. Come back here when you have, and comment on it. There may be a test. I continue to be astonished at the rampant ... immaturity, that is easily the best word for it. This is such a basic, mindless "us vs them" argument, that it's anathema to the very notion of an encyclopedia. It discards all logic in exchange for blind emotion.

Maybe we need enforced mediation/handlers here, and ban these users from all related articles; require them to use the talk page and be civil about it, and their handler will post requested changes. Yes, it's a lot of labor, but the alternatives are less sound - total banning, blacklisting them from all related articles altogether, whitelisting approved Armenian/Azeri editors for this suite of articles, or letting this mindless prattle continue.

I propose that, if these fights have not calmed down in the least within 60 days of the arbitration ruling, that it be brought back before Arbcom for stronger and wider penalties. --Golbez 08:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Golbez, the only immaturity and blind emotion I see, is all that user:Dacy69 has been doing, which is covered by Marshall above. All the reporting games he tries so he could game the system and "silence his opponents" (opponents being a word Dacy69 likes to use, as if we are playing a game or in a battleground...) and all those "this scholar is Armenian or this scholar is pro-Armenian, he must be bad" kind of ethnic divisions he creates... - Fedayee 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link I gave? --Golbez 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

See my answer here. Thatcher131 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting guidance and/or mentoring

While patrolling recent changes a few days ago, I noticed this edit. Because it seemed whimsical and was linked to a completely unrelated article, I left the {{uw-joke1}} template on the talk page of the anonymous editor here and reverted the edit.

The anon's response to this (as it sometimes is, of course) was to leave an abusive message on my talk page and to restore the edit, with a rude edit summary for good measure.

In conjunction with another editor, I continued to warn and revert. Along the way, the anon vandalized my user page. I reported them to WP:AIV, which resulted in a block.

I signed off for the night.

A few minutes later, the anon restored his edits from another IP, again with an abusive edit summary. The other patroller reverted, and the anon returned from a third IP.

The next time I logged in, I noticed the new activity and reported it to WP:AIV again. In response, Pilotguy implemented a rangeblock. I reverted the anon's most recent changes.

Yesterday, User:Anonywiki appeared and restored the anon's edits, using the edit summary to refer to me as a troll and agreeing a bit too conspicuously with the anon on the article's talk page.

I don't think there's any question that it's the same person, but I also think that along the way this may have evolved from a vandalism incident to a content dispute. I'm not comfortable reverting the edits again. They're silly and stupid, but I can see how some people may view them as valid. On the other hand, I feel that the user's edits at this point are clearly a variation on WP:POINT, as well as a probable violation of WP:SOCK.

After spending a year or so quietly editing articles of interest, I've only recently become more involved in change patrol and I'm still learning about best practices. I'd like some feedback on whether my actions have been appropriate and whether additional action (preferably not involving me) is warranted. Thank you. Dppowell 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the incivility of the anon-editor, I think the reference was valid. The edit war that followed however, is defenitely a candidate for Wikipedia:lamest edit wars. You don't want to end up there. So my advice: let it rest. --Edokter (Talk) 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure you can safely remove it as theres no article for it. Notice the link above it to the album is the exact same wikilink. Pull it out, block the user for socking. -M^ask? 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like I needed to finish reading diffs, only the first couple do that, afterwards they wikilink Santa Claus. In this case, as obnoxious as it seems, leave it in, should still be blocked for socking, give him a 1 weeker. -M^ask? 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, both of you. In any event, I'm not an admin, so I leave it to one to decide whether AKMask's recommendation is appropriate. Dppowell 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules on RfC

Need help in keeping this RfC in accord with the rules: [70]. --Mihai cartoaje 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual seems to be continually attacking DPeterson in a variety of venues. See above filing by him.JohnsonRon 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who filed the RfC [71]. --Mihai cartoaje 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These are accounts which are reminiscent of a special-interests agenda in the field of psychiatry. They are probably different editors, as shown by this checkuser. Until recently, they had the strategy of imitating each other, trying to trick one or more other editors into calling them sockpuppets. --Mihai cartoaje 09:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of how this individual is harrassing other editors by making false and misleading statements and violating wikipedia policy of Assume good faith. He has no basis for his statement, "trying to trick one or more other editors into calling them sockpuppets." JonesRD_talk 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

sock puppet of banned user Cleargoing

Resolved

 – User already blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cleargoing2 is a sock please ban.--Lucy-marie 11:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ashkani

Distruptive in edits and in attractions. I dont know what is the motivation behind. Above; in ("Distruption") section Please note His/her tone; He/She supplies fake evidences. I only reverted back to original, His/Her unnecessary Rv's.

• He/She is playing with Wiki rules.
• He/She made personal attacks to me.
• He/She is stoling the community's time.
• Here the evidences;User_talk:Michaelas10#Page_Protection.3B_Kaymakl.C4.B1_Monastery and Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:Makalp

Regards.Must.^{T C} 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There not fake evidences your still adding it when you revert, unless you reverted while not looking which is disruptive you don't even discuss it while I did and contacted the person who added it your nonconstructive edits are helping no one. Ashkani 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your still being disruptive by trying to attack me, I file a report on you than you file one on me this isn't a cat and mouse game explain your actions. Ashkani 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashkani was being rather disruptive yesterday. He undid my addition of tags to User:Istia[72] but then reverted himself after Frederick day asked why he did it[73]. I then asked him how he even ended up there anyway[74]. There was a back-and-forth where I asked him again, and he would respond 'tell me why you think I did'[75]. I continued to demand an answer, so eventually an IP posted a rude message on my talk page with edit summary 'answer'[76]. I can only assume that this was Ashkani answering under an IP. As the entire incident was a disruptive waste of time because of his conduct, and also because he appears to have finished it with a rude post where he calls me 'badnam boy' and an idiot, I think he needs something educational. The Behnam 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User is a possible (bordering on likely) sockpuppetof Artaxiad according to recent checkuser. -- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely someone else who has been around here before - check FPaS's conversation with him [77]. I really had enough of all these socks and users who keep on resurrecting themselves in different forms - if you are banned, you are banned people! I even had a previously banned user who left a note at my talk two months ago along the lines "yes, it's me, I like trolling and morphing into various ids all the time". I am seriously getting paranoid and seeing socks around every corner! :) Is Wikipedia a madhouse? Am I really me or am I a sock of myself?

As for the case at hand, it could be a wide array of previously banned users. ParthianShots (Ex-Surena), Ararat arev, Artaxiad, GreekWarrior - we aren't short of trolls.. :) And Mustafa, please be careful not to fall into a provocative trap by socks. Dikkatli ol, tuzak kurup yasaklatmaya calisanlar var. In fact, I am seriously thinking that certain users who have been around for a while could be long-time parallel socks of other users as well. This whole thing is really getting weird. I suppose the whole ArbCom decision with Ar-Az will continue to create headaches for a while as well.. How many socks is Artaxiad up to now? :) Not to mention the utter and boring harassment by Ararat arev who has already hit 150 socks I think.. Baristarim 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam that is not my ip. Ashkani 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. How he/she knows?.Must.^{T C} 10:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

sock puppetry on IFD discussion

There is an issue with sock puppetry regarding a discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 14 and specifically around item 1.62 Image:Coapon.JPG. The keep !votes are by either single purpose accounts or an anon IP. Tagging of the comments with the {{spa}} template was reversed by one of the editors.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, there's a lot of it going on there. The user who uploaded the picture, Annrex (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely about a week ago for persisting in his irrelevent criticism of the Polish Wikipedia (where he has also been blocked) here at ANI. Will (aka Wimt) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser called for? --kingboyk 10:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, they're so obviously single purpose sockpuppets they can all be blocked and the !votes removed. It might be an idea if the IFD gets closed now (as delete, obviously), if somebody wants to do it. --kingboyk 10:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another C&P Page Move to fix

Someone has c&p'd Rusty Allen to Rustee Allen, then redirected the former to the latter. Can someone check the correct spelling of this name and fix this so the page history is preserved? exolon 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to this, it's Rusty. I've never seen it spelled any other way.

Ispy1981 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Both sources cited in the article use "Rustee" so i moved it there and re-joined the page histories. Didn't see your note until afterwards. Please discuss moving back on the talk page, and use WP:RM if you decide to move back and need halep, or leave me a msg and I'll be glad to help. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm the user who redirected the page, although I admit I didn't know the proper way to redirect. Rustee's own official home page spells it "Rustee," so I assumed that's the correct spelling. [78] I'll gladly take back my edits if I'm wrong. Also, I didn't just do a hack "copy and paste" job. I spent a bit of time adding information to the original page, including the info box as well as a photo of Rustee (the page was pretty bare). THEN I copied it to the new page and redirected. I am new here, though, so if you have tips, please let me know! I just thought the article wasn't doing Rustee justice. Didn't mean to break any codes. Thanks! -- Sydscotch 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented on the talkpage, but I'm also commenting here. What it seems to me is that we have one person (Rustee Allen) going by two names at two different times. When he was with Sly and the Family Stone, he was "Rusty". Today, it appears, he is "Rustee". How does Wikipedia solve that? Do we leave the "Rustee" and redirect "Rusty" or go with the name he's more famously known by and redirect "Rustee"? I must admit, I'm a little rusty here. :)

--Ispy1981 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you need a copy and paste move repaired in the future, you can list it on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- Kjkolb 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

84.211.71.5

Suspected edit by a bot. He/She is removing legitimate fair use images at a impossible pace. See contributions--Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Martinp23 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

His edits replaced all the fair use images with Replace this image1.svg. Should the edits be reverted or left? --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Should we rollback their changes? Looks like (almost) all those Fair Use images are legit right now - Alison^☺ 23:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to roll them back. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the edits, it seems that he was iterating through various categories (or some other system) of Japanese musicians and bands, filling in the infobox with the "no image" placeholder (see [79]), seemingly regardless of whether something was there already or not. Mass rollback is probably appropriate here, as long as the images are checked after restoration (those that I've looked at seem to be valid uses). Thanks, Martinp23 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All edits seem to be reverted. I just don't know how you guys rollback so fast, it was all done before I got there... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Veinor is faster than any of us :) I didn't have a chance! - Alison^☺ 23:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of twitch gaming really helps. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You got to be kidding...I was using 8 tabs and didn't get one edit in...Maybe I should play more games. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. All of the images removed by 84.211.71.5 failed item #1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I seriously doubt it is a bot. this edit where he pastes "| Img = Replace this image1.svg into the incorrect line looks like the result of human visual error to me. Also, in this edit he spontaneously also adds the {{unreferenced}} tag at the top. I am going to restore most, if not all, of 84.211.71.5's edits. Please unblock the IP address and apologize for assuming bad faith. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to be an obvious bot edit to me. Bots make mistakes, if the formatting of the article is wrong, which it is. No person could edit six times in one minute while retaining that amount of accuracy when checking the tag for fair use. Even someone with AWB couldn't edit so fast. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 07:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Veinor reverted him fifty times in about 2 minutes. Fast editing is easy with a tabbed browser. Even if it is a bot (which I doubt because a real bot would have probably added the "unreferenced" tag to almost all of the articles, not just one or two) why would you revert it to restore images that have been tagged for deletion for roughly a week? — CharlotteWebb 07:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC

Reverting is far easier than making "real" edits, so I don't think you can compare the two quite so directly. Isn't accusing someone of making an assumption of bad faith, in itself an assumption of bad faith? (Not that WP:AGF is a suicide pact, IMO most good faith editors caught in such a situation would be understanding of the reasonable caution being exercised by blocking, hanging around discussing if something is a bot or not, or is doing damage may not be sensible if it genuinely is doing damage, unblocks are cheap if after looking it turns out all to be ok.) --pgk 08:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for personal attacks like this. The anonymous user 84.211.71.5 was removing copyright infringement (specifically a replaceable non-free image with no "fair use" rationale), because he apparently understands image policy and is perhaps more willing to actually enforce it than some of our admins. pgk could you please review the edits, as you have suggested, and unblock the IP address? — CharlotteWebb 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the instance you point out, note that there was no edit summary on the deletion of the image by 84.211.71.5. I don't think that it is so totally unwarranted to believe that an anon IP deleting material without any explanation might just resemble to a very large degree 'vandalism'. No excuse? Would you care to rethink that? Shenme 08:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he knows image policy but doesn't know the English language (shrug). — CharlotteWebb 09:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Charlotte. The anon's edits were good. We need all the help we can get in fighting fair-use abuse. I'm unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but what has that got to do with the blocking admin? They certainly didn't do that revert. Really that is actually part of my point, "bad faith", "vandalism", "abusive" etc. are terms which seem to be becoming increasingly commonly thrown around, they are rapidly all degenerating to the same meaning, "did something I disagreed with" --pgk 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but Charlotte's initial point still stands. Martinp should have checked more carefully whether the anon's edits were in fact good before he blocked him. He made a blatantly mistaken judgment when he said that the anon was removing "legitimate" fair-use images. And if he was concerned about it being a bot he could easily have given the anon a talkpage message and see how he'd respond first. His blocking without a warning and without careful fact-checking was indeed a failure to assume good faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at martinp's comments above, it looks to me there was an apparent problem with a bot, he blocked, within 10 minutes he had looked more closely and believed he had seen some pattern to the changes (going through a category), which then suggests the replacements may be little more than automated rather than given due consideration. The bot policy states "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation...". Now if I agree with Martinp23's interpretation of the situation or not isn't that important, I do believe that he was acting reasonably, and as I say in my original comment, most people (who are also interested in building the encyclopedia) are actually pretty understanding when mistakes happen, or actions are over cautious. So yes the real thrust of my comment was about being constructive in commenting on other peoples actions, and yes that cuts both ways (so in terms of comments about the IPs actions also). (As an aside when I posted I hadn't realised the block was still outstanding, if I had done perhaps I'd have looked closer at the edits and perhaps unblocked.) --pgk 10:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin is a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Somebody here posted that what looked like an unauthorised bot was active. He blocked, pending a response from the operator (or editor, if manual). All the person has to do is say "I'm not a bot" or "I forgot to log in but actually have bot approval". End of story. Please don't make assumptions that are not supported by the facts, as I know for a fact Martin is very much in the "free images" camp (we discussed it only recently). --kingboyk 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I said that I suspected it was a bot, not that it was confirmed to be a bot. The only reason I put this here is because I wasn't sure. And also, I did not refer to his edits as vandalism. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

<rant> I suppose I should help to clear up why I blocked the user. Basically, it was making many bot like edits in quick succession, removing all sort of images - not just those tagged for deletion, replacing them with a placeholder. As kingboyk stated, all it would have taken would be a message on the IPs talk page demonstrating that he/she was an editor acting manually for me to unblock. As is also noted above, I *am* an admin who will go around deleting images, and am not one of those "nobody's going to sue, so who cares" folks, and hold images to a high standard. That said, a majority of the images removed were ready for deletion under some criterion, though there are a couple of somewhat confusing cases in the contribs where images are removed where they have no deletion tags, hence my concern about the user running a bot. As can be seen above (and my contribs), I didn't revert an of the user's edits, and did advise some degree of caution above - by the time I had done so, all of the edits had been rolled back. This was a borderline case, and had I seen certain edits when I took a quick look through the contribs, I would probably not have blocked - unfortunately this time I didn't see those edits, only "incriminating" ones, which lead me to block. If I must go for full diclosure to stop people screaming "bad faith!" at me, I shall: I pened several (c 20) of the user's edits in tabs in firefox, choosing these randomly from the contribs list. Whilst checking through them, FF crashed and I had to kill it. The impression I had got up until then was that the users was arbitrarily inserting the placeholder image, regardless of the status of the image (as tagged - though I would agree in almost all cases that the images were bad, even if not tagged as such). When I ghads restarted FF, I went to issue a block, and gave one based on the facts I had at the time, before posting back here. I took some time thinking about the block, and took it in the best of faith, so do resent the accusations of bad faith. After the block, I started to look carefully through the contribs again, following which FF crashed, so I went to bed :). Pgk and Kingboyk do sum up rather well, and in hindsight I do regret that I blocked, but there were a number of factors present at the time, which hindsight (what I wonderful thing) takes no account of. As it is, the IP is (probably rightly) unblocked now, and if I was being over-cautious at the time, I see it as nothing to be ashamed of. </rant> Martinp23 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous block of DreamGuy by David Gerard, please review

On April 15, 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a month for POV-pushing by Theresa Knott, which I thought rather draconian, and reduced to one week. ANI discussion here. This is the IP of DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as he has amply acknowledged. It's not an abusive sock. My week's block was about to run out today, when David Gerard re-blocked for a month, giving the reason that the IP is "a sock of a banned user" (? no), and that it has been making ""Continuing personal attacks using talk page as platform". (I agree DreamGuy has been surly on the talkpage; blocked users tend to be.) David has also blanked and semiprotected the talkpage. So, a one-month block plus the talkpage gag? Was this guy making personal attacks to the extent that it disrupted the encyclopedia? On his own talkpage, that nobody has any need to go to and be disrupted by...? Well, I think that would be an overstatement, please check the History and see if you agree. Theresa, prompted by DreamGuy's old adversary Elonka, has subsequently blocked the DreamGuy account for a month also. The DreamGuy block actually seems merely redundant, as a comparison of the IP block periods with DreamGuy's contributions will show that DreamGuy is blocked when his IP is. But perhaps, if Theresa's double block hadn't been placed, he could have used User talk:DreamGuy to communicate, say post an unblock request? Not sure if that would have been technically possible. It's moot now, anyway.

David's block seems excessively spontaneous to me. I'm hoping he will reconsider it. A hurried proceeding is suggested by the way he placed it last thing before going offline, apparently — I have posted on his page without response, and his contributions list ends with the 216.165.158.7 semiprotection — and also without a block message and without any report here.

Please note that DreamGuy, while not our sweetest-tempered user, is a constructive editor and certainly no vandal. As I wrote in the original ANI thread a week ago, he has done good work for the encyclopedia for a long time, in staunchly resisting spam, nonsense, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience. A silent phasing-out of this useful contributor by means of longer and longer blocks is quite wrong in my book. Take him to WP:RFAr if measures are needed. Or perhaps a mentor? Anyway, this is no way of doing it. That's what I think, what do you think? Please review. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

You know, DreamGuy may have his share of positive contributions, but so do most people who get blocked. From what I've seen, DG is obsessive about Elonka and actively tries to remove each and every mention of Elonka and her works from Wikipedia, taking the opportunity to spread incivility and bad will. Besides, I've always heard that RfAr (and our dependence on it) indicates that we're unable to solve our own problems.

DG should have no problem posting to his talk page, blocks or no blocks. If he expresses a willingness to discontinue his problematic editing patterns, he should be unblocked and monitored. What *isn't* productive is shrugging off these problems as "not being our sweetest-tempered editor". Philwelch 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you are being overly naive regarding this case, Bishonen. Both the anon and DreamGuy are not productive editors, and their negative impact far outweights the positive ones. The Wikipedia isn't in such desperate need of editors that we have to take whatever comes... we can easily let go of editors who, despite having some postive contributions, are both agressive and disruptive. Not to mention completely impolite and confrontational. I don't know about other admins, but I am perfectly willing to move forwards with a community block or other such radical measure in case Gerard's decision is overturned. --Sn0wflake 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually nonsense. The only negatives come from conflicts with people who are not following policies and then try to win through false accusations and character assasination. You, for instance, were quite aggressive and disruptive and, as your talk page states, have a policy of blocking first no questions asked. This kind of behavior goes against the policies of Wikipedia and, in fact, causes more problems than it solves. If anything your own responsibility in this matter, first in harassing me until I said something less than polite in response and then in presenting false information to the ANI page about my activities, which led to a block under false pretenses, should be examined. It's might outrageous for you to be making claims about my edit history when the dispute I had with you was because you insisted upon placing information on how to pirate software back into an article talk page after I had removed it because it was not what talk pages are for. 216.165.158.7 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was preserving the Talk page. If the discussion in it unfolded for two years without being censored, then I don't really see for what reason you would be allowed to go into it and erase basically everything. Still, trying to reach a middle-ground, I archived t and started a fresh Talk. Then, on the main article, you insisted on putting information which belonged to the article on Abandonware. I reverted and told you those matters should be addressed in Abandonware. You disagreed, so you insisted on pushing your bias into the article of the website. Then hell broke loose and your other conflicts surfaced. And here we are. You have now accused me several times of abusing my sysop rights, called me a software pirate several times also (warez lubber, wasn't it? Way to go with encyclopedia language) and your list of Contributions should be a textbook case on how not to behave on a Wiki. Now there seem to be 3 admins volunteering to mentor you and somehow you have been unblocked, which I find downright ridiculous, but I digress. My part in this seems to be over for the moment. --Sn0wflake 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First up, however long illegal an completely off topic information may have existed on a talk page without being removed it certainly doesn't justify putting it back and then making very aggressive, rude and threatening comments about it. "Pulling information that belonged in the article"? Sounds like you had an edit disagreement. Edit disagreements are not cause for you to bully others. You kept putting your bias back in. But, again, you are ignoring that your stated policy to block first and ask questions later, which you certainly did (not to mention the later false info you presented on ANI) is wholly against the rules here and highly uncivil. The fact of the matter is, you were out of line. I admit to being less than polite sometimes, but on the other hand it usually comes from people being off the scale uncivil to me and violating policy (or, in your case, also the law). Blocking people without justification and bragging about it on your talk page is way more uncivil than me calling you a warezlubber (or whatever) after you had already clearly demonstrated a pro-piracy POV. The abandonware article (and related article giving free advertising to specific sites that do this) and other similar articles very clearly need to have information there so as not to confuse people into thinking that softwarepiracy is legal, either on its own or simply by giving it a fancy new neologism to rationalize it away. My edits simply pointed out that it is illegal, which is not a POV, and tried to undo some of the blatant pro-piracy POV that had been there. DreamGuy 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the IP block for being a "sock of a banned user" appears to be based on a factual error, in that DreamGuy was not blocked or banned and no one else has been identified whom 216 could be a sock of. The necessity for the block and its length should be reassessed, after taking this correction into account, by the blocking administrator, whose attention should be drawn to this thread if it has not already been. I do not see that at this point, a case for a continued block, let alone a block of one month, has been made out. Note that I have not reviewed all the contributions and I am not opining that a further block could not be justified, simply that it has not been thus far. Having said that, enough concerns have been raised about the user's editing under both the DreamGuy and IP accounts that it would be good to see improvements in his approach whenever he resumes editing. Newyorkbrad 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch: "DG should have no problem posting to his talk page, blocks or no blocks"? I guess you didn't notice my several references to the IP talkpage being semiprotected by David Gerard (confusingly, another DG) ? Semiprotection means an IP can't edit the page. That's why I also refer to it as "the talkpage gag". Thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain this perhaps little-known facet of semiprotection. A combined block-plus-semiprotection-of-Talk is the strongest way we have of locking up and silencing an editor. It's rare, as it's only appropriate in very extreme cases. I wish somebody would unprotect the page right now. I have probably performed enough admin actions in this context, so I won't do it. I have appealed to David to undo his protection himself, but he's not here. I'm disappointed nobody has thought appropriate to do it yet. Brad? Bishonen | talk 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

He doesn't need the IP talkpage. He can log in as DreamGuy and post on his own talk page. Philwelch 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David is probably asleep. I don't see any problem with a cautious unblock here. Certainly David wouldn't object, he's not a nitwit. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, did you mean unprotect, instead of unblock? David Gerard appears to have blanked and semi-protected the page, because DreamGuy was using it as a platform to generate personal attacks. However, it's true that Gerard didn't issue any kind of, "This is your last warning" message. So, if DreamGuy would agree to be civil, I'd say to go ahead and unprotect the page, as long as he behaves himself. The block, however, should stay regardless, as it's for personal attacks, of which there were plenty. I'd be against removing the block, until/unless DreamGuy could prove that he was willing to participate in a cooperative and civil fashion with other editors. --Elonka 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what Elonka here is calling "personal attacks" is simply my poiting out that her and the other person falsely accusing others of using sockpuppets have a long history of harassing me -- and in fact is why I normally don;t sign onto accounts (it's not required by Wikipedia) as several admins suggested it might be a way to lessen their unnatural preoccupation with me -- and also of having sockpuppets on Elonka's Request for Admin vote, as proven by comments of several editors at the time. Elonka has a long history of branding things which are 100% accurate but which show her to be less than perfect person she wants the world to think she is as "personal attacks" and running around admin-shopping until she gets someone who will remove the posts. (Philwelch, above, being the perfect example, who in the past removed all documentation about Elonka's misbehavior that I had posted but insisted that Elonka's claims about me remain... 216.165.158.7 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant the block. It is the block that Bishonen has asked us to review. If this user after unblocking continues to be a pain in the wiki, he can be blocked again. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unblock him.--MONGO 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've undone both blocks because DreamGuy isn't a banned user. Actually I feel that my original 1 month block wasn't OTT at all. He was behaving awfully and needs to be told firmly that if he cannot edit cooperativly with others then he cannot edit at all. Anyway, that is done now, and we cannot block people as banned when they are not.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page was being used as a platform for vicious personal attacks - see its history. That's why I semiprotected it, specifcially so the IP couldn't continue in this manner. Bishonen, I hope you're not yet again offering undue protection to someone who makes good content but is given to vicious personal attacks on the wiki - David Gerard 09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that statement there is a vicious personal attack, both on myself and the actions of admins trying to act within the policies. 216.165.158.7 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. That's rather disappointing as a thank-you note to me for sweeping up after your careless block late last night, when I would much rather have gone to bed. Please be more specific about my past and present undue actions, I'd like to know what they have been. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

• I suppose the "someone" David Gerard is referring to above is me - though he is too timorous and polite to say it outright - or has he someone else in mind? - Whatever, perhaps we should be told - and more importantly how precisely Bishonen is "offering undue protection". If David Gerard does not want to put some diffs where his mouth is then he should shut up or cease his attacks - such as this one [80] on Bishonen and her integrity. Giano 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerrard's actions were outside of policy, and, honestly, so were Theresa's. If a person is being hateful, etc., we still have AN and AN/I. We still have warnings. Even if the person in question is notorious, etc., we have the same requirements. It takes a minute to do things the non-controversial way. "Personal attacks" are indefinable and are especially indefinable when we get to user talk pages. Talk pages are not article pages, and blocking someone without warning and then blanking and protecting the talk page because of self-identified "personal attacks" is not proper. Doing so and then going deaf to the appeals is only slightly worse. Geogre 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a user who had to deal with both DreamGuy and 216.165.158.7, I must comment: I think that this user has been repeatedly warned and given chances to reform, if not by warning templates, manually - I do not contest the block(s) itself. I do agree, however, that no user deserves to be silenced as such, especially given DG/.7's claim that the IP shifts over time. Since the block is reasonably justified, can we leave it as that, a simple block, and unprotect applicable talk pages? Besides, DG is a good editor, if extremely uncivil. I'd recommend leaving this block stand, but a warning that future cases may lead to a WP:RFAr. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, Geogre: if you think DreamGuy's work is of value and are this keen to stand up for it, I hope you'll both go to extra-special effort to get him to stop being abusive to others and to attempt to mitigate what damage he causes. If he can't work well with others - and his behaviour so far indicates he has no interest in such - then he should be writing GFDL text all on his own, not attempting to work on a site that requires massive collaboration - David Gerard 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember DreamGuy from a year or so back. I concur with the view that he's a well meaning and useful editor who has problems staying civil. If this has become a problem to the point where we must consider showing him the door, this wasn't the way to try to do it. Perhaps a user conduct RFC or discussion at the community sanction noticeboard would be an appropriate next step? Friday (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First RFC, Second RFC. The habit of personal attack is not the behaviour of an unknowing n00b, and he's not getting better. Again, I strongly urge those admins who wish to defend him to work hardest on reining in his noted obnoxious behaviour - David Gerard 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So... are you then going to get a mentor to help you stay within Wikipedia policies when it comes to blocks and so forth...? Besides, if civility is the supposed issue, I think your comments (and the comments of many trying to portray me as some hopeless cause) are certainly just as bad. AGF and civility should apply to you folks as well. DreamGuy 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If two admins insist that this is such a good user, then I would suggest that they mentor him and clean up his mess from now on. Seems fair, as the work will not be left to people like me, Theresa and Gerard. --Sn0wflake 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is insisting anything. I don't mind cleaning up after him, I am an admin, it's what I do, it's what we all do. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I sometimes wonder why some of you people are admins, admins are here to do what admins do - I rather think that involves mops and buckets; you have volunteered for the job, not been dragged kicking and screaming against your wills. I note David Gerard has neatly avoided my question above so I repeat it, this time more clearly - please explain the "yet again" in "I hope you're not yet again offering undue protection to someone who makes good content but is given to vicious personal attacks on the wiki" you made the attack on Bishonen's integrity - now support it with some diffs and facts! Giano 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard attacked nobody, please do not bait him. Bastique. 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I gave precisely those diffs, and why you were only Bishonen's word away from a ban for gross incivility, during the last Arbitration case you were involved in. It is saddening that what I said then about you being unable to comport yourself decently on policy pages still appears to hold - David Gerard 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have a highly inflated idea of your own importance on this site. Perhaps you should learn to review it, and stop baiting others with your comments which have no relevance to a situation. Giano 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that some actually click at some of the "precisely those diffs" as David Gerard puts it and finds in them "vicious personal attacks" as he claims them to be. --Irpen 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would not worry Irpen, David Gerard is just dredging up old "has been" events and diffs, all of which have been discussed "ad nauseum" to justify his attack on Bishonen's judgement. I had rather hoped he may have found something new but it seems he has just chosen to resurrect all the old animosity - and open old wounds to cause trouble, I wonder why? Some people never know when to leave a sleeping dog alone. Giano 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerrard: I ask you to please avoid casting aspersions on another editor's competence. This is especially true when you have just blocked someone out of process. I have no need to think Dream Guy is valuable, nor does anyone else. Our editors do not have to prove their worth to us: We have to prove their disruptiveness and destructiveness to reach for a block, and then we need to warn. Geogre 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I will extend the same caution to Giano. It really isn't necessary or profitable to talk about anyone's character. I understand that you were reacting to an apparent slur from him and being dragged into a discussion of his irregular block as an apparent attempt at distraction, and I know that readers miss these things, so we can't rely upon them to see what's really going on, but it's still not necessary or profitable to talk about David's character. Geogre 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble parsing the above post, but I think this is the first time I have ever seen Geogre criticize anything done by Giano. My respect for Geogre just went up. --Ideogram 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a pity David Gerard decided to start making his veiled hints in the first place, and an even greater pity that to cover his behaviour he has to drag in completely uninvolved parties, such as myself. Claiming (above) I am unable to "comport" myself "decently on policy pages still appears to hold" when I merely express disquiet at being drageed in to his mess - says more about him than me. It seems to me to be about time some admins had their status reviewed, or at least were sent for re-training. Giano 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Juro (talk · contribs)

User continuously deletes my comments with accusatory, derogative comments ("liar") [81] (all), based on that my IP is similar to a banned user's. I haven't run into autoblock, or whatsoever, but since mine, and banned user (User:VinceB) has the same internet provider, wich does not give fix IPs to it's users it might have happen that checkuser will find us the same. (What to do in this case?) I also got a checkuser request against me ([82]), just because my IP is 195... and because if two individuals talk similar, then they are the same... Intresting logic, however it may happen, that VinceB used this IP before, as many other users may did it, but I repeat, I haven't run into autoblock, according to the block log of my recent IP [83], it was never blocked, and nor the "what links here" (to my IP userpage) gave any sign of that this IP was listed on a checkuser page (except the recent one, based on the logic described above), or banned before...

Despite my kind requests, attempts to start a conversation and warnings (npa) to Juro [84], [85], [86], User:Juro continued the personal attack, didn't replied to my questions, and responses, (see previous difflinks) instead initiated a revert war [87], and deleted them all, including my talkpage comments [88], [89].

Checking his block log [90], I found something... funny. Not the 3 blocks for personal attacks and 3 other blocks for breaking the 3RR (six total for the action he/she just repeated above), plus one for evasing ban, but the indefinite block, he got for being a puppetmaster, maintaning 10 sockpuppets (!), but that indef. ban was lifted (!!!)

Maybe I'm rude, but imho User:Juro intitiated a revert war, despite the fact, that I bolstered my version with the strongest online sources, Juro placed personal attacks in edit summaries against me ("liar") (but, reading his contrib list, it could be anybody, just look at his/her talkpage comments, for example from march or february) - two significant things, he got 3-3 bans - I think Juro just played that "one more chance", User:Bogdangiusca gave him/her. He was indef blocked, but paroled (why?). I think - from these logs and histories - that Juro is maintaining this behaviour at least since June 2006, and seemingly won't change, despite he got even an indefinite ban. Giving him mére chances won't lead to nowhere, imho. I ask for blocking him, this time, indefinietly indefinite. Thank you. --195.56.91.23 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: And please, an administrator revert Juro's last 6 edits (wich are marked "top" - 22:53, 20 April 2007, and five above) to my versions. I do not want to escalate this, or push Juro into a 3RR violation. Thank you. --195.56.91.23 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to give some context, a banned user (User:VinceB) has very recently used IPs of the same range (195.56.) and we had to remove his vandalism from articles and personal attacks from talk pages before CheckUser proved that those IPs were sockpuppets. I guess those recent problems, coupled with the fact that 195.56.91.23 had not been active since November and the only IPs from the same range belonged to VinceB, are largely responsible for User:Juro's speedy hands. Unfortunately, a request for CheckUser, the only method available to decide this case, has just been declined. Since there is no proof 195.56.91.23 is a sockpuppet of a banned user, I suggest someone informs Juro about the declined request for CheckUser and asks him no to assume sockpuppetry in this case. Tankred 15:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The context is as follows: 195.56...is 1000% Vince B. It is impossible that an alleged newbie (which the IP claims) simultaneously:

• uses the IP of exactly the banned user in question and,
• knows that he has to talk exactly to user Tankred when dealing with user Juro
• immediately knows how to check whether an IP was banned - I have never claimed the this IP was banned, that what his claim (sic!!), - or even know what a ban is
• immediately knows how to turn to this noticeboard and what to say here
• does not simply create a user account [answer: that would be outright sockpuppetry, an IP is not] * immediately refer to the use of "WP:xy" in one of his first article summaries, while this is not done even by most long-term users
• immediately decides to stalk and basically revert the last edits of a user (user Juro), who is in no conflict with any user whatsoever but user VinceB
• is from Hungary and "interested" in Hungary-related articles, but by a "coincidence" he decides to edit the section etymology in the article Slavic language while having obviously absolutely no idea in that field (just like in any other - iow. like Vince B), and "by coincidence" this section was previously edited by user Juro
• uses exactly the same type of language, style and non-sensical sentences like user Vince B (just look at VinceB's comments before he was banned, the same like above)
• there are currently maybe only 2/3 users from Hungary active in this wikipedia, the last one is always VinceB under different names

Finally, note that Vince B explicitely said one weeak ago that know he is happy to be able to edit as an IP, which "makes him independent" to edit how ever he likes. And this IP is this "independet" user...In sum, if any banned user can come and claim that he is just another person using the IP of a banned user even if the situation is as clear as in this case, then I really wonder why a ban exists at all. Juro 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear: Since the result of checkuser was that this IS the IP range and behaviour of user Vince B and "please request admin action", I am hereby requesting admin action, what ever that may mean. Juro 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a username since. I'de like to comment for the above, that user:Juro called me "Vince B" [91]. It was not hard to research him, User:VinceB and that dispute, they had. Tankred placed a test template on my IP talkpage [92], I simply replied to that, and complained about Juro's behave, what I also sent to Juro. (in fact first to Juro, asking him to cool down [93]. I have experiments on other wikis, so I'm pretty well aware of wiki policies, and how to-s, however I'm not intrested in such hated ethnic debates, so if this is the standard level and style of discussion, I thank you for the experiment, and I draw my conclusions from this. For the other evidents, like I'm from Hungary, and that accusatory, tendentious style above, I do not want to comment, they speak for themselves :) All in all I feel myself offended and attacked, immediately as started editing something, Juro "owns". --Norman84 16:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note again, to cut short this hated debate, User:Juro started against me, that Juro got 6 blocks for personal attacks and revert warring before (3-3), just the actions, he's doing right now. He got an additional +1 ban for ban evasing, and an indefinite (!!) ban for sockpuppetry, maintaining 10 (!) different sockpuppets. User:Juro block log. I do not see, why indefinite ban was lifted for this user, since his block log shows, that he's doing this almost a year (June 2006) now, and did not changed. --Norman84 16:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What you have written is almost an exact copy of what VinceB said at least 5x each time he was discussed before or after a ban; the only thing everybody has to do is to look at those discussions. I have explained above why you definitely, with a probability of 100%, ARE Vince B and you do not even bother to try to change your behaviour and language ("hatred" etc.) to hide it, you just hope that nobody else knows you here, so you can lie and lie and lie. So, instead of leaving the wikipedia, stopping lying and vandalizing, you - just like always - blame someone from the group Juro - Tankred - Pannonian; you usually prefer me, because I usually do not have the time and find it ridiculous to react (just like now) and you even managed to have me banned that way without me even noticing that there was a discussion about me...Simply because no admin cares here....I would like to point out that what we are discussing here is the fact that a banned user (Vince B) continues his retaliatory actions and continues to lie about his identity. And now he has also created a sockpuppet, namely Norman84. This is outright sockpuppetry. I wait for a reaction by an admin.

Let just say that this "new user" know too much about user Juro and about Wikipedia policy. His own words: "an additional +1 ban for ban evasing, and an indefinite (!!) ban for sockpuppetry". There is no way that this could be written by new user, so it is definitely a sockpuppet of somebody, most likely of VinceB. PANONIAN (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find any evidence that 195.56.91.23/Norman84 claims to be a new user. There are many IP editors who find their ways around Wikipedia. That does not automatically make them a sockpuppet. --Edokter (Talk) 21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No evidence? Eh? What about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Norman84 He registered his nickname on 21 April 2007. So, he can only be either new user either sockpuppet of another "old" user. And if he is not new user, why he do not use his old nickname? What he have to hide? PANONIAN (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is a very interesting situation. It is intersting to know, that should I be banned, the only thing I have to do is to wait one week, use the same IP and just claim that that's not me anymore and nothing happens (don't you see a problem with that??). I can even start to edit the same set of articles, say the same things in discussions (like here), and even say explicitely in edit summaries, that I am going to edit under my IP - when I do that everybody will be fine, right? And not only that, instead of stopping vandalizing, I could even do more: I could try to have banned those, who know that I am a banned user, because they have had to do with me for years...Because that is exactly what Vince B alias Arpad and HunTomy and all the other names has done here. Secondly, as for "new": see e.g. what he has written on my talk page (I have deleted it) or on the talk page of Tankred. Thirdly, after his last contribution above, he can claim whatever he wants, that's Vince B word by word (just look at his defences or attacks during the last months, always the same text). Fourthly, if he was not VinceB (which is definitely not the case) and not a new user, what would he be then?? Someone who happens to have the same IP as a recently banned user, immediately knows whom he "hates" (to use his own vocabulary), immediately starts to stalk the last edits of that person ("just for fun"?) and someone who knows more about bans, wikipedia policies, relations between some editors than me (and I have been here for years now), but nevertheless this Mr. Someone has remained unperceived over the last months and only now suddenly "left the darkness" to do the same things like VinceB??? What other proofs do you need, you will not get fingerprints or a court decision for this. Juro 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell it's Vince. He sounds exactly the same, right down to the same minor grammar mistakes he habitually made. :) (No offence meant on that, Vince, English is a tricky language and I'm amazed anyone who isn't a native speaker can ever learn it.) Vince, I'm serious, just give it up. You have done nothing but drive a wedge between the Slovakian and Hungarian Wikipedians, and I'm sick of it. Our problems stemmed not from any fanatical anti-Hungarian, fascist-nationalist efforts on the part of the Slovaks, rather from your belligerence, obsessive confrontations with Tankred, and general refusal to ever calm down. Unless you can learn to be mature and civilized, do not post here again under any IP address or sockpuppet account. K. Lásztocska 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, this is a deep debate. For Juro: you just did that. :) I've read your block log, where all of what I wrote down, are in it, and even there's a link to your checkuser case, where I counted 10 sockpuppets, you used. I've clicked on one, and it was in the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Juro. That category has a subcategory, named Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Juro wich contains User:TemporaryQWE. Clicking on it's log list, from it's block log, it is easy to find out why was it blocked, and who used it [94]. It took a total of 2 minutes to find out all of these. If someone else did it before me, and reported, it does not mean, that I'm the same person, nor the fact, that I making :) grammar mistakes, or being from Hungary, but that it is a real problem, not a debate between two users. I am sorry, but by this, practically/virtually every non-english user, who edits anything related to Hungary, can be accused with this. Checking User:VinceB's comments, I'm pretty sure, he would explicitly say that I am he, as from the links I found, and given above, and that checkuser case, where my IP was listed, seems. I haven't found any similarites between us. Not in page edit histories, not in topics, not in grammar mistakes, maybe just some misthis on kebyorad :). I edit (want to edit) Budapest ang Hungary-geo realted things, since I'm intrested in that topic. I know only minor things about Johnny Weismuller or Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944 [95]. I do not know, who's PANONIAN or K. Lásztocska, who recently joined, (nor Tankred or Juro) but seemingly you all have some tensions with Hungarian users.

I just reported a user, whom I found a disruptive editor with a long block list and a lot of sockpuppets, and who recently attacked me, destroying my work, initiating a revert war, and placed personal attacks against me in edit summaries. I hope, we all agree in that this is unacceptable.

I am sorry, but I have a debate only with Juro, so I will only reply to him (her?) from now on, despite that I'm getting attacked by more and more users, as time goes on. The counter is now at 4. I quit this debate now, if Juro wants to discuss, there's my talkpage, or this section here. Please accept this. --Norman84 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Back to Earth: I'm not aware about how much should a comment be supported by difflinks in english wikipedia, but on others, it is a must, no matter what the comment claims. If I can count well :) my 15 difflinks are "against" tons of emotions, and lurking suspicions, and a link, wich shows my contribution history. I am sorry, but I do not see, what that link proves. I see. I'm new only to enwiki, not to Wikipedia itself. ;) Sorry, but I do not want to argue with such lines as "What he have to hide" (grammar mistake! hmm... :) ), since it speaks for itself :)--Norman84 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can Juro or PANONIAN show evidence of their claims that Norman84 (& his IP) and VinceB are the same user, e.g. similar edits made to the same articles and talk pages? It's hard to follow your arguments otherwise.

Also, I cannot see why Juro was immediately removing (legitimate-looking) comments from the talk pages; assuming good faith and linking to the result of the previous dispute would've made much more sense in my opinion. -- intgr 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

lilkunta revisited

I have blocked this user for three days due to continued disruption. The original discussion related to Lilkunta can be found in Archive 225 of this page. Despite having been blocked for using nonstandard font and color previously, Lilkunta has continued after numerous warnings [96] [97]. Since the original discussion/block received a fair deal of discussion, I'm leaving this here for review. Also note the user refuses to remove the statement "I think what happened, Virginia_Tech_massacre is very sad. But sh*t happens" from his/her talk page. Maybe adoption could help here. - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with this editor in the past. She is, and I'm sorry to say this, a lost cause. If anyone tries to work with her, she takes it wrong and snaps at them. Now she's making highly inflammatory statements on her talk page. Her consistently referring to this site as "Wiki World" leads me to believe she thinks of this as sort of a myspace thing. Personally, I don't think adoption would do any good, and we'd probably loose a good editor over it. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Torb37 (talk · contribs)

User makes good-faith contributions but they are often content forks (examples: 1, 2, 3), unreferenced, and written in wretched English. These concerns have been raised with him on his talk page several times by a number of readers, most recently myself, but not once has he has replied to a message. Is any action warranted? Biruitorul 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously English isn't his first language, but I don't see much that can be done. His edits expand an article rapidly, despite its poor grammar. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to appear like I'm on a crusade against this user - I'm not - but might an RfC be more productive, or shall I just let the matter drop for now? Biruitorul 06:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rfc wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. Seriously, I have no idea what to do, but a Rfc would probably frighten the user off... Maybe just let the matter drop, and I'll give the user a reminder to follow policy? --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for writing those comments on his page - I hope they do the trick. Biruitorul 07:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of response. Someone who can generate that much that quickly but without any ability to interact is worrisome. It raises suspicions of ported material, and that raises concerns of running afoul of copyright. Geogre 13:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A misuse of speedy-delete?

Resolved

 – User:Dmaycock blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.--Jersey Devil 07:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

At 06:15, 21 April 2007 User:Dmaycock ((db-vandalism}}-tagged User talk:Dmaycock in an apparent attempt to get rid of admin admonitions by having the file deleted. I removed the speedy-delete tag. Anthony Appleyard 06:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good time to get a clarification on this: do we delete talk pages? I've seen several talk pages of active editors deleted, and I was under the impression this was not a good thing to do (deleting user talk pages). That is, unless the user is indef-blocked. - auburnpilot talk 06:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a talk page - once - of a user who's privacy was at stake. They'd made a dozen or so edits with an account in their full real name. On request, a 'crat carefully renamed their account & it wasn't logged. They have very serious real-life privacy concerns & had a right to vanish, IMO. They're still about and editing happily so all's well - Alison^☺ 06:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, I would generally say "no" but, as in Alison's example, there should be limited exceptions. --Iamunknown 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

May be a vandalism only account. I just removed a speedy deletion tag to an article which clearly does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. [98] I found this edit on the Don Imus article. [99] And he impersonated User:Tutmosis in giving out this barnstar. [100]--Jersey Devil 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely does seem to be an vandal account. Impersonations, obviously incorrect information.... I agree with Iamunknown about the view on deleting own talk pages. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 07:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to block indefinitely as a vandalism only account.--Jersey Devil 07:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We've never been able to come up with a rule about deleting user talk pages, at least not one that has been even close to rigorously followed. I've had a lot of discussions about it. While many, perhaps most, admins have historically been against it in all but extraordinary circumstances, a few influential admins have been much more flexible. In addition, I asked Jimbo to comment in one discussion on the topic and his feeling, if I remember correctly, was that those who want their talk pages deleted are usually not productive members of the community and if deleting the page will let them go on their way, that it should be done.

I think that talk pages should be deleted upon request as long as the person is permanently leaving Wikipedia and has not repeatedly come back after leaving before. They should also be deleted if there are legitimate privacy concerns and other serious matters. Previously, I leaned toward keeping user talk pages, but since people who vandalize, whine or are well connected get their talk pages deleted (or at least they did in the past, I am less active lately), I think that it is only fair to do the same for productive, well-mannered editors. Also, deleting talk pages often gets trouble makers to go on their way peacefully. Finally, if someone comes back, troublemaker or otherwise, his or her talk page can just be undeleted.

As far as IP addresses go, I think that they should be left undeleted, with archiving done as needed. (Archiving makes information less visible, especially if it is done by providing a link to the version of the page before the content was removed rather than making an archive page. The reason for this is that search engines will not index the content afterwards and will eventually remove the content if it was indexed in the past. The reasons for not deleting an IP address talk page is that a person is not identified by his or her IP address without access to confidential ISP information, and the information on the talk page can be very useful for those investigating the actions, usually vandalism if there's an investigation going on, of the IP address. This helps determine the course of action, such as warning, blocking and contacting the ISP, company or school who owns the IP address. Also, if their IP address is revealed, most people can probably get a new one assigned to them if they just ask their ISP. Of course, if the person is identified on the page, there are death threats or there is some other legitimate reason to delete the page, I do not have a problem with deleting it. However, it is often not necessary to do that. Instead you can remove the information from the page, request an admin to delete only the versions of the page with the information or make a request for someone with oversight access to remove it for you. -- Kjkolb 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AfDs on notable murder victims

User:Proudlyhumble07 is sending a large number of articles on murder victims to AfD. The majority I've seen are of notable victims (Ron Goldman, Leslie Mahaffey, and the most notable murder victim in Japan in 2005, for instance). I have a feeling he's trying to make a point about the redirection of a few articles about VA Tech victims. --Charlene 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I closed all the ones with at least one comment. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:12Z

The POINT is off point. We had to deal with this issue after 9/11. Wikipedia has been monstrously inconsistent in applying the "victims redirect to the crime unless they are themselves famous" rule, but that's because it's Wikipedia. When someone makes a POINT like this, we should consider the nominations, but only the ones that actually deserve consideration. Geogre 13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawsonrob

Hi, User:Lawsonrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved the article David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere to the incorrect title David Clark, Baron Clark on 8 March (see [101]). On the same day, he has changed the opening of the article [102]. I have reverted this move and have corrected the opening on 19 April (see [103] and [104]). Some hours later User:Lawsonrob changed the opening again (see [105]). I reverted him, gave him a source in the summary [106] as well as informed him on his talkpage and explained why he is wrong[107]. I've got no answer, instead the opening was changed again two ours later (see [108]). On the other day, I corrected it, added a source to the article and asked him in the summary to read this source [109]. I also noticed him on his talkpage again, listed several official sources and warned him about the possibility of vandalism. Unfortunately he ignored this and changed the articles opening again [110]. This time he was reverted by another user, who declared User:Lawsonrob's edit as vandalism (see [111]). Today, on 21 April, he has changed the opening a fifth time [112], has changed the title given in the text to a incorrect form and moved the article to David George Clark, Baron Clark [113] (I think, he couldn't move it to David Clark, Baron Clark - because of the missing rights).

User:Lawsonrob has ignored all sources, has ignored any try to discuss, has ignored a warning and hasn't given any reason for his edits, so I think his behaviour on this article is in my opinion clearly disruptive. Please would somebody intervene? Thanks and greetings Phoe 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the links above is slightly wrong as [114] was my edit. However Phoe has taken all reasonable steps and provided the official government sources which was why I regarded these continual changes as vandalism not a content dispute. Alci12 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

8 reverts at capture bonding by User:Hkhenson

I don’t know if I am at the right place, but there are multiple issues, e.g. WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:COI, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:EW, and others, involved with User: Hkhenson, real name Keith Henson, at the capture bonding article. Basically, he started the article in 2005 with this version, with a 200+ word quote from an obscure article he wrote. He feels that he owns the article and he, including what is invariably his sock puppet account User:Maureen D, has reverted that article back to this 2005 copyvio version, eight total times. Six different users have either added clean-up tags (which were reverted by Henson) or tried to clean and contribute to the article only to get reverted. He has been warned numerous time, including a warning by admin User:Physchim62 here. His last revert removed 14kb of sourced material (as the article currently stands). Please block for at least a week or more. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please don't tell us what punitive action to take. Second of all, 3RR means within a 24 hour period - there have barely been more than 6 edits a day, let alone more than three reverts a day. So a 3RR block is right out. OWN is a more pertinent issue, and perhaps you should go to RFC, but at present I see nothing actionable here. If there's a copyvio, please tell me what it's a copy of. At present, it appears to be a content dispute, try RfC or RfM. Also, the assertion that Maureen D is his sockpuppet is neither absolute nor backed up. --Golbez 10:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already made 4 rfcs: here, here, here, and here. A few people have commented such as here. Also, User:Mareen D’s account has been inactive since last year and all of a sudden it becomes active to do reverts while User:Hkhenson makes the comments on the talk page? On April 19, Henson stated: “I will revert the article until the admins rule against me” This is not a content issue, full published sources, new ones added week after week, are being reverted. Please at least block for a day. --Sadi Carnot 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not one of those RfCs, as far as I can tell, are actual RFCs as I know the term. There's a difference between asking for comment, and making a formal request on RFC. As for his statement, that's right out and I'll give him a stern rebuke to that. But I will not block based on a recommendation. --Golbez 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits by an IP blocked indefinitely

This IP seems (a) to have been given an indefinite block (for a death threat, no less), and (b) to be editing again. What gives? (And sorry for the cop-out, but I must now leave my computer and the net for a couple of hours. Over to youse.) -- Hoary 11:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP as well. It was only blocked for 48 hours. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It had originally been blocked indefinitely by Yamala, but as it isn't accepted to indefblock IPs, the duration was subsequently changed to 48 hours. I generally expect no more than a one month block for such anonymous threats. Michaelas¹⁰ 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be resuming his/her vandalism, but without the death threats... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a different vandal. The previous vandal used many IPs and accounts to solely threaten User:Eternal Pink. I have found that 24 hour blocks are suitable for this range. The IP can be changed by either rebooting or simply restarting the browser. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt reblocked

Recently, as most of you know, particularly if you have seen the hub-bub about it, I unblocked Daniel Brandt as part of a discussion around his appeal of his block. In his appeal, on his website dated April 11, he explained that the main reason he wanted his editing privileges restored was to be able to comment on the talk page of the article about him. This and other indicators of good faith on his part let me to grant that portion of his appeal while continuing a discussion of the other parts.

I still think he is acting in good faith, but for reasons that I do not understand, he now claims that my unblock of him was "the wrong decision." Ok. Well, then why appeal? Hopefully he can explain it to me, but in the meantime as a further gesture of goodwill, I am following his wishes again and reblocking him.--Jimbo Wales 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting sillier.Geni 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of Brandt "acting in good faith" is the silliest thing I've heard in ages. Iamnotmyself 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, Wikipedia is an excellent spectator sport and a great use of my Saturday afternoon. 86.145.105.149 13:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm so annoyed I'm off to play 3 hours of tennis, I want to sit here following the drama unfold. Beats the hell out of the Super Bowl, never mind the Heineken Cup. Jimbo, with all due respect I'm not sure this was what Brandt was getting at in that email. He stated that, ultimately, he doesn't care about being blocked or unblocked. As long as his bio is up, he wants, however, to be able to comment on the talk page. His fundamental wish, however, is not to be unblocked: he wants his bio gone. He recognises that his state of blockedness doesn't really matter: he just wants the bio to disappear. I think that's what he was getting at in that email, not that he wanted to be reblocked! Moreschi ^Talk 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandt has never had a problem in making his wishes known to editors editing our article about him, as a review of the history of its talk page shows. Even his comments at WR have been used as clues to improve the article on him. We encourage him to continue commenting at WR and/or on the talk page as an IP# to help improve the article's compliance with WP:BLP - in particlular removing or rewording privacy issue items or poorly sourced items. Comments he makes that are removed are still in history and are read and considered. WAS 4.250 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he didn't do any harm during the brief time he could edit. I also couldn't find the request to re-block him in his contributions on the Wiki. Was it in an email? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

He emailed Fred Bauder, and, per Brandt's request, Fred posted it on the mailing list. Moreschi ^Talk 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandt has an ongoing legal threat against the foundation which is sufficient grounds to block all by iteself. Note that the point of blocking due to legal threats is to avoid introducing bias (POV) based on threats. "Make the article the way I want it or I will sue" is the problem. We do want input that helps us make our articles better. We don't want to give ammo to people with a conflict of interest to interfere with our mission of a free neutral encyclopedia. Balance is key. WAS 4.250 14:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is good that Daniel's desires came to match the communities, as the communities desire for Daniel to remain blocked did not seem to be enough. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my guess (with no information beyond the email in question) that he meant that the "wrong decision" was not deleting the article, rather than the unblock. OTOH, it might make sense for him to clarify this issue. JavaTenor 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Making anons fill out a Special:CAPTCHA in order to edit

Makes it a real PITA to revert vandalism, since the CAPTCHA only applies to people who add new content to an article, it means anon vandals can still blank pages, but anon vandal fighters have to fill out a CAPTCHA to revert/undo them. I imagine RUs don't have to jump through quite so many hoops just to be able to edit--172.148.109.92 13:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not getting these CAPTCHAS. 86.145.105.149 13:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's because your edit history is filled with page blanking/vandalism, which as I said, doesn't add new content to wikipedia, thus no CAPTCHA--172.148.109.92 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You'll only get the CAPTCHA if there's external links in whatever you're editing. You won't get them everytime; it's to prevent spam. It is a pain for anons trying to revert vandalism, though, I admit. – Riana ^ऋ 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In theory aren't all articles supposed to have external links/sources? otherwise wouldn't they be origional research?--172.148.109.92 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A citation is not the same as an external link, and it is quite possible for a citation to not contain any links at all. In a citation of a news article, for example, what counts are the publication name, dateline, byline, and article title. With those, a reader can locate the news article being cited, using the publication's archives. An external link to an on-line copy of the article is an added bonus. It is not a necessary nor an integral part of a citation. Indeed, if you see citations that are given as bare external links, please fix them to include the requisite information necessary for a proper citation. Uncle G 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• You could just create an account. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Here's why. MER-C 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So what stops spammers from creating an account?--172.148.109.92 14:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Same thing, a capcha, but only for the first 4 days. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But account can be indefblocked; anonymous IPs cannot. Natalie 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted move of article

On 12th April, I removed a goodly number of redlinks and incorrectly linked (as in, going to the wrong people) names from List of members of the Irish Republican Army. The changes were reverted. Discussion (including an admin) followed on the talk page about the redlinks. I posted 3 alternative suggestions there on 13th April. After 6 days, noone had proposed an alternate solution, so I posted (on the 19th) to say I was going to go with option 2 (Remove redlinks to WP:IRA's sandbox until the articles have been created). This morning, I created this page (unwieldy title, I know), copied the redlinks there, checked them, changed them where necessary, and removed the dodgy reference. I also removed a couple of bluelinks from the original list that went to wrong people/disambig pages. And then I created a link to the new preparation page here.

User:One Night In Hackney, despite not offering any alternative suggestions in the past, immediately put a speedy delete tag on the new preparation page for "breach of GFDL" and has been reverting my addition of the link to the new preparation page. I placed a 'hangon' tag on the list and debate followed on the Talk page.

User:One Night In Hackney has now arbitrarily moved the article to my userspace, despite his own 'speedy' tag and my 'hangon' tag and a debate on its talk page. When I raised this on the talk page of the admin involved, ONiH responded thusly:

Yes, as a project member I don't want the page in project space. I stated I would do it, and you failed to reply. One Night In Hackney303 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that you arbitrarily created it there in the first place, and you're not a project member. We don't need the page, it serves no purpose. We didn't ask for it, we don't need it, you created it, if you want it you can have it in your user space.

This is disruption, for what purpose I'm not sure. Can the page in question please be moved back to its original location, pending the outcome of the deletion debate? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated, if you think the page needs to exist it can exist in your userspace. I see no reason for the page to exist for reasons I've already made very clear. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing disruptive is a non-project member creating a page in project space that project members don't want. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also as I've just noticed you removed what you called a "dodgy reference" (which is actually a reliable source), the entire page is an egregious WP:BLP violation! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the reference - as you are already aware, I stated on this talk page

"A single reference has been added to all of the restored entries: "Tírghrá, National Commemoration Centre, 2002. PB) ISBN 0-9542946-0-2" The referenced book does not appear to exist, at least with that ISBN.[115] [116] [117] Googling further demonstrates that a privately-published, restricted-circulation book does indeed appear to exist [118] [119] - but at 368 pages you're talking what, a page and a bit per person?

Note also that the Guardian article states "The book, meant to be seen only by the relatives of the IRA dead, claims..." (my emphasis added). This, if true, means it cannot be used as a reputable, neutral, reliable reference."

This was never responded to by you or User:Vintagekits even when I asked that the ISBN be checked, and an admin has also stated that it is not a reliable reference. WP:POINT. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's already been addressed elsewhere, the book is available direct from Amazon, and meets WP:RS. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Both myself and an admin have challenged it's validity as a source. Surely if its already been addressed elsewhere the thing to do is link to where its been addressed, not ignore the point? WP:DISRUPT. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney has now removed most of the entries from the list, after moving it to my talk page. [120]. Note I can find nowhere on WP:IRA where the project have discussed whether or not they want such a list, but I have found this. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Given you've accused possibly living people of PIRA membership (which alone is a criminal offence in the UK and Republic of Ireland) with no sources, I'm fully justified in removing the names per WP:BLP. Again, the source is reliable and has been confirmed as reliable by an adminstrator before now. Simply because you disagree is not relevant, it meets WP:RS. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the two main protagonists here know my view: the vast majority of the names in that list have no article, and never will have an article. Disambiguating the names served only to increase the already substantial redlink quotient. There is no problem with a category of IRA members, or a list of people notable for being IRA members, but the majority of these appear to be taken form a single source, one which is highly biased. The redlinks are largely pointless, though perhaps not WP:POINT-less. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection with the removal of the redlinks, just what happened after was pointless and unnecessary. Also I'm well aware that members on any IRA members must pass WP:BIO, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

@ONiH: Ah, extreme WP:POINT. I've accused noone of membership of illegal terrorist organisations. My original removal of redlinks from the original list was precisely because of WP:BLP and WP:VER, as stated in the edit summaries. You continually reverted and reinstated the redlinks! I brought it to Talk and after admin intervention, made three suggestions for resolution. You offered no counter-suggestions. So - given your actions of today, can we take it that you now accept that you were wrong to revert and reinstate those redlinks?

@Guy: Apparently they were of some use to WP:IRA, as my original removal of them was continually reverted by ONiH. He now seems to have changed his opinion. Fine by me. What I am objecting to is the manner of his mind-change. He could have just indicated same on the list's talk page and saved him and me a lot of work. I was then accused of breach of WP:GFDL and despite repeated requests, no proper explanation was forthcoming. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, so you're advocating removal of unsourced redlinks saying people are PIRA members, but you've complained about me today when I did the exact same thing? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I advocate removal from mainspace of unsourced redlinks saying people are PIRA members. When I was bold and did so, you reverted. I brought it to talk and suggested compromises, given that User:Vintagekits clearly indicated he wanted to create articles on the individuals. You didn't object or offer alternative suggestions. I cleaned the list up and moved it to an appropriate off-mainspace sandbox of WP:IRA in accordance with its policy. You proposed speedy deletion for a breach of GFDL; then moved it (despite a 'hangon' and that not being resolved) to a subpage of my userpage; then deleted the majority of the list. My complaint, as outlined in the title, is to do with the unwarranted and out of process move of the page and accusations of breach of WP:GFDL. You could have saved us both a lot of time and energy if you'd accepted the original deletion of the redlinks from the mainspace list. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find WP:BLP applies everywhere. Also you could have saved plenty of time and effort by just accepting that the page you created isn't wanted in the projectspace, instead of spending hours arguing about it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked user Mmbabies evading blocks, making threats

(Relisting since original was archived without any action having been taken -- Gridlock Joe 14:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

User:Mmbabies was indefblocked and later community-banned.

User is IP-surfing to avoid blocks, and has been for weeks. List of IP addresses:[121]

Last night his edits included two death threats.

He is exhausting the patience of the community. I recommend a block of the entire IP address range. -- Gridlock Joe 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would like to add is that, as I write this, he has amassed 48 IPs that he used as puppets, including two belonging to the Alief Independent School District. He refuses to listen to us when he posts his falsehoods, assuming his "my way or the highway" attitude. He really needs to be stopped, and I have a feeling that worse might happen. -- azumanga 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war w/User:Stanley011 pushing POV on Cho Seung-hui, 3RR, ignoring consensus

First off I hope this is the right place. It seems trivial, but it is the principle. I have tried to "talk" to this person,Stanley011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), about his insistence on changing the wording in a particular sentence and I believe it is his POV. He is also bordering on being uncivil, and is ignoring consensus. He has said to have "compromised" by finding a reference to support his POV and changed the wording to "mother's aunt." I know this sounds ridiculous, but he is the only one pushing this and continues to change it despite the consensus, talking, and the many references pointing to a specific term, belittling other editors, and using grammar, vandalizing and accuracy as his reasons for the reverts. Where, hopefully, you can see by the evidence below, that it is none of them.
Evidence:

• On the article's talk page: [122]
• On his talk page: [123]
• His responses on my talk page: [124]
• Google search of the article that uses the term "great aunt": [125]
• An image on google, provided by another editor on the talk page: [126]
• Dictonary says both are correct so grammar cannot be used as reason for revert. Which he has used a number of times.
• Most importantly the article references the term "great aunt" throughout.
  

Hope it's not too much, or too little. I'm begining to doubt the good faith of the editor thus reason I'm bringing it here. Jeeny 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley 011's response: I have laid out an argument for the wording I have used, here and thus far, contrary to what Jeeny has asserted, there has been no consensus reached on that particular matter--in fact, he refuses to respond to my argument, instead leveling false attacks such as POV pushing. It cannot possibly be my POV that I am pushing though because everything I have written has been well-sourced. Further, the very fact that this editor questions my good faith, when as you can see from my user page, I have contributed to and created countless articles for wikipedia, should be alone grounds for his suspension from editing. Thank you. Stanley011 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Update from Stanley 011: In fact, it is now Jeeny who is in the minority on this issue. Stanley011 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another broken code of conduct! You even went so far to delete this entry?! [[127]] and then put it back? Your POV again, you insulted an editor's intelligence, and erroneously supported your reverts as a "grammar" edit, when in fact, was not. You, should be suspended from Wikipedia for many policy violations. My contributions have all been in good faith, even when I disagree with the subject or I am repulsed by an issue. I am an advocate of accuracy and good faith as they are critical here on Wikipedia. Jeeny 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is where y'all want to be. If there's been a 3RR violation, this is where it needs to be reported. --ElKevbo 16:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Forget it. I have no more energy and I quit this place because of people like him, and the constant vandalizing. I'm done. Over and out. I have wasted too much of my valuable time. Jeeny 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

zomg drama! Dispute resolution exists for a reason, we are not children running to mommy. If you've quit because of something as simple as this, perhaps you need to reevaluate how you relate to other people. -M^ask? 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Stanley011 was blocked for violating the 3RR. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rookapooka

Resolved

 – blocked and articles being deleted

Rookapooka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A probable sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel. Recreated the hoax Captain Melonhead, a hoax that was created by a likely sockpuppet (now indefinitely blocked) of Danny Daniel. The user also created the article Space Jam 2, which is similar to the deleted hoax Astro Jam (created by User:Booooomerang, another indefinitely blocked sockpuppet). Rookapooka's username is similar to User:Ranapanna, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet.Squirepants101 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, and I will go through and delete all of the articles he created. I must say, I love the misspelled movie title. Natalie 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

65.88.88.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given that's he repeating the edits of the previous sockpuppet that was blocked yesterday - 216.194.4.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), plus edits on numerous Irish Reuplican related articles, and even stalking my edits to undo edits like this on an article I reverted vandalism from. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Gnangarra 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block the latest sock please? Rapunzel-lite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And 63.164.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked. – Riana ^ऋ 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some assistance plz

Resolved

 – User:Miltopia user blocked for a week.--Jersey Devil 16:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Chilledmonkeybrains <===== handle that. Thanks in advance ^_^ Milto LOL pia 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The person that needs to be handled is YOU. Adding the HIV-positive category to your userpage is not funny, it defintely wouldn't be a "LOL" to anyone I can't imagine. Stop abusing categories: [128]--Chilledmonkeybrains 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Further: see "LOL", not funny!--Chilledmonkeybrains 16:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia, I have defended you at times in the past, but I am concerned about your actions and comments in this matter. If you actually are HIV-positive, I think you can understand why other editors would respond to such disclosure skeptically in light of the other content of your userpage. If you are not actually HIV-positive, an edit summary such as "I HAVE AIDS LOL" is despicable. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

All well and good, but why hasn't this single purpose account been blocked yet??  :-O No doubt he's a sock of an editor fearful of my nefarious trolling. Milto LOL pia 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please respond immediately to the substance of my comments. A user bringing concerns to ANI is not exempt from having his or her own conduct examined. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to put up with this. The user already has an extensive block log. I've blocked the user for a week and if I see it again it will be for a month.--Jersey Devil 16:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

He's posted an unblock request which someone should review. I will not be the reviewer. I must say that I'm very disappointed with the regression in this editor's behavior. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comeon, he's only doing what he's always been doing.--Chilledmonkeybrains 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The above user, User:Chilledmonkeybrains also has only edits pertaining to this issue. May be a single-purpose account. [129] If you are an alternate account for another user it would be wise to disclose that information at this moment.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure if he should be blocked for adding himself to the category. I'm not about to go into an impassioned defense of him, but still... Abeg92We are all Hokies! 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly a joke what he has done. It is not funny by any stretch of the imagination.--MONGO 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)Briefly, if Miltopia was not trolling, he was certainly demonstrating an appallingly tasteless sense of humour. Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Dramatica, and a block to drive that point home seems necessary. (I don't know if it needs to be a week long, however. At this time it appears that Newyorkbrad is working with the parties to arrange some sort of compromise.)

As for Chilledmonkeybrains (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have blocked indefinitely. It was obviously a single-purpose sock account created to further a conflict with Miltopia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My post to User talk:Miltopia was intended to get some sort of explanation for his recent behavior. I don't expect to participate in any unblock discussion one way or the other. Newyorkbrad 16:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what this "ChiledMonkeyBrains"? character did that was wrong. He reverted overt trolling...he deserves a medal, not a block.--MONGO 16:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and the purpose is taken care of, and autoblock disabled, so that block is pretty much harmless either way. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I may post a barnstar on that userpage anyway. Next time, maybe Miltopia will consider those that may be harassed by his crummy idea of "humor". It might also be of benefit to him to learn more about the differences between being HIV-positive and having AIDS.--MONGO 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block the underlying IP or even account creation; he's welcome to continue to edit using his regular account. Creating a new account solely to revert Miltopia seems...suspicious, and his lightning-fast appearance here on AN/I strongly suggests that he was watching Miltopia's contributions. Creating a single-purpose account for Miltopia-stalking is a no-no. How does a 'new' editor find a category tag on Miltopia's userpage for his very first Wikipedia edit? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see...no probelms. But, no doubt, were I to guess, this editor saw the nonsense on Miltopia's page and tried to get it off there using another account created to evade harassment. Miltopia has been known to post harassment on ED after encountering anyone who disputes him here. With the number of people he has harassed off-wiki, the list of likely persons who created that account could be pretty big. Chilledmonkeybrains though...pretty hard to take that seriously.--MONGO 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN

A message was left on my talk page saying I was "banned" from editing certain articles.[130].

1. Looking at WP:BAN, only the Wikipedia community, the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation can issue bans and not individual admins.
2. I cannot see why adding a flag image to a template would result in a ban- various other users have been adding the flag images back to templates were a certain group of users are defying consensus and deleting them. I have also provided reliable sources on various pages to support the fact that the Ulster Banner is the unoffical flag of Northern Ireland.
3. The allegations about sockpuppets are false- no checkuser request has been filed, and there is no evidence that the anon user was me. Astrotrain 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Banning editor notified here. Navou ^banter 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• You may also wish to list this ban for review at WP:CN. I would recommend reviewing the ban the editor placed, and not the actual editor himself, this might help keep the discussion focused on the "ban" rather than both the ban and the editor who "placed" it. I am using the term ban loosely in this context. Regards, Navou ^banter 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • But is it even a "ban"?- the policy page does not state that admins can ban editors. And looking at the banning policy, content disputes that are not unique to me as an editor are not grounds. He is clearly biased against supporting a particular group of editors- he ignored a racist taunt made by one of his friends that I reported, while blocking me for merely stating my opinion that a particular editor was "inexperienced". Astrotrain 19:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, unless you have been sanctioned by arbcom or in some other fashion, individual admins cannot impose bans. But unless I'm missing something, the edits you have made do look rather tenuous and you should note that editing from an IP address does not excuse you from 3RR. In short, you may not have been "legally" been banned from those templates, but I would strongly suggest that you make sure that your edits reflect a consensus, rather than your point of view. --BigDT (416) 20:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A previous case of a "soft ban" being implemented by an admin, NicholasTurnbull was on certain editors regarding Peter Townshend.[131] This was discussed on AN/I.[132] The discussion continued on CN.[133] An alternative is a standard block, but where the problem is localised, this seems a better solution, as it allows the editor to work in areas where the particular problem does not occur. Astrotrain has made many productive edits elsewhere, but has proved unfortunately incapable of collaboration over Irish-related articles. My notice on his talk page is here:[134] Tyrenius 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that an influencing factor may have been the suggestion that Astrotrain allegedly sought to evade 3RR by using an IP address. I think the "partial ban" should be lifted until that issue is confirmed or denied by a checkuser. I have lodged aa request. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Tyrenius, imposed this ban on User:Astrotrain after I requested him to look into both Astrotrain and User:84.68.93.126 who where stalking and reverting my edits, I had ask Astrotrain to stop his stalking here and warned him that I would report him for vandalism, it was after this that a new editor User:84.68.93.126 with no edit history began doing the same thing as can be seen here, neither Astrotrain nor User:84.68.93.126 made any attempt to discuss their reverts in the talkpages of these articles, dispite being ask to do so. This is not the First time I have had problem with Astrotrain in this aspect, and he was banned prior to this for similar behaviour and attacks on me other editors. I should add that after Tyrenius posted his ban notice to both editors, User:84.68.93.126 stopped making any edits after that, and hasn't posted since.--padraig3uk 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt

Could an admin please checkout Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt, the sock just admitted to creating a new account each time he/she edits and its getting out of hand. --24fan24 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to harass me. It's getting out of hand? What is getting out of hand? What has been done? What is the problem? I am listing all of the accounts for you prior to using them so you can't accuse me of being deceptive. So what's the problem? -Clearages 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Much quacking here.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, so much quacking, I've blocked all of them except the puppetmaster. I've also blocked the one I was most doubtful about - the least loudest quacking, shall we say - User:Movie Eager, and I invite review of all of the blocks but Mr/Ms Eager's in particular please.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets. Good block. No ambiguity at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mackan

He has put a tag of sock puppety on my talk page three times[135]. But I wasn't done CU in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vml132f. So it is no reason to suspect a sock with me. He is doing personal attack on me now. Please give him a advice to stop it. DDRG 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets], step 8 in Reporting suspected sock puppets: "Tag the suspected sockpuppet(s). Edit the user page (not the user talk page) of the suspected puppet account(s) to add the text {{subst:socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}}".Mackan 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. JuJube 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to ask an admin, if he reverts the "suspected sockpuppet" notice, what am I expected to do? I reverted him twice, but that doesn't really seem like a solution to the problem. Mackan 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackan has already done CU on Vml132f and there isn't any evidence of him without "possible". And I wasn't checked in it. So there are any reason to suspect me as a sock. Is it able to be suspecting and to be putting a tag on talk page every minute?? Isn't this a harassment? DDRG 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon-user removing categories from pages

An anon-user (see Special:Contributions/63.215.29.25) has been removing the category Black Superheroes from various articles. He also tried deleting the category itself, but only removed the text from its page.

The same user also attempted to remove a section on the character Northstar's homosexuality.

This user has also added false information to articles, and has been warned about vandalizing several times before. --DrBat 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for Greedy Guy

Sole contributions consist of vandalizing Rugrats episodes. Editing Maniac 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's not really true. JuJube 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed he has made many other contributions. However worth noting he has already been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of MascotGuy. Will (aka Wimt) 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Global search and replace and edit warring by User:TingMing

TingMing (talk · contribs) is enforcing his own naming convention and edit-warring across dozens of Taiwan-related articles. I suggest an admin have a word with him. --Ideogram 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am alarmed by Ideogram's random warring. For the Chen Shui-bian article, it is uncontested and TRUE that Chen is the President of the Republic of China. Nonetheless, Ideogram continues to revert it to Taiwan and makes errornoneous judgements. Ideogram has no good faith after I tried to reach out to him. TingMing 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it. If someone reverts you, you don't keep reverting. You take it to the talk page and discuss. Any massive change across dozens of pages needs to be discussed with as many as people as possible to reach consensus. You don't get to decide policy all by yourself. Your edits will not last long, you are wasting your time. --Ideogram 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already discussed and written notes before. You just dont get it. You have serious issues TingMing 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also wondered aloud to separate editor 'who' this person resembles. They do seem to be ignoring prior discussions (though I am not acquainted well-enough by far myself with status quo). I'd like to second the concerns about mass-renaming/editing of Taiwan<-->ROC. I will look to see what discussions they have participated in. Shenme 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only substantial discussion TingMing has participated in is at Talk:Guantian, Tainan#Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. It's mostly insults (at least I think "Tai Ke" is an insult). --Ideogram 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(Tai Ke is not an insult at all. You have no idea what it means. That is Chinese and not English. Even user Jerrypp772000 said that Tai Ke is not an insult) TingMing 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You really are a liar. According to my Taiwanese sources, Tai Ke is a term for a stereotypical native Taiwanese, complete with slippers and munching on betelnuts. Although the term has been rehabilitated recently, anyone using it in a political context certainly means it as an insult. --Ideogram 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He has many similarities to Heqong (talk · contribs) but that account is too old for checkuser. --Ideogram 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And let me further qualify my concern. Anytime I see names changing back and forth between two or three versions I have to wonder at the utility of those actions. Repetition only makes me wonder more. Picking one particular (simple) article at random I see the same back and forth by six different editors since the article was created (five since November 2006). I see references to Naming conventions (Chinese) and wonder why something as simple as

Taiwan Province of the Republic of China     vs.     Taiwan

can't be decided. I'm afraid to dig into this, and no wonder. Shenme 21:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We've never had a large discussion establishing consensus for policy on this. The current system is hard to understand, and many people have different understandings of it, with the result that usage is ad-hoc and decided by who last edited it. I have been trying for months to establish consensus behind a standard at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Naming Conventions but a large number of participants just want to leave the mess alone. You would certainly be welcome to participate in that discussion, maybe we can get it going again. --Ideogram 22:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution. Navou ^banter 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very familiar with all the DR options. I'm not going to RFC or CSN, and this is too early for ArbCom. Which leaves this. --Ideogram 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of the blue, Ideogram comes out and destroys all productive edits that I am making. I didn't see him come out when Jerrypp772000 mass renamed all Republic of China articles with Taiwan. I am not eliminating Taiwan. I am actually following the Wikipedia Chinese Naming Conventions set forth on Wikipedia. Its people like Ideogram who are arrogant and ignorant to the system that Wikipedia fails. For example, Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. It was a vandal who changed it otherwise. I tried to help by reverting it to the original, yet Ideogram persists in reverting my edits..thereby hurting the Wikipedia system. He is only doing it to annoy me. How random. TingMing 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this guy is edit-warring with me on my own talk page. --Ideogram 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram has persisted in deleting my comments on his talk page. The comments reveal Ideogram's motives and personality. He has persisted to remove that for fear that other users and admins will see it. TingMing 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the funniest thing you've said so far. Add it one more time and you get blocked. --Ideogram 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't been following this conversation, but I'd like to note that there is currently no consensus that removing warnings or other forms of communication is governed by anything other than an editor's opinion. That said, editors are encouraged to archive and not simply delete comments, but it is Ideogram's choice what he or she would like to do. But those who repeatedly post comments that are removed are liable to be blocked as violating the WP:3RR rule. Make sure that you do not violate it, TingMing. --Iamunknown 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This Taiwan VS China thign comes up at least once a month. It's ridiculous, because we won't solve it easily, if ever. Some editors are Pro-China, and insist on seeing Taiwan as China, while Pro-Taiwan editors insist on seeing Taiwan as its' own entity. This is a political fight on a much bigger scale than Wikipedia, and I doubt it can be solved. ThuranX 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that if we can get a large enough consensus behind a standard we will have enough patrollers to rapidly quash any potential edit-warriors. --Ideogram 09:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please resolve ongoing move dispute, over name

Persons named Juan González use an accent over the "a" in Gonzalez. Editors have moved the page for Juan González (journalist) to Juan Gonzalez (journalist) without the accent several times. Please help secure that the page can remain with the accent. The system is now locked against moving the page to the proper spelling. Dogru144 21:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

SHould be returned to the with accent version, as the no accents name leads to a disambig, in which all options HAVE the accent. ThuranX 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be settled on the talk page by propsong a move, gaining consensus, and following naming conventions. The user proposing the move has not provided any evidence that the accented version is used by the subject, or is the best-known spelling. Instead, the user created a new article then redirected the already existing article. That isn't the right way to change an article name. -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It was I who reverted that change because instead of moving the article the user just blanked the original article, turned it into a redirect and then c&ped the content of that article to the version with the accent on it. This in turn completely messed up the history of that article. Furthermore, I don't think I've ever seen Gonzalez' name used with an accent (but this should be resolved outside of AN/I).--Jersey Devil 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the "á" is necessary for proper Spanish grammar (as the third-to-last syllable is the stressed syllable of González), but that's a minor point. It depends on what the journalist himself uses. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive6#Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Henchman 2000, User:AKMask/puppets, and Henchman's and Bowsy's contribs and talk pages. They've been accused of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets in the past, though the sockpuppet part was dismissed after Henchman admitted that they share a computer. However, Bowsy's edit to User talk:AKMask/puppets says "Bowsy and I", instead of "Henchman and I" (which could mean that he/she/they forgot to log in as Henchman 2000. This leads me to believe that they could possible be sockpuppets. I might be jumping to conclusions, though. Comments? — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I documented the slip up on the puppets page as well, thats been updated. Bowsy has also expressed a desire to get my evidence page deleted as an attack page. I explained how to put something up on WP:MfD if he wants to, as I have confidence in a speedy keep on that. Not fully relevent, just a note. -M^ask? 21:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit: The updated section of the evidence page) -M^ask? 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Vwt NPOV

Is there where we report POV violations? User:Vwt seems to be creating a bunch of stubs about some financial company that was investigated. They were deleted, but he's adding them back. Should he be blocked?

Vwt comments: contributions are edits/additions to, or creation of, a wide array of articles are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and are across a spectrum of topics in Wikipedia. These contributions entries are not just a bunch of stubs about just one topic or entity. Why are you presuming Vwt is a he. The contributions are well considered, researched, complete initial articles with citation reference verified, change annotation comment descriptions, and in answered in Talk. All of these entries and/or edits are open for welcomed improvements, of course. None entries are intended as perfect, but wholesale, whole-cloth deletion is unwarranted, as is blockage.

These contributions consistently reference independent verifiable credible source publications, such as the New York Times and Dow Jones News’ published the Wall Street Journal which have widely recognized credibility (by most opinions, with some dissenters). These reliable publications in turn reference their fact sources. When verifiable, Vwt provides links to reliable online versions of the publications are provided into the article, and as reference links. These referenced links, in some cases, even link further in turn directly to source documents, usually from public records such as US judicial court findings of fact or other public documents. Links to government or established credible corporate websites are also provided when appropriate.

Some sensitive topics such as Censorship by Google are obviously difficult for Wikipedia editors to verify online through Google or any other electronic online search tools. A physical print version of the actual published newspaper should be compared with the internet news search result (they do not always match). For example, the print front page cover of the Wall Street Journal March 6th 2007, headlines, news text, and photographic images (which are correctly copyright source attributed in print by the newspaper), can be compared with electronic Google News “search results”.

This front page Wall Street Newspaper article text, headline text, and cover photo images [136] are not found by Google News. Front covers of news publications (text and images) are included in articles as Front Covers and Front Cover Images, are included as public fair use and used in compliance with referenced citations according to Wikipedia:Image use policy (derived from obvious newsstand public view reasons). We have come to expect an accurate uncensored neutral point of view factual information from internet search of news & facts, without censorship, algorithmic error, or copyright law misinterpretations or misapplication. These objective examples demonstrate in this contrary – there is censoring of US Publications news and images, just as Google demonstrably censors China news and images -- see history on Censorship by Google. Some editors may consider this "missing news" to be original research but Citing sources: Google News (missing) and the Wall Street Journal (Print and online, news and images evident) are credible verifiable objective credible sources. Wikipedia should reference this US Censorship by Google in the article that already similarly references absence of controversial China images and news in Censorship by Google along with similar observations in other countries. (Vwt Comments)

139.153.12.133 blocked for 31 hours

I've blocked User:139.153.12.133 for 31 hours after repeated acts of vandalism and the user's replacement of the talk page contents with "Don't leave comments on my page you cunts." The IP is registered to University of Stirling (RIPE). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

another cleargoing sock to block

User:Cleargoing4ThisTimeItsPersonal please block ASAP.--Lucy-marie 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This user was blocked earlier by Alison. Will (aka Wimt) 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about User:Goingclear1 I think all variations ion these names need looking into.--Lucy-marie 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That user in fact stated "I am a sockpuppet and I am only here to vandalize Wikipedia"[137] and has been blocked accordingly. Will (aka Wimt) 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point these Cleargoing sock can be reported at WP:AIV instead of here - they'll be dealt with faster and then cleared from the page. Natalie 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review request

• Chris Leak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 64.238.181.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.238.181.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I would like to submit this block for review. This user, under two different IP addresses, has repeatedly added an unsourced claim to Chris Leak that he is engaged and that his fiance is pregnant. I requested both in edit summaries and on the talk pages of both IP addresses that they either provide a source or stop adding the claim and provided them a link to WP:BLP, which states that unsourced contentious material (whether positive, negative, or indifferent) is to be removed on sight. Both IPs simply continued to add the claim.

Both IP addresses are from Gainesville, Florida, where the University of Florida is located, so it is distinctly possible that this individual has firsthand knowledge of the situation. However, it is still unsourced and potentially contentious.

I submit my reverts (which exceeded three) and blocks for review. Thank you. --BigDT (416) 23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Corey Clark

Hi. I've been having trouble over the past two months with User:Liaishard, who continuously inserts non-NPOV material into the article. Right now, she she insists on changing a passage so that a point of view taken by Clark reads as a fact. Specifically, in the passage detailing how the producers of American Idol told Clark and his fellow contestants to select one of two attorneys for representation that the producers presented to them within two days or be dismissed from the show, the wording indicates that Clark and his fellow contestants felt this was a conflict of interest. Liaishard keeps changing this passage from "felt" to "knew". Liaishard insists that it's a fact, not an opinion, that it does not require a legal conclusion, and that because it's from Clark's book and his own words, that it's a "direct quote". I've tried to explain to her a direct quote is a word-for-word reproduction of someone's words with quotation marks, and that the passage "Clark felt" or "Clark knew" is a third-person paraphrase, but she refuses to listen, insisting that no, it's a first-person direct quote. Wen I try to correct her on this terminology on the article's Talk Page (as I have done numerous times over the past month or two), she disagrees, but without explaining why my assertion is wrong. She also continues to insert a dead link that she herself previously removed for that reason. User:Geniac, who I've asked for help numerous times, intervenes only sporadically, as he is probably very busy. User:Seraphimblade, who has also tried to help out, has a banner on his page that he is currently away. This has been going on for months now, and I would appreciate some decisive action with Liaishard, who neither understand nor cares about the site's policies. Nightscream 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for a third opinion? If more then 2 editors are involved I would suggest that you go through dispute resolution, try the mediation cabal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Further PAs

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48hrs for continued personal attacks, talk page semi-protected.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Further personal attack by User:82.20.124.228. Andy Mabbett 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours. The talk page has been semiprotected for two days after the IP tried to use it to launch personal attacks against users.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33

Hi all. I've just blocked 76.213.169.162 (talk · contribs), 75.5.179.122 (talk · contribs), 75.40.61.80 (talk · contribs), and 70.253.160.220 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of the blocked user Burgz33. I'm not sure if CheckUser would be able to confirm that this is him, but if it is proven, I think Burgz is up for a much longer block. I was wondering if another admin could review this and let me know what they think, if they have had any experience with this user. Thanks, Khoikhoi 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't forget 75.12.159.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). JuJube 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've had extensive dealings with this individual and tagged a number of the sockpuppets of Burgz33. He has openly admitted that he is still editing anonymously here on my talk page[138] where he openly mocks any administrators that have blocked him. You can also contact CambridgeBayWeather to verify this. Thanks. Yankees76 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• He's currently trolling WP:AN. JuJube 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if I have anything to say about it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like him. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reporting Admin Abuse. Avoids block for abusive comments then complains that others are picking on him. Because of Burgz33 User talk:Yankees76 is now semi-protected to keep Burgz33 off the page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He's now Wikistalking my edits and spamming AuburnPilot's talk page as User:75.43.137.179 claiming another admin is abusing his powers, referring to Khoikhoi. Yankees76 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Khoikhoi 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nekohakase (talk · contribs)

While I work to delete/unlink this user's various inappropriate PD images, can somebody that is less annoyed serve them a tactful warning? Circeus 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind that. I need to clear the source of several images anyway. THey need to be watched, though. They seem to assume scanning an image makes them the "creator", so I wouldn't trust the "I made/took it!" claims.Circeus 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen quite a bit of that, actually. Would it be too condescending of us to add something like "scanning somebody else's image does not make it yours" to the Special:Upload page? — CharlotteWebb 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but I suspect nothing short of the suggested changes at Commons will really help, and even that will still let copyvios in. Circeus 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn McCarthy vandalism

I've reached my skill level on this page. It is being attacked mercilessly by pro-gun advocates because the Congresswomen is pro-gun control. I've tried to keep on top of the constant changes in the last couple of hours of adding in clear vandalism and POV and unsourced information. I've requested discussion on the talk page. The last reasonable version of this article is [139]. I've been reverted countless times. I have to step away and allow someone else with great available skills to protect this page.  ∴ Therefore  talk   01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected before, and I semiprotected it again for 3 days. If the vandalism returns, I'll bump up the protection some. This is at the lower end of the amount of vandalism I would need to see for semiprotection, but I think it's warranted in this case. CMummert · talk 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry

I'm submitting to my fellows a report regarding a group of editors acting as meatpuppets of the banned editor Hkelkar. The core evidence for this is e-mails exchanged between these individuals — Hkelkar is intimately involved in discussing Wikipedia issues and affairs, offering advice and instructions to the others. There is no doubt that these editors are colluding with Hkelkar and editing for his purposes as proxies. The group was targeting Dbachmann (whom they consider to be anti-Hindu) and maligning other editors such as Bhadani. However, I will not display the contents of the e-mails here unless the community deems it necessary.

• Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan have been blocked indefinitely for meatpuppetry and scheming with Hkelkar. Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have been regularly violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for some time, while strenously defending a pro-Hkelkar point of view on Wikipedia articles. They has also behaved disruptively against editors they considers to be biased against Hinduism and India. Complaints about Bakasuprman's behavior have been lodged both on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan.

• Scheibenzahl has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Anupamsr, who in turn has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and participating in scheming with Hkelkar, Bakasuprman and Sbhushan. He has used his sockpuppet to participate in various WP:AFD debates and editing issues on the same range of articles as Bakasuprman and Sbhushan.

I know that this is a complicated issue, so I ask for my fellows to review my decisions. I will respect any criticism offered and any consensus decision to undo or modify the blocks as deemed appropriate. However, I would like to emphasize that permitting these editors to continue to edit Wikipedia defies the arbitration committee and the community's decision to ban Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that CheckUser confirms that Scheibenzahl and Anupamsr are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 3 more socks of Hkelkar were found and blocked. One of them was User:ThLinGan. ThLinGan was involved in an edit war with User:Faraz. Note how both Bakasuprman [140] and Hkelkar together try and get the user blocked under 3RR by goading him. Calling someones edits ISIcruft is like saying OSAMAcruft in India. Baka knows this and has been warned hundreds of times not to do this. I have been suspecting these users of tag-team editing for a long time. I was waiting for my exams to get over before investigating their edits for a possible ArbCom case. If there is email evidence supporting Rama's claims, then I fully endorse the blocks. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rama's actions, assuming the behind-scenes evidence is as compelling as he says. Looks like a pretty good call to me. There's no doubt Bakasuprman and Sbhushan have been disruptive elements for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Rama Arrow's actions. I helped him compile some of the email evidence and have seen much of it. I had suspected their meetings with Hkelkar for some time now ever ever since their behavious became more uncivil. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough evidence against User:Bakasuprman to warrant such a massive ban. I propose to unblock him on the condition to temporarily restrict his participation solely to self-defense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman was one of the most vocal Hkelkar supporters and I support his ban. It had reached the point where is Bakasuprman said something wasn't PoV or someone wasn't a Hkelkar sockpuppet, then you could immediately assume that it was PoV and they were a sockpuppet of Hkelkar. – Steel 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Full endorsement of Rama's actions. Another Indian admin has previously provided me also with evidence of a well organized recruition campaign in Hindu radical websites, made by what appears to be one of the three blocked editors. On my account, I have long noted the concerted and disruptive behaviour of the editors in question; I must also add that I've long suspected of a direct link between Bakasuprman and his socks, at least since his passionate defence defence of Hkelkar's sock User:Rumpelstiltskin223 after its indef blocking.--Aldux 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I have reset Scheibenzahl's block to 2 weeks (the user:Anupamsr account has been indef'd, as he doesn't want to use that one) - apart from his explanations and confession, from the e-mail evidence I know that he wasn't a malicious member of the group, and it is certainly possible that he was an accidental or unwilling member - the main schemers were Bakasuprman, Sbhushan and D-Boy. But Scheibenzhal must be blocked for a period for manipulating WP:SOCK and potentially acting as a meatpuppet. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock review needed

Resolved

Other admins are requested to review and comment on the unblock request at User talk:Nightscream. Heimstern Laufer blocked for 48 hours for a 3RR violation, rejecting the user's contention that he was enforcing BLP. I believe the user had a good-faith believe that BLP was being violated, and would unblock. Would appreciate further review and comments. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what part was negative information about a living person? What I saw in the reverts was only the revert of a definition of the term "conflict of interest". I missed how it could be seen as a BLP issue. Would appreciate some clarification. Heimstern Läufer 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the disagreement is over felt vs knew. If Clark "felt" it was a conflict of interest, then that's a statement of his opinion. If Clark "knew" it was a conflict of interest, then that means that the article is making the claim that the producers (who are living people) acted incorrectly. I agree with Brad's contention that this user in good faith believed that WP:BLP covered this case. --BigDT (416) 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The change from "felt" to "knew" there was a conflict of interest implies a degree of certainty about the producers' alleged misconduct that is not well-supported by a cited source. The citation of a legal definition of "conflict of interest" applicable only to lawyers, which is enforceable by disciplinary action and sometimes civil or even criminal penalties, could imply that there was a specific regulatory definition of conflict of interest that Clark knew the TV producers were violating, which is not the case. I also think it's significant that the now-blocked user was addressing these issues on the talk page, in a reasonably appropriate manner, in the face of another user who was screaming at him and using obscenities. I agree with Heimstern that this is probably borderline as a BLP problem, but the user believed there was one, and that belief was not so unreasonable as to warrant being summarily disregarded. I believe that this was a situation that could have benefitted from more nuanced administrator intervention and a warning rather than a 3RR block, and certainly not a 48-hour block against a longtime editor with an extremely strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, then, I can see how that could be the case. Unblocked. Thanks for keeping me accountable. (P.S.: It was only 18 hours. But either way, it is gone now.) Heimstern Läufer 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs) banned

ArmenianJoe's contributions consist of almost entirely edit warring. He has several blocks, all of them for obsessive edit warring at Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Armenian Genocide, and related articles. His latest block three days ago was for a week, for immediately warring again at Denial of the Armenian Genocide as soon as his prior 48 hour block for the same thing ended. He then created the abusive sockpuppet account Israyel (talk · contribs) to, of course, edit war at Denial of the Armenian Genocide. I've blocked the sockpuppet and extended the block to indefinite. There is no reason to put up with a patently unproductive and unreasonable editor. Dmcdevit·t 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely endorse the block; my concern is with the use of the word "ban" here, as I would think we could only consider him banned if the ban were agreed upon by the community. Heimstern Läufer 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards. Admins have the discretion to impose indefinite blocks only when they think there is already agreement on the matter. I consider him banned because in my judgment that's the common-sense thing to do, and the community will not reverse the decision. If I am wrong about it being non-controversial, then I am wrong about him being banned. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My limited understanding of the matter is that we've moved away from that practice toward more discussion of bans before they're considered enacted. But I dunno for sure. Anyway, doesn't make a difference for now, as I'm not challenging this. Heimstern Läufer 06:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Heimstern is correct. While the old definition of a community ban is indeed that of an unchallenged indefinite block (passive community ban), the community has generally moved away from that definition to one coming out of a result of community discussion (active community ban). I made up the phrases in the parentheses, just to show contrast. The correct terminology in this case would be block. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are two types of community bans. One type is the ban that is meted out after discussion at WP:CN. The other is for more obvious cases where no discussion is required. As I have read somewhere, if any admin is unwilling to unblock an indefinitely blocked user, then it is considered to be a community ban too. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. However, nowadays only those that are discussed are considered bans, as those of the former definition may leave room for sockpuppetry. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That's completely wrong, and overly bureacratic for bureaucracy's sake. I don't know what you mean when you say "the former definition may leave room for sockpuppetry," banned users are banned users. There has been no change in how bans work, except in the minds of legalistic types. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit is entirely correct here. We've been having problems with some people on the Community Noticeboard assuming to themselves the 'right' to decide on bans - it doesn't work that way and it never has. A community ban is when no-one will unblock, and has no connection to the Community Noticeboard endorsing, disendorsing or deciding they have a say in it. There are no lynchmob mechanisms on Wikipedia, and we're not installing this one quietly on the side. Just because a small group of people (and it is an insular group of regulars) have decided to write a process for their amusement does not obligate anyone else on Wikipedia to respect it in any way - David Gerard 09:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. A ban is just an indefinite block that nobody will lift. Let's not get into instruction creep and please let's not act as if community consensus had anything to do with those nasty little lynching mobs that sometimes form on pages like Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LYNCHMOBSrUS? --kingboyk 13:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, who are the sockpuppets? It'd be good to tag them and start a category. --Iamunknown 06:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to start a category? Putting the sockpuppeteer's name(s) in lights isn't a deterrent to sockpuppeting - quite the reverse.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlblackburn (talk · contribs)

User continues to add this Web site[141] to the article PlayStation Portable's external links that promotes PSP Blender, a scam site that claims to offer commercial content for download (including PSP video games) for monthly fees. This practice is illegal. The link has been reverted several times by many users but Carlblackburn continues to readd it[142], citing that the Web site is not illegal when it obviously is. We've tried settling this matter in the talk page (Talk:PlayStation_Portable#Squidoo_site) but user refuses to acknowledge that illegal activity does not belong on Wikipedia. - Throw 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ccbond (talk · contribs)

User appears to be banned editor Harvardlaw (talk · contribs) who was given an indefinite block for removing AFD links and various other vandalism across Wikipedia. Can someone give this sock an indefinite block and delete David J. Silver as a vanity page. Thanks! --Bobblehead 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Having reverted some of his vandalism, I second the request. YechielMan 08:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The pink panther

I would like the community to look at the userpage of User:The pink panther. The user has put up on zir userpage that zie is [a young age]. I remember coming across a user earlier who was [young age], and his userpage was modified and page history removed since it revealed age.

I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the previous user, but I'm sure I can find it and will post as soon as I can. I also mentioned this user to Daniel.Bryant and he suggested that the [young age] year old user might have revealed other personal information as well.

Perhaps it might be better in terms of privacy for User:The pink panther to not reveal zir age?

Best regards, xC | ☎ 10:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: With the statement "I also mentioned this user to Daniel.Bryant and he suggested that the [young age] year old user might have revealed other personal information as well", I was referring to the fact that I believe the [young age]-year-old (ie. the precedent in this case) may have been revealing further information, and that was the issue. The correspondance is here. It just read slightly ambiguously to me at first, so I thought I'd clear it up. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this post is broadcasting the user's age...He definitely doesn't know the implications of revealing his age, so I think a removal and maybe a oversight is in order... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Age replaced with more...generic...statement :) Daniel Bryant 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the user's talk page and I'm waiting for a reply.... Meanwhile I suggest someone remove the various information just in case... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's a sensible course of action - letting the user know the concerns and removing it as a precaution until they reply. Whilst there is no official policy pertaining to minors disclosing details (after this failed consensus), it always makes sense to err on the side of caution in these situations. Will (aka Wimt) 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I was going through the user contribs. and I found this... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) By the way, [143] [144] [145] - I stayed a long way away from the debate over at that guideline/failed/policy/essay/whatever, and I intend to stay out of this, but further input about the aforementioned would be appreciated. Daniel Bryant 11:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of being unnaturally dim... but I have no idea what you just said... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a policy proposal or something about dealing with these kind of edits (ie. the death template). Daniel Bryant 11:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right...I thought you meant the WP:KID thingy... I hope this won't escalate like last time. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet, under-13s are usually considered minors. She's 13. I don't see what's the problem.

Inappropriate blog linked from the userpage User:Hammersfan

Resolved

 – User has removed the link following a request from another user. Adambro 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hammersfan has a link from his userpage to what appears to be a blog written by him. One of the entries is as follows:[146]

March 13
What a f*cking c*ck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chriscf

This person is a fucking cock - a close minded tosser who I'd very much like to hurt by inserting a cricket bat into his rectum and twisting very slowly. Tosspot Welsh arsehole.

As such, I feel that the link from his userpage to this blog is not appropriate. I've raised this issue with the user (diff) but their only response was to delete my message from their talk page, as they did yesterday when I left a warning about their behaviour. I'd welcome the opinions of other editors with regards to this issue. Adambro 12:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I get an "XML Parsing Error" when I try to follow the blog link above; it seems my browser (Mozilla SeaMonkey) can't cope with its bogosity of serving the page with an XHTML MIME type but using an HTML 4.0 doctype on it. *Dan T.* 14:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to pro-pedofelia websites on userpage

User:BLueRibbon declares on his userpage "I’m an 18 year old minor-attracted individual." then goes on to give 4 different links to pro-pedophilia websites. I blanked an even worse version a couple days ago[147], and the user returned a portion of what I removed quoting the part of WP:USER that says you can have information about yourself[148].

This seems a little weak to me, and I am asking for opinions on if this sort of thing should be allowed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... what was on those links exactly? (/me doesn't want to click...) If it was child porn, then he could be blocked and his userpage blanked due to a legal violation (we have to... our servers are in FL). Cbrown1023 talk 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

They are sites campaigning for kid diddlers rights basically. They are promotional in nature regardless of subject matter. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A fourth user has now removed the links for the fifth time. My plan is to block if they are added again, I have warned the user. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The user returned the links again, to be removed by a 5th editor for the 6th time. I gave a block this time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now the proud declaration of intent to sock puppet comes[149]. I think it will not be to hard to spot this person. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BLueRibbon is one of a number of editors who was vigorously defending the right to label pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" over on Jimbo's talk page. He makes it quite clear that he's here for the sole purpose of pushing his POV, one which I'm not sorry to say that I find odious in the extreme. A Train^talk 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoymous user 63.231.59.4 removing content from pages

The IP 63.231.59.4 has been removing speedy deletion notices and some maintenance templates which I placed on several articles. I would report this user at AIV, but they're not currently active. He has no prior contributions before doing this, as you can see here. I've placed several warnings on his page, but am unsure about what to do next, and would like some input from an admin here. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch for half an hour or so, and if they come back, go to AIV, I reckon. – Riana ^ऋ 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Threatening Other Users

Someone want to give this guy the sternest kind of talking to? WilyD 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Dgies --Guinnog 15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki help

I'm looking for some help from people here on another Wikimedia project I'm sysop on. I'm a sysop (the only one) at the Cornish Wiktionary], and I've been repeatedly deleting spambot and vandalism pages.

If anyone here could help me, that would be much appreciated. Just tag [delete template] on the page, and I will delete it.

It is a fairly inactive wiki, I need all the help I can get. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone posing as Jimbo Wales?

This fella, [user 1|Princess Peach Toadsfool], left a message on my talk page, [150] "Greetings, after a positive dialogue with Princess Peach Toadsfool, i hereby suggst that she should be promoted to an administrator. Will you please fix that? yours sincerely; --Jimbo Wales 18:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)" Signed with Jimbo's signature.. Perhaps this should be handled by an admin?

GavinTing 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)