Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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.

---

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

Disruptive editing with rage

I request that some admin stop User:Sarvagnya from going on a disruption spree. I don't want to take admin action as I'm a complainant myself. This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. His edit summaries and talk page comments are almost always provocative. One fine editor who has produced a bunch of FAs has gone into semi-retirement unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang. More users including me are stressed to the point of leaving. Attempts at reconciliation have not worked.

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. He took the next worst choice -- going on a rampage with anything that's linked from there. The latest is the article Tamil people, a featured article and also one which has undergone FA review recently. His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case, but request someone to look into his history of disruption and take action. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you guys to seek mediation, and I still think that's best for everyone. This seems to me to be a complex dispute and a two-way street. I nominated Tamil language for featured article review, and it was closed as a "keep", just as the article was being locked and having its neutrality disputed. This has quickly spiraled out of control, but I still would suggest something better than running to admins all the time during your disputes. Grandmasterka 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Sarvagnya seems to have been cleared of being a sockpuppeteer. Grandmasterka 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the same opinion about this as Grandmasterka... DR should be used for disputes, with ANI used when things spiral out of control, and admin intervention is necessary to sort things out. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself and he, having bought some time, started his disruptive edits with other related articles. Reg him being a sock, I just notice that the clerks asuumed good faith and revised the decision as meatpuppetry.

Kzrulzuall, I know that DR is generally a better choice. But, we've been through this earlier too. That time, I was a lot more patient, but still we lost or almost lost another editor. I am no longer willing to play this game of pacifying him. I'm going to go away rather than stressing myself with another DR with him. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I could tag the article for OR. But then Mr. Sundar and his stooge Parthi will come and immediately revert it. If you throw in two inline citations in a 10000 word article or names of two books under ==Refs==, the article becomes 'sourced'! Right? Yeah right. Sarvagnya 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Assumed good faith and revised as meatuppetry"?!! - Thats misleading people here with malicious intent. Sarvagnya 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The very accusations of sockpuppetry were infact in bad faith and I proved it. There was no sockpuppetry. There was no meatpuppetry. Nonsense! Sarvagnya 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. - Evidence please. Sarvagnya 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. - Shameless and malicious misrepresentation of facts. Does not befit an admin. Not in the least. Sarvagnya 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself - You didnt suggest that we write drafts. I did. Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. - Bullshit! Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. - I perhaps tagged only one such image. And didnt resist once it got reverted. Sarvagnya 10:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revise your tone, Sarvagnya, as you are not acting very civil. If you have comments, please address them properly. Accusing users of having "Malicious intent" does not help. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them on some article doesnt help either nor is it very civil. Sarvagnya 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And since when is tagging copyvio and asking for citations disruption?! Does this admin in question who openly told me that he cannot assume good faith with me even know what disruption is? Sarvagnya 10:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'd have done if I was editing with rage. I'd have moved Tamil language back into FAR. Whoever had heard of an article thats protected and with POV and disputed tags being closed as FAs. That too with no semblance of a voting exercise on the FAR page. Sarvagnya 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case... - I'm tired too. Or I could present several diffs.. even one of the admin in question biting a new user who just happened to be on the other side of the POV divide. Shameful indeed. I could also present a diff where the admin in question attributes malicious intent to me. And many more. Sarvagnya 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sundar wouldn't be an admin if he doesn't know what "disruption" is. If someone is behaving uncivilly with you, it is not an excuse to behave uncivilly back. Please calm down before you start making more accusations to respected users editing in good faith.--Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing in "good faith"? Dont you see how he lies about my block record in a bid to sway opinion of some admin in the hope that some admin would block me? He says I've been blocked several times for disruption and sockpuppetry while one quick look at my block log will reveal that I have been blocked ONLY ONCE and that too for 'fighting' with another user who the concerned admins will testify was a rank bad troll. He and all his accomplices were subsequently blocked for using abusive sockpuppets against me or other users. I could go on.. every single word that Sundar has written is a lie. L-I-E. LIE. Sarvagnya 10:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang.... - me and my gang? would you elaborate please? Last I remember, I was waging a lone battle against a tag team of reverters on Tamil language and Talk:Tamil language. Sarvagnya 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Signing off for now. If any admin has any questions, I will answer each one of them. For now, suffice to say that all of Sundar's charges are baseless and nonsense. He is trying to use his admin weight to bully me into submission in the content issue he and his friends are having with me on Tamil language. Sarvagnya 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since evidence is being asked, I will provide them.

Evidence of removing cited content:

He removes the following cited content unilaterally here.

"On the other hand a number of scholars believe that the influence of Tamil and Dravidian had a far greater influence, including grammar, syntax, poetics and meter on Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages."

He then proceeds to remove following cited fact here.

"Unlike in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where early inscriptions were written in Sanskrit, the early inscriptions in Tamil nadu used Tamil exclusively."

This is not the first time where he removes cited facts from Tamil nadu related articles. Previous cited content removal with offending edit summaries are here, here, here, & here. It is particularly notable that in one edit summary he indulges in OR & attacks the Tamil epic's content as disco-dance (a slang in south India for cabaret [1]).

Possible defamation of eminent Tamil researcher & other Tamil organizations (sangams) here where he compares their work to 'squat'.

"...Hart's campaign and sundry Tamil sangams' 'campaigns' would have counted for squat minus Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress govt.,.)..."

Then he indulges in personal attack on all other editors in the talk page of Tamil language article without proof here where he accuses other editors of trolling.

"If only you guys would have spent less time trolling on Halmidi and Rashtrakuta FAC and Kannada and Bharatanatya and Carnatic music, we could have had more time to thrash out several issues on this page."

I warned about this personal attack here.

Can he provide evidence for the claim that he was exonerated from meat-puppetry charges? The restrictions on him were removed on account of subsequent contributions by him & his confirmed meat puppet. Not that his confirmed case was changed to unconfirmed.

He accuses admin Sundar of bullying him (again without any proof). Please make a stop to all these. Thanks. Praveen 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being accused of being a stooge to Sundar. Brushing aside this personal attack, which I have to come to expect from Sarvagna, let me point out a few recent examples of unreasonable behaviour from Sarvagna.

1. He tagged dozens of Tamil History related articles with {{citation neede}} tags with the edit summary inline citations (book, year, author, p#, publisher, quote, isbn) for all the cruft here please. [2] While asking for inline citation is ok, does he have to insult the integrity of the author?
2. He tagged dozens of Tamil literature related articles as OR [3], [4], [5], etc with no justification or discussion.
3. He maliciously tagged images with explicit license information: [6], [7], [8], [9], etc, almost all pertaining to the soon to be featured History of Tamil Nadu or Tamil people articles. He also accused the uploader of one image of 'pompously' releasing it as {{PD}} [10].This is the image chosen to appear on the Main page on the 5th.

These are just a few example of the disruptive editing habits of this user. I request stern admin action to address this. 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To emphasise my point, let me give you an excerpt from a post from Arvind [11]:

“ This isn't an easy problem to deal with. It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence). They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible. After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Wikipedia altogether. ”

- 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya has a rather blunt way of putting things, however characterizing his editing pattern as a disruption spree seems like a large stretch. As for WP:BLP, he called the work squat, not Professor Hart (who is a respected expert on the Tamil language. Seeing the larger picture, this ANI post has been transformed into another of ethnolinguistic conflicts of India being played on the web. It centers in this context over the Kaveri water dispute and other issued dividing Kannada people (sarvagnya, KNM, and others) and Tamil people (parthi, praveen, etc.)Bakaman 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Kaveri, in this case. It's just some sort of "parity complex" that a few people hold. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So how much 'bluntness' you suggest the community to tolerate? Calling other editors trolls is according you is just 'blunt' way of putting things. Thanks for the insight.

If putting fact tags for every sentence (in some cases for every word) in an article [12], adding frivolous no-license tags for images with clear license information, calling all other editors as trolls, adding offending edit summaries are not being disruptive, what is being disruptive?

BTW: its nice to see Sarvagnya supporting your cause in Arbcom. Praveen 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I initiated the checkuser on sarvagnya, I helped thwart an RFC he filed back when Marathi vs. Kannada was the vogue ethnic conflict. I also had a huge disagreemtn with him over anton Balasingham. Sundar in fact, was asked by sarvagnya to attack me in hkelkar's arbcom, which he declined. Back to the subject of "friendliness", you seem to misunderstand POV pushing, and other negative terms, so you using them does not really have the effect of a good editor like sundar using them, though he is incorrect in this case.Bakaman 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First things first. Saying that I defamed Hart or anybody else is nonsense. Neither have I defamed Hart nor have I resisted them using him in their citations. When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a citation in hand. I was not just ORing.

This is all that I'll respond to right now as I dont know if anybody here is even interested/listening nor do I see any point in discussing content issues pertaining to Tamil language on ANI. But if any admin wants me to answer any of those baseless allegations they've thrown at me, point out the accusation and I will respond to it. Otherwise, I am done here. And before I sign off, I am still waiting to hear how tagging an article asking for citations is disruption. Or tagging(asking for source info) pictures that have been.. yes.. 'pompously' released on GFDL when there is zero evidence regarding the source or the original copyright holder. Sarvagnya 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a citation in hand.

Could you please show us the portion where Hart's (and other Tamil organizations') work is compared to squat from your citation? Thanks. Praveen 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Praveen and Parthi have presented enough evidence here. Moreover, he has himself shown a sample of his attitude with his above comments. I leave it to the admins. Back to content issues, with his relentless and systematic pushing across-the-board, I doubt if we can work out consensus without third party mediation at the least or even arbitration. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Praveen and Parthi have not presented any evidence whatsoever. All their so called 'evidence' is full of red herrings. For example, Praveen says I've removed cited content somewhere. If people take a closer look at the history, you will find that it would have been one in a series of consecutive edits by me(with no intervening edits from any other editors) and that I would have brought back the "cited content" myself in mostly the very next edit(the one about tamil inscriptions being in tamil and Kannada& Telugu being in Sanskrit, for example). If I have not brought back any content that I removed, then it means that the content has been disputed. In such cases, look at the talk page and you will find that I would have explained myself at length. In such cases you will also see that, instead of addressing my concerns, these people have tag team reverted me. And when they've reverted, they have infact removed "cited content" that I might have added(and in those cases, you'd hardly see any semblance of them discussing it on talk pages). Just because some content is cited, doesnt mean it is NPOV, undisputed or even relevant to the article.

The one example you gave is because you reverted my revert to earlier version. Could you give diffs for other incidents where you 'brought' back cited information? You claim you only removed 'disputed' cited information. Thats the point. The cited information was removed unilaterally. Praveen 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who Sundar is referring to when he says that he's quit because of me. I presume he's talking of User:Vadakkan. If anybody takes a look at Vadakkan's user page and talk pages, you will see that he has been away since many months now. His going away has nothing to do with me and as his own edits(the few intermittent ones) will testify, he's been away because he's been busy in "Real life". Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago, he claimed that he was in Europe and busy in real life and would only be able to participate intermittently. How very convenient of Sundar to now claim that I drove him away!!

Parthi says I've tagged dozens of articles as OR. If he be asked to show the evidence, people here will come to know of the gross exaggeration in his statement. Exaggeration which is no doubt filled with malice(to try and sway emotions here and may be get me blocked). And even the ones I tagged for OR(and didnt resist once I was reverted), people can see how badly they're written. Zero inline referencing in fairly long articles but conveniently marked as "stubs".

As for the pictures he claims I've maliciously tagged, since when is asking for proper information of source for a pic that has been released on GFDL malicous?! Its not upto editors here to simply download pictures they like from somewhere and release it on wikipedia under GFDL. In some cases, there are pics where they've scanned it from some calendar and released it on a free license claiming that the copyright holder had "irrevocably released" all rights. When the fact of the matter is, they dont even know who the original copyright holder is!! In another case, a pic(on en.wiki) has a link to a "description page" on commons which directs you to fr.wiki and the fr.wiki sends you back to commons! And there is no source info. And it has been released under GFDL!

As for the mischevous insinuations about my sockpuppetry, [[13] here] is the evidence disproving that. It has testimonies and acknowledgements exonerating me of any such wrongdoing. The acknowledgements are not just by multiple admins who were involved, but also by the user who initiated the RFCU in the first place. can somebody please make me a banner out of this link and drop it off on my talk page. I'll be grateful to you. Thanks in advance.

As a humble and constructive editor who is not an admin, I submit that this is belligerence and not so veiled intimidation by an admin who is directly involved in a content issue with me. He is trying to browbeat me from even attempting to edit his favourite article while at the same time trying to present himself as some wronged martyr. Talking about things like an Arbcom(!!) to decide this content issue is in my view an attempt to intimidate and browbeat me into submission.

Calling my edits disruption is just slander. If people investigate any content issue I may have been involved in, they will notice that I always take part extensively in discussing the issues on the talk page. Even in this case(Tamil language) you will see that I have been discussing issues on the talk page for nearly a month(and intermittently in related articles since the past one year). I could have tagged the article as disputed long back. I didnt because I assumed good faith. But when their "tag team belligerence" became too much to handle, I was forced to tag it as they had demonstrated no inclination to address the issues. Also btw, if I had a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, I'd like to know where he/she was when these people were tag team reverting me.

If anybody is concerned about any of my "content issue" edits that these people have mischevously presented as "disruption"(!!), I invite you to the concerned article talk page and I will be glad to explain it to you. But I absolutely see no point in discussing content issues pertaining to some article, here on ANI. Sarvagnya 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, to summarize the arguments above and a good view on it. This is a content dispute', nothing else. Sarvagnya has worked well among a wide spectra of nationalities and ethnicities including Tamil users (of which I am one). He has had a real hardknock conflict with a grand total (I have not seen sundar lately on wikipedia) of two Tamil users: Parthi and Praveen pillay.Bakaman 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is just your assertion.There is enough evidence presented above where he calls other users as trolls, removes cited information unilaterally, tags every sentence/words in an article. Praveen 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Two former enemies lawyering for each other!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them sarvagnya should stop assuming that he is an established editor,on contrary he is an established troll. He is always behind other language articles be it Hindi, Marathi or Tamil. His extraordinary love for his language is to be blamed. I request a strict action against him. He is responsible for the exits of Mahawiki, Arya and sarvabhaum and fancy sockpuppet' allegations which led an admin to block whole range of IP.

User:Purgatory Fubar

Please examine the history of User talk:Purgatory Fubar. I am a long time anon editor seeimingly being "harassed" by the above user (User:Purgatory Fubar). I attempted to engage in conversation, specifically about WP:RED policy (see [14] which was reverted) but find my edits constantly reverted and marked as "vandalism", on his talk page, without even a token attempt to engage further.

This has progressed onto my user talk page (see the history, I have removed what I consider to be "bad faith" templates placed on the page by the above user), and now onto any other articles I have ever edited - such as Halloween (film) ([15] claimed to be "reverting vandalism" but in fact nothing of the sort).

here is the user attempting to "block" me as a vandal: [16]

here is the user again removing warnings claiming it is "unwarranted": [17]

here is the user attempting to engage another user (in barely grammatical language) in the war: [18] - claiming "trollery"

here is the user reverting yet another page without any expln other than I was the last editor: [19]

another one: removing notability tag [20]

removal of all red links from Hong Kong action cinema: [21]

removal of valid "do not claim vandalism when it is not vandalism" warnings from userpage: [22] and [23] (using vandalism tools to revert the messages without any expln.)

I note the user claims to "hate anonymous editors" which may be an underlying cause of his issue, or perhaps he is unhappy with me that some of his college clubs were marked as non-notable as they failed to assert the importance of their subject. I would have preferred his anger to spill out as discussion rather than using "vandalism" warnings and reversions where they do not apply. I hope somebody can have a word... 86.31.156.253 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

According to your contribs, you just started editing today. And your edits are somewhat to be desired. See 86.31.156.253 Talk for more insite. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of 86.31.156.253's edits do leave a bit to be desired, but many are constructive and the ones that are not are simply because they don't follow the style guidelines. As you point out, this user has only begun editing today and so cannot be expected to know all of the style guidelines. I don't see anything (point it out if I'm wrong) that indicates vandalism. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right then, so as far as I can see, both of you are attempting to make good faith edits, but reverting each other as vandalism. Purgatory Fubar, I'm a little disapointed in you reporting the IP to WP:AIV in an attempt to get them blocked, I would also suggest you let the red links stand, they allow users to see what articles they can create. Both of you I suggest take a short break from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The report was submitted due to the annon page blanking. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't page blanking it was a content dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Page blanking from annon. Blanking out reversions by said annon using multiple IP's (happing now) on User talk:86.31.156.253

User:(aeropagitica) Got blanked User:Savant13 Got blanked User:Upholder Got blanked As well as me. This has nothing more to do with content dispute. not since I reported it to AIV. User:Savant13 also reported the page blanking. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Three points: 86.31.156.253 posted a comment [24] which he signed as being from me. I was the user that removed the speedy delete from Fightin' Texas Aggie Band that the IP editor placed. As far as I can tell from here, the IP editor was reported to WP:AIV by User:Savant13 ([25]). -- Upholder 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

see ryan postlethwaite removing false AIV notice by purgatory fubar and| aeropagitica removing incorrectly restored false AIV notice. User:Purgatory Fubar using AIV as a tool to win edit-wars is a strict no-no. Be very careful from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.144.47 (talk • contribs)

Any comment on why you signed a message left on Purgatory Fubar's talk page as if you were Upholder? Many of your other edits can be easily excused by assuming good faith, but that one is troubling. --OnoremDil 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

didnt know i did... but checking my history, it seems when i copy&pasted someone else's template i copy&pasted their username accidentally as well! oops ;)

i should also mention Upholder became very upset when i *dared* to put a notability tag on his apparently non-notable band's page, claiming the addition of the tag to be "bad faith" and "vandalism" ([26]) and angrily started issuing me vandalism warnings as a result [27] (claiming vandalism) [28] (again claiming vandalism), [29] - several more vandalism warnings. is this user simply unware of what constitutes vandalism, or is it a deliberate bad faith attack by a user angered about the question of notability of their favorite band?

I have no connection to Texas A&M University nor the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. The notability of the band is covered by the entire first paragraph of the article and in addition the band has been awarded the Sudler Trophy, as I noted on the talk page for the article. I noticed the speedy delete because I have edited the article before, but I did not create it. Concerning your allegations that my warnings were placed in bad faith, adminsitrator (aeropagitica) noted that removing valid vandalism notices on your user talk page is in violation of Wikipedia policy [30]. -- Upholder 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues, removing warnings has had community consensus for a number of months now. It is in line with our current policy and considered a sign that you read it. -M^ask?

20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see where this community consensus is located. It has been my uderstanding that blanking warning templets was a blockable offense. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that I have not made any personal attacks but the IP editor in question has made personal attacks against me here in the comment this is in response to as well as on his talk page. -- Upholder 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• The same goes for me as well,The only one who has madepersonal attacks is the annon. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating User:Upholder time left on my talk page 15:53 [31] but signed it 15:44, not very smart [32] and know editing under another IP? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The annon has resorted to Trolling via Sock puppetry to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint.

86.27.68.151 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [33]

86.31.159.179 (talk · contribs)WHOIS report [34] 86.31.156.253 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [35]

86.31.144.47 (talk · contribs)WHOIS report[36] 86.27.130.242 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [[37]] All have had their hand in this. Not trying to assume bad faith here but my guess is that this annon is a banned user. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a non-static IP address doesn't equate to sockpuppetry. - Bobet 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It does when each IP is talking in the third person. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a walk. This was left by the annon (talking in the third voice fashion) at AmiDaniel VP Abuse.

• [38] - no explanation of random revert with vp given

VP does not allow for personal comment in the summary At least not that I am aware of.This delinking by annon is what started this. PF

you have failed to explain what the revert was for. vandalproof is for vandalism. can we assume, therefore, that you treated this edit ([39] my edit summary "undo some unnecessary linking") as vandalism ([40] your edit summary "Reverted edits by 86.31.156.253 (talk) to last revision (127941606) by LionheartX using VP") ? yes or no?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.64.139 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalproof is not just for reverting vandalism but test edits and GFE that are not considered helpful. P.F

comment: actually it was these edits ([41] [42]) you seemed to take objection to. a merge on the "Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets" page from the "Senior boots" page based on the merge discussion at Talk:Senior boots. i had no objection to your edits there, though your reverts were later undone by other users, but after that, you began to stalk the address that dared to merge something (from somebody else's request), and began reverting legitimate edits. regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as the were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. pleas explain why, therefore, you treated it as vandalism?

See this edit summary page to explain. P.F

• [43] user warning given with vp, despite no vandalism having occurred anywhere.

Test1 not vandal1 was given due to the delinking of legit link (wuxia) and (Hong Kong). At that point I was assuming good faith. PF

please expain how issuing a vandalism warning, using a vandalism tool, is assuming good faith. have you read WP:VPRF#Abuse? regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as they were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?.

Test1 templet is NOT a vandalism warning. P.F

• [44] attempt to discuss issue on user's talk page ignored and reverted using vp

User being civil went out the door with this "attempt to discuss issue". PF

did i read that right? WP:CIVIL NEVER "goes out the door". if you have been ignoring it, i seriously doubt your judgement. See WP:KETTLE. and please explain what you found so offensive about the comment on your user talkpage that you decided to revert it without acknowledgement or reply?

If any one else read that in conjuction with your edit they would know that you are the one who I was talking about. P.F

• [45] same

again

Removing 3RR notice as there was no 3RR, I simply reverted delinking of valid links as per above. PF

• [46] again removing attempted user talk page discussion using vp

Removed personal attacks. PF

• [47] using vandalism reversion with vp to revert non-vandalism edit on another article

Rollback edit by annon no test or warning was given, and later Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) did the same. (revert speedy tag from notable article) P.F

• [48] when the other user clears *their* user talk page suddenly its vandalism and he uses vp to revert

See user page link below. P.F

• [49] he issues a "last warning" to the user with vp

to be fair let's see he whole user page F.P

• [50] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Rollback annon removal of a disambiguation. No warning was given. P.F

• [51] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Revert unexplained removal of image with false edit summary. P.F (Vandalism) and user page blanking Final warning given. P.F

• [52] attempt to "block" the user as a vandal (subsequently removed by administrators [53] and given warning by User:Ryan Postlethwaite [54])

No warning was given to me by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) See my above comment. P.F

• [55] removing valid warnings (abuse of vandalism templates) from user talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

• [56] - removing valid warnings from somebody else's talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

Update, annon is now moving my comment out of order of conversation. Even knowing full well that the comment was directed to another user as see here

Edit summary

Follow the evidence. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Purgatory still not explaining his actions

Dear User:Purgatory Fubar,

making edits like this [57] while your edits are still being investigated for abuse is not wise given your current situation. your vandalproof privileges have already been revoked, and given that much of your current predicament is caused by unexplained reversions on the user talk page, doing so again seems mighty foolish. it seems you have still not learned any lessons from this episode about WP:CIVIL or WP:DICK or WP:AGF.

You have still not explained the reasons you made the edits that have caused this case to be raised:

1. why you used vandalproof reversion tools in an edit dispute [58]
2. why you assumed bad faith and claimed vandalism (a personal attack) [59]
3. why you used vandalproof to ignore and revert an attempt to discuss the edit issue on your user talk page [60]
4. why you then claimed that the attempt to discuss with you was "vandalism" and issued another warning[61]
5. why you again used vandalproof to revert your usertalk page in a renewed attempt to start a conversation [62]
6. but when someone other than yourself makes a reversion on their usertalk page, then its not ok [63]
7. despite the fact that removing warning has had community consensus for months now, as i'm sure you're aware, you chose to treat it as vandalism again [64]
8. again using vandalproof tool in an apparent edit dispute - here not even explaining what the edit dispute is [65]
9. and another throughly unexplained revert with vp [66]
10. here using AIV to attempt to win the edit war [67] (thankfully removed by diligent admins) - already received ryan's "slap on the wrist", yet i have still seen no explanation from Purgatory about why this was done ?
11. abusing vandalproof to revert usertalk warnings about "claiming vandalism when there is none" [68]
12. claiming "edits are somewhat to be desired" yet presenting no evidence of any vandalism [69]
13. snide insinuations [70], accusations being a troll [71], later claiming to have made "no personal attacks"
14. why did you choose to begin reverting the usertalk page AGAIN, despite all the comments in this ANI? [72]

its probably in your better interests to defend your actions here, rather than attempt to "shoot the messenger" (by the way, do you know what dynamic IP is? dont you think it would be prudent to understand such concepts to deal with vandalism?), this will reflect better on you in the long run. i honestly can't see any legitimate reason for the above, other than a complete screw-up, or maliciousness. if you can explain the rationale behind each of the above edits, which you have so far completely refused to do, i'd like to see it. if its a complete screw-up, then, hey, people make mistakes - in that case you should apologise and keep cool. but refusing to accept you have been incompetent, and have broken wikipolicy left, right and centre, has probably already blown your chances in any future adminship bid i'm sorry to say.

The following comment was moved here in an attempt to keep the chronological order of comments in sequence. The comment was not indented, so I assume it was no a direct reply to anybody, in which case it belongs here chronologically. User:Purgatory Fubar, I as you not to move it again. Thankyou.82.3.64.139 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And the comments has again been moved by User:Purgatory Fubar (with edit summary "RVV"). I shall restore it as per my comment above. 82.3.64.139 21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And again Purgatory uses RVV in an edit dispute. Please read the italicised expln here before angrily screaming RVV and making edit summaries like this [73]. keep cool. 82.3.64.139 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory has now moved the text above this one for the fourth time. He has also failed to respond at all to the 15 specific points questioned above, and continues to protest that he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He appears to be grudgingly admitting treating an edit dispute as vandalism, using vandalproof inappropriately, using vandalism warnings inappropriately to intimidate an anon user, attempting to block a user as a vandal that he has been edit-warring with, breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, reverting and ignoring userpage discussion, but he refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions or offer any kind of apology. The question of whether his actions were mere incompetence, or maliciousness, remains open. The user has already been stripped of vandalprood privileges, has been warned about misuse of AIV, about removing redlinks, about issuing vandalism warnings for usertalk page edits, by other editors. Any future adminship bid has presumably also been scuppered by his actions here. His bitter comments here speak for themselves. I will now defer to administrators to take the appropriate course of action. Thankyou. 86.31.103.208 11:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory Fubar, Here's the guideline about removing warnings. See also full (=huge) discussion here. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

My bad, thanks for the heads up Bishonen. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, that means [this] was for nothing? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User Purgatory Fubar has now been blocked from editing wikipedia, by administrator User:AGK. As the block notice is likely to be removed by Purgatory after the 24 hours, as it reflects negatively on him, the diff may be found here [74]. Nevertheless it will remain permanently on his user block log. Reason for the block was repeated vandalism. Hopefully when he returns his attitude to the encylopedia will have improved, and he will be prepared to contribute contructively.

User Purgatory, please note that blocks are a period to reflect, an opportunity to show understanding and and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter be learned from. If you continue to refuse any responsibility for your disruptive actions to date, to apologise fully and frankly, or to show any humility, you will not only lose your vandalproof privileges, receive numerous warnings, be blocked, and further destroy any hopes of future adminship, but you will also be in severe danger of a long-term block. Bear that in mind. We have assumed incompetence on your part this time. That may not be the assumption a second time. 86.27.129.210 09:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actions explained (P.F indicates my reply)

REPOSTED FROM ABOVE

Let's take a walk. This was left by the annon (talking in the third voice fashion) at AmiDaniel VP Abuse.

• [75] - no explanation of random revert with vp given

VP does not allow for personal comment in the summary At least not that I am aware of.This delinking by annon is what started this. PF

you have failed to explain what the revert was for. vandalproof is for vandalism. can we assume, therefore, that you treated this edit ([76] my edit summary "undo some unnecessary linking") as vandalism ([77] your edit summary "Reverted edits by 86.31.156.253 (talk) to last revision (127941606) by LionheartX using VP") ? yes or no?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.64.139 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalproof is not just for reverting vandalism but test edits and GFE that are not considered helpful. P.F

comment: actually it was these edits ([78] [79]) you seemed to take objection to. a merge on the "Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets" page from the "Senior boots" page based on the merge discussion at Talk:Senior boots. i had no objection to your edits there, though your reverts were later undone by other users, but after that, you began to stalk the address that dared to merge something (from somebody else's request), and began reverting legitimate edits. regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as the were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. pleas explain why, therefore, you treated it as vandalism?

See this edit summary page to explain. P.F

• [80] user warning given with vp, despite no vandalism having occurred anywhere.

Test1 not vandal1 was given due to the delinking of legit link (wuxia) and (Hong Kong). At that point I was assuming good faith. PF

please expain how issuing a vandalism warning, using a vandalism tool, is assuming good faith. have you read WP:VPRF#Abuse? regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as they were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?.

Test1 templet is NOT a vandalism warning. P.F

• [81] attempt to discuss issue on user's talk page ignored and reverted using vp

User being civil went out the door with this "attempt to discuss issue". PF

did i read that right? WP:CIVIL NEVER "goes out the door". if you have been ignoring it, i seriously doubt your judgement. See WP:KETTLE. and please explain what you found so offensive about the comment on your user talkpage that you decided to revert it without acknowledgement or reply?

If any one else read that in conjuction with your edit they would know that you are the one who I was talking about. P.F

• [82] same

again

Removing 3RR notice as there was no 3RR, I simply reverted delinking of valid links as per above. PF

• [83] again removing attempted user talk page discussion using vp

Removed personal attacks. PF

• [84] using vandalism reversion with vp to revert non-vandalism edit on another article

Rollback edit by annon no test or warning was given, and later Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) did the same. (revert speedy tag from notable article) P.F

• [85] when the other user clears *their* user talk page suddenly its vandalism and he uses vp to revert

See user page link below. P.F

• [86] he issues a "last warning" to the user with vp

to be fair let's see he whole user page F.P

• [87] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Rollback annon removal of a disambiguation. No warning was given. P.F

• [88] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Revert unexplained removal of image with false edit summary. P.F (Vandalism) and user page blanking Final warning given. P.F

• [89] attempt to "block" the user as a vandal (subsequently removed by administrators [90] and given warning by User:Ryan Postlethwaite [91])

No warning was given to me by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) See my above comment. P.F

• [92] removing valid warnings (abuse of vandalism templates) from user talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

• [93] - removing valid warnings from somebody else's talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

Update, annon is now moving my comment out of order of conversation. Even knowing full well that the comment was directed to another user as see here

Edit summary

Follow the evidence. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Admin Denying Users Placing Appropriate 'Sock Puppet' Tag on His Page

FYI, Chris Griswold and a "friend" (meat puppet?) Ned Scott have taken to deleting any comments/tags on his page that discuss his 'puppet master' past. I realize he did step down, but I am baffled why someone who claims to want to 'come clean' is making an effort to have any tags that acknowledge what he's done removed. Admins and others know of his past, but most casual users won't know or understand where to look. I believe a tag needs to be placed so most anyone else can see what's happened and why. Additionally, the user has claimed that he would 'come clean' about his past... But by denying the placement of an appropriate tag—and enlisting in the aid of 'meat puppets'—he's proving to not fully grasp the depth of what he has done. Please have the tag reverted and placed on his page. —SpyMagician 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed the template, Ned Scott removed it twice without giving any real justification. He was probabbly relying in the fact that most users are afraid to revert if he acts like he knows what he is doing (going against the policies in this case). Then Chris Griswold wisely told Ned not to defend him... aaand took the tamplate off for a third time. I think that's cynical and sad. I don't refuse to wear the tag he imposed on me, he shouldn't refuse to wear his. I was blocked regular user when I did certain meat and sockpuppetry... he was a admin who already blocked several users for doing the same when he created the accounts in question. CheckUser confirmed his identity. He should have known better and he has to face consequences just like I did. Even more as a former admin. Wikipedia trusted him!! that's how he pays?!! this is propostrous I'm ofended by his cynism and I demand justice!!! (or whatever the appropiate equivalent in wikipedia is)!!--T-man, the wise 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 'justice' is very simple in this case. Chris Griswold has been proven to be the 'puppet master' of three editors: Truth in Comedy, Superburgh and 24.3.194.217. All of these sock puppets were created while—and only while—the user was a sysop on Wikipedia. Now, T-man, the wise engaged in sock puppetr himself as a plain old 'editor' and is forced to wear the tag of 'puppet master'. Why then should an admin who abused power and had multiple sock puppets allowed to exist on Wikipedia without a 'puppet master' tag? It's clearly a higher offense when a trusted admin/sysop does something like that? So why is he—and his 'friend'—deleting tags or comments like this? Someone else needs to step up and say something about this. Despite being stripped of 'admin' status, Chris Griswold is still showing all the signs of an abusive admin ego. And it needs to stop. —SpyMagician 08:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally users who aren't blocked don't have the {{SockpuppeteerProven}} template on their userpage. Especially not for experienced, long-term editors (20,000 edits) who are still in good standing. Your edit-warring is unacceptable, and I have protected the page from your edit warring regardless, until further input is gathered here. But don't be surprised if your behaviour is characterised as 'dickish' and possibly even harassment. Daniel Bryant 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we wouldn't want to get too rich on the meat-puppetry allegations, now, would we? Daniel Bryant 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave SpyMagician alone! the punishment should be twice as hard with admins. Wikipedia trusted them, admins are more aware of the repercutions of sockpuppetry, therefore they should be harder on cases like Chris!

And now they protected his page!! Whitout the template!!!!!! Is this the image of corruption whe want for wikipedia?! --T-man, the wise 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. What will hounding the guy achieve? He's no longer a sysop and his reputation here is severely tarnished. He's chosen to walk away for a bit and lick his wounds. I think it would say much better things about those who were in dispute with him if they let him have some dignity and stopped pestering him. Chris' actions were wrong but the matter is closed. Please leave him alone. WjBscribe 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite amazing that you would say that my behavior is 'dickish'. What then is the behavior of an abusive admin who used sock puppets to destroy and harass hundreds of users who contributed to comedy articles? This is kind of amazing. The guy was an admin and abused power, people point it out and someone calls their behavior 'dickish'. So I assume sock puppetry is okay as long as your an admin? Quite amazing inequity here. 'Dickish' behavior to some on Wikipedia is considered 'fair' in the real world. What would be achieved is those of us who are not 'hard core' users would see this user's past for what he is. In the admin world his rep is tarnished, but in the regular world people barely know what happened. And his user page shows barely anything to indicate the sock puppetry. All anyone is asking is the tag be added so that regular people/editors know that he engaged in abusive sock puppetry. —SpyMagician 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no useful purpose to be served by that - we don't engage in tarring and feathering around here. The tag isn't needed and shouldn't be added. And how does someone manage to "destroy" hundreds of users? -- ChrisO 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Where did I ever say I thought your behaviour was 'dickish'? I merely suggested that some may consider it so. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Random passer-by comments: I don't understand this. I saw something related to this come up in an RfA last month too and had the same reaction. The question posed in summary form was "What if a long-standing and well-liked Wikipedian were caught sock-handed?" The RfA candidate responded with a lot of reputation-protectiveness: Would talk with the problem admin first, try to convince them to stop, and so on. I say to hell with that. I may not be everyone's favorite editor around here - I know I can be abrasive - but come on. If I ever betrayed community trust to that extent I would expect to be strung up by the sensitive parts for it, and if I were an admin at the time, I'd expect to lose community trust damned near forever. "The tag isn't needed"? You must be kidding. It's desperately needed. This isn't the Wikipedia of 2005 any longer. It's fairly trivial for previously bad-acting people to "make friends" hither and yon and seek adminship again after the furor dies down. There are so many RfAs these days it's hard to keep track of them, and with an order of magnitude more editors in today's Wikipedia it's increasingly hard to remember transgressions. I guess that's it really. It just bowls me over that people are leaping to the defense of someone who torqued the system in a grossly treacherous manner and go caught. To me, this sends the message "It's okay to stuff the ballot box as long as you've at least once been enumerated among the poll workers", by way of analogy. PS: Please actually read WP:DICK. It is pretty clear that citation to WP:DICK is a WP:DICKish thing to do. Pretending that you were just referring to it for, well, interesting reading purposes or whatever is just WP:BALLS (while we're being metaphorically genital about everything). You were in fact being a WP:DICK yourself in citing that essay and were darned right to be called on it. And yes, I am both well aware and quite comfortable with fact that I am hereby being a WP:DICK myself in turn, because I think the point is worth making even at my own expense. PPS: There's a difference between tarring and feathering and presenting the facts. T&Fing is well thwarted by WP:NPA to my mind. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no justification. If I have to wear my template he has to wear his! I also want to report something else: --T-man, the wise 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in the spirit of 'some may consider it so', I say that by allowing an ex-admin who has clearly abused power to NOT have a tag placed on their user page indicating their past, well... some may consider it to be 'nepotistic' or 'favoritism' that he can get away with doing that based on the number of edits he made, while others exist on Wiki with these tags and dare not ever remove them lest an admin will chastize them. Sorry, but if the user DID engage in 20,000+ edits then it makes even MORE sense to have the tag added to their user page. How does one begin to contact or add comments to the THOUSANDS of pages this user edited this way? Does it not make more sense to just have one tag placed on the user page so if anyone has been edited by them, they can then see this user's history and then make a judgement based on it? It all wreaks of double-standards. Plain and simple. And if this user wants to make ammends to others, IDing himself as a puppet master—which is what he is—is a good way of honestly coming clean. I truly don't understand why some would consider it 'dickish' for that to happen or be discussed. —SpyMagician 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's been discussed and it's been resolved. End of story. -- ChrisO 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue has indeed been discussed in admin and other circles which average users will not seek out. The issue now at hand is how to communicate this to the average user/editor who comes across this user's page. Simply placing the puppet master tag on it will end the issue. People will see what he did and understand the scope of it. Why is it he is being defended against that tag being placed when there's overwhelming evidence that he deserves it. And beyond that he has only 'reappeared' on Wikipedia to delete ANYTHING negative specifically on his talk page and his talk page only. If what I'm saying is so wrong, then why isn't there a reversion of all comments? There is a very clear double-standard here and that is the root of the issues I'm having and others are commenting on. —SpyMagician 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear, SpyMagician, that you found out? The Arbcom already dealt with the situation. They were aware the tag was removed. If they were adamant about the tag staying, I don't think they're too stupid to say "The sock tags must be left alone." We don't use those as brands or scarlet letters, we use them to help us track unrepentant, banned or soon to be sockpuppeteers who are an ongoing problem. Chris Griswold is not blocked or banned, you've presented nothing to indicate his puppetry is continuing, and he is not required to display any "badge of shame". And this conversation, for some reason, seems awfully familiar to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with McCandlish. Anchoress 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, {{sockpuppeteer}} is left for users who are

1. Indefinitely blocked
2. Banned
3. Someone who extensively abused said sockpuppets (say in the dozens)

Chris Griswold does not meet any of these "criteria"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryulong and Seraphimblade on this. The tag is used to identify disruptive or banned sockpuppeteers and to identify their socks. It is not to be used as punishment. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree. There is no need to identify him as a sockpuppet if he has stopped doing it and he has not been blocked or banned. Use of the tag should not be punitive, which is what it would be here. Will (aka Wimt) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is the circular reference. It's kind of like a case in my home town where the teachers' union defended the information about a teacher who had committed serious offences being kept secret because, in their words, 'he wasn't kicked out of the union, and we don't make the information public if the teacher isn't kicked out of the union.' Anchoress 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then can someone explain then why discussion on this user's talk page that points out his behavior is continutally reverted? It's clear there's a double standard here. On the one hand he claims that he wants to make good. But on the other, he's avoiding ANY public mention of it outside of the 'deeper' circles of Wikipedia. And while I understand the tags are not 'badges of shame' let's face facts. They are not designed because people want them. Much in the same way people put cute tags on their homepage to explain who they are, such badges can also educate others. I'm sorry but I don't appreciate the level of defense being made to defend someone who grossly abused their position. And the most disturbing aspect of this is the admins whose way of engaging in discussion is to basically imply banning or blocking if the discussion still happens. There's clearly an air of protection surrounding this ex-admin and it's simply quite disturbing. And as I said before, it's impractical for ANYONE to go to the thousands of pages that have been edited and say "Hey, this guy abused power..." It's simply more practical for public acknowledgement on his page. If he was proud enough to place badges on his page delcaring his likes/interests and even links to articles about his own past, why deny this? And why the eagerness to delete ANY discussion on this users page? Wikipedia and Wikinepotism is baffling. —SpyMagician 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he is not punished for having done so any more than having had his sysop bit removed. There is no need to put a big red A on his page for one (or two) lapses of judgement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris isn't denying anything, he's resigned his adminship and that should be the end of it, no-one is going to forget what he's done. Using the pupetteer tag is way out of line, as people have said, thats reserved for blocked or banned users. Continued addition of the tag, and constant abuse on his talk page ammounts to harrassment in my eyes, I suggest you let this drop. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And there is a user, User:Giovanni33, who has been proven to have used sockpuppets in the past, but he doesn't have {{SockpuppeteerProven}} on his userpage. Why? Because he, for all intents and purposes, said that he was sorry, and we don't hound him over it. He's not an administrator. Not every user who is a proven sockpuppeteer needs that tag on their page, nor does it anywhere on Wikipedia that they do. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem. In case it wasn't obvious, it is perfectly acceptable to have and use an alternate account. Several of us have them, for use when we just want a quiet afternoon's editing without being hounded about admin actions and when we don't wantr the little yellow bar lighting up every ten seconds. A sockpuppet account is not the same thing; sockpuppetry is use of alternate accounts to avoid a block or ban, or to give the apperaance of greater support than really exists in community debates. Is there any evidence that Chris used these accounts for proscribed purposes? Or was he just using an alternate account for purposes of a quiet life? Guy (Help!) 10:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • @Guy: If you read the links in the very first post, you'll see that he did. The most relevant section. Anchoress 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Additionally, here is the discussion on the request for arbitration page about this. There's no doubt there was a conscious effort to use multiple accounts to avoid responsibility and abuse power. But the fact you were confused about this, Guy is an example of what I have been arguing. A clear message should be placed on his page so anyone who comes across an edit knows what happened. —SpyMagician 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I absolutely agree. If an active admin doesn't know what happened, and without common knowledge of CG's self-serving sockpuppetry, his '20,000 good edits', as noted above, weigh too heavily in the direction of trustworthiness. Anchoress 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, all it means is that I miseed the discussions on that. I am not omniscient and I do have things to do in RL. It all looks a bit WP:POINTy to me, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Guy: That was my intention: To edit without the burden of adminship and to separate my watchlist into smaller segments for easier editing. Unfortunately, use of alternate accounts turned out to be a slippery slope. I didn't mean to stay logged in as Superburgh when I edited the Taylor Allderdice article; I intended to make those edits with my main account, which is why I set the account up. Unfortunately, those edits appeared to be in the interest of evading a mediation attempt I hadn't actually noticed because I was just kind of mechanically going through the Superburgh watchlist and hadn't checked the talk page. After I saw that I had edited as Superburgh, I didn't think much of it because I hadn't edited the article in months and so did not feel like I was influencing a consensus, and so I just moved on. With Truth in Comedy, the error was in misrepresenting the dependence of the accounts when speaking to SpyMagician, who was haranguing me and possibly even stalking that account. It was incredibly frustrating, and I questioned him about it as ChrisGriswold as if I weren't also the other account. When I first decided to start an additional account, I didn't want to advertise that they were me, but I had a rule that if anyone ever questioned it, I would confirm that that was my account; the ethical area was a little grey there, but regardless, it was still misrepresentation. None of these edits were ones I wouldn't necessarily makes with this account; with regard to the comedy articles, these have been problematic in terms of the inclusion of a great many vanity articles for a long time, and it even prompted me to create a notability guideline for them months ago. In fact, these were edits I began to make as ChrisGriswold but later continued with the Truth in Comedy account. I have worked mainly on articles about fiction, and more than anything, I felt guilty about making the edits I felt needed to be made to articles that people had put a lot of work into about things they really cared about. I knew that some of these articles needed a lot of work or deletion, but I related to the people who had written them, and I felt that in order to do these edits, I needed to distance myself a little personally so I could feel more comfortable in performing them. The road to where I am now was paved with good intentions; I thought WP:SOCK justified the creation of these accounts, but it was incredibly easy to get into the quandary I found myself in, partially because it's easy to suspect alternate accounts of being sockpuppets. You know, I actually thought I might be able to come out somewhat clean in the arbitration case if I explained my reasoning, but after considering giving up adminship, I felt a sense of relief that now I could walk away for a while and not feel burdened by the duty I feel to Wikipedia or as if I were shirking that responsibility. I still plan to go into this fall from grace in a little more detail, but I'd like to let things die down a little first. I'm looking forward to my break, but I am checking in in case I am needed for any of these further discussions. I have plans for when I return, projects I hope will prevent other well-meaning admins from finding reading conversations about themselves like this one. But that's for later, and now it's time for me to go away for a while. I appreciate everyone who has been working to prevent the dogpiling. T-Man and SpyMagician: Please understand that what these other editors are doing in terms of protecting me is the same thing they would do for you or any other editor. They are not in any way defending what I have done; rather, they are conscious of personal attacks and how constructive behavior is in a touchy situation like this. Thanks for your time. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"I have plans for when I return, projects I hope will prevent other well-meaning admins from finding reading conversations about themselves like this one." Here's a crazy idea. How about the project be focused on the concept of taking personal responsibility for one's action and coming clean when busted? While it's outrageous you did what you did to begin with, the continual denial of the gravity and weight of what you've done is even more outrageoous. That's the crux of the issue I—and others—are having. You're making gestures towards being sorry, but your actions and self-defense while ignoring the impact what you did has had is truly what outrages many. It wreaks of an ex-admin being given special-privilege. And it also wreaks of a Wiki-power structure that supports such silliness. "Please understand that what these other editors are doing in terms of protecting me is the same thing they would do for you or any other editor." Baloney on that. We all see editors and admins chastizing 'newbies' all the time. A whole slew of warning templates exist for that purpose. So I don't buy this conceit. You're basically making it seem that you did nothing wrong when compared to others when you know otherwise. So please, if I ever engaged in sock puppetry or abuse as an admin, hang me until I'm dead. Because never in a million years would I do that. And if I did, I would expect to be treated appropriately... But then again, the psychology behind someone who doesn't see the reason why this is wrong perhaps supercedes being able to digest that. Unbelievable on many levels. —SpyMagician 16:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said I didn't want to advertise that they were me, but I had a rule that if anyone ever questioned it, I would confirm that that was my account if that is the case, why did you blatantly lie here when you stated Additionally, I edit with my own name, so I am upfront about any such conflicts of interest. and here when you pretend you don't know TIC by writing I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article. Obviously, you weren't shooting for any level of transparency but in fact were willfully using two account to back each other up when edit warring. IrishGuy ^talk 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that contradicts what I said above. I have edited articles wherein I have a conflict of interest, but I have always been up front about them and have used my real name when editing them. And no, with SpyMagician I wasn't really trying to be transparent because I had become concerned with his stalking and harassment. I contacted him as ChrisGriswold because of this but never used the account for any edit warring on behalf of the other account. His stalking and harassment then extended to this account as well. I think that the content of the multiple threads SpyMagician has created or been part of that are devoted to this situation might give a taste of his behavior and attitude toward admins in general. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You said that if questioned, you would have come clean. Why would anyone question anything when you pretend to not know the name of one of your socks and further claims that you only edit under your own name (which was a blatant lie as you had two other socks)? If you felt that SpyMagician was stalking one of your socks, you definitely shouldn't have confronted him using your admin account. You were protecting yourself, not some poor abused editor. How you still don't seem to think you did anything wrong is beyond my comprehension. IrishGuy ^talk 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think that the content of the multiple threads SpyMagician has created or been part of that are devoted to this situation might give a taste of his behavior and attitude toward admins in general." That is a ridiculous claim and there's no evidence here—or in my logic—that shows a general pattern of behavior or attitude towards admins. Far from it. How is it that starting a thread about your reprehensible behavior an indication of anyting beyond my attitude towards you and yur behavior? Also the "attitude toward admins in general" is amazing. Am I posting here—or started this thread—because I have a general beef against admins? Or do I think that your behavior—and only your behavior—as ad admin is disruptive and destructive. What you're basically saying is anyone who has an issue with you clearly has an issue with all admins and is some loose cannon. Please, leave the good and valid admins out of this mess. They don't need to be brought into this because the have been—and continue to be—good admins who don't abuse your power. You Chris Griswold are far from a good admin and your behavior has destroyed others and discouraged others from contributing to Wiki articles you have 'territorially pissed' over. If Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, behavior be people like you that prevents true collaboration should be discouoraged. And as noted elsewhere, my real-world identity is not completely secret and I have been contacted my multiple people off of Wikipedia who feel that the atmosphere you have created in your style of editing created an atmosphere of domination and abuse that prevented them from adding to comedy/improv artcles. But enough of this. In the larger picture it seems you really have no clue how what you did is wrong. And frankly all the words in the world won't convince you. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you simply would admit true guilt and make true efforts towards remedying the damage you've done, none of these threads or discussion would be happening. Because ultimately others would see that you are serious about reforming and truly apologetic. But sadly that hasn't happened. Amazing on many levels, Chris. —SpyMagician 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say I edited only with this account. I said I edited any articles I might have a conflict of interest on with this account and was pretty open about it. That's the context of the discussion, not whether I was using other accounts. While I might have not been too forthcoming with the relation between with accounts with the abusive SpyMagician, as I said before, there are articles that have edits by Truth in Comedy followed by ones by ChrisGriswold but which took place weeks or months apart because I had stopped editing with this account and had been editing such articles instead with that one. No edit wars, but also no difference between the type of edits or edit summaries the two accounts were making. The interaction with SpyMagician was the only misrepresentation involved with these accounts. And you are right: I was protecting myself. I first came to WP:ANI, but nothing came of it, so I questioned the user myself. And that was wrong. Finally, I'm not sure how you can say I don't believe I've done anything. I've admitted my wrongdoing, I've stepped down as an admin to show that I am sorry for the impropriety; I'm not sure what more I can do to prove that I accept the situation for what it is. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread is pointless. We do not kick people while they are down; doing so is absurd, immoral, and useless. Nor do we beat dead horses. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we do. SpyMagician has reinserted the puppet tags on Superburgh, Truth in Comedy, and 24.3.194.217 by revert warring [94] [95] [96] with two admins who are reluctant to revert war in turn (Newyorkbrad and myself). Kicking wins. :-( See Brad's talkpage and mine for discussion. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the tags and protected the user pages to put an end to the revert warring. The matter has been discussed at length and resolved. SpyMagician has received no support for his position - he should take the hint and move on. -- ChrisO 10:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction. Since my handle is a not-so-secret handle that connects me to the real world, I have been contacted outside of Wikipedia from about 2-3 others who have had worse conflicts with Chris Griswold in the past and the support exists there. The general attitude I'm seeing is that people are simply too afraid that Chris Griswold's will lash out at them on Wikipedia, and are thus 'laying low'. Ultimately you might want to look into the issues surrounding the fear admins are placing in 'normal' editors here. And how defending someone like Chris Griswold is alienating many valid/good intentioned editors from contributing positively to Wikipedia. Sure, anyone can come in and do what they wish. But when you allow someone so brash and abusive like Chris Griswold to roam free, you're doing so at the expense of others. And damaging the positive growth of the comedy/improv areas of the site by allowing on person to dominate edits. —SpyMagician 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that SMcCandlish supported him above. I have supported him in this thread as well. IrishGuy ^talk 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a different position from SpyMagician on this matter, though I've acknowledged on my talk that I can see his side as well. I do not, however, appreciate being told what my own motivations are for positions I take or comments I make on-wiki. The idea that I said the "sockpuppet" userpage tags at this point are overkill, only because I am "too afraid that Chris Griswold will lash out at me on Wikipedia," is, to say the least, nonsensical. Newyorkbrad 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A quiet aside

Totally aside from the concern of this discussion (which seems a waste of space imho. I think User:Daniel.Bryant et al have things well in hand), and just thinking about Chris, for a moment. I wonder if, at this point, it wouldn't be better if he just allowed all three accounts to be indef blocked, the user pages deleted, (even perhaps have the ChrisGriswold account renamed to add obscurity) and he just started over from scratch with another username. I see he has concerns about being tied to his real name, and perhaps a bit of anonymity would be the answer? I think an email discussion with someone appropriate (bureaucrat? steward?) may be the order of the day. Just a suggestion, in the hopes it may help. - jc37 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he ever had any real concerns over the privacy of his username; he was likely saying that to attempt to get out of the arbitration case. If he was concerned for his privacy he could have got the account renamed a long time ago. The idea of him starting a new account is possibly a good one, however. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 09:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be happy for that to occur. Daniel Bryant 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why afford an ex-admin a way to wipe their past like this? Why would this even be considered? Is this done for other users as well? It's patently ridiculous that someone who abused power as a Wiki admin be 'rewarded' by wiping the slate clean? Also, why is the discussion of how an ex-admin is treated a waste of space? It's simply ridiculous that this much effort is being made to 'protect' a user/ex-admin who abused priledge/power and seems to avoid taking any public responsibilty to those he damaged. What about the thousands of edits he made to damage others? What efforts are made or thought of to revert the ill-will and headaches caused by them? Or is that discussion a 'waste of space'. Ultimately it seems that you can break/bend Wiki rules if you (1) have a disturbingly high amount of edits and (2) are an ex-admin. Quite disturbing that attitude exists. —SpyMagician 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to abandon their accounts and start afresh- see Wikipedia:Right to vanish. WjBscribe 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that a clean slate might be good idea, although the choice is up to him. However I would comment that someone (steward, 'crat) is advised of his new name in the small chance that he does decide to engage in disruptive activities. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to know there are ways one can duck their own personal responsibility and come back as a new 'handle' but with the same person behind the keyboard. How exactly is it 'good' for someone who ducked responsibility in the first place to be given the right to make the ultimate 'duck' by dumping their record? It's been proven that he can't control himself. And despite claims that he should have stepped aside a few months ago, he continued to edit. And he only stopped when he was busted by a user who had to fight hard to get the point made. Yes, there is a Wikipedia:Right to vanish, but it seems that it would just give him a new way to come back and engage in the same behavior again. Kzrulzuall's suggestion makes sense, and I would agree with it. But can't shake the fact that a lot of energy is being spent defending someone who abused the concept of good faith. —SpyMagician 10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody comes back under a new name and then engages in the same "bad behaviour" they generally get found out pretty quickly and indef blocked for their troubles. If somebody manages to come back and keep a clean slate (and I'm sure that happens often) how can that not be good for the encyclopedia? It looks to me, as a new pair of eyes on this case, that you want "blood". It might be time to let this go: the guy was caught, and it's been quite humiliating for him; the community has (it would seem) decided to leave it at that, so let's move on. If you continue to make a song and dance about what is essentially a spent issue you'll likely find your own conduct coming under more scrutiny. --kingboyk 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a squeaky-clean new account is a great idea. But his choice, of course. Anchoress 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To recapitulate, I believe that the issue here is that Chris Griswold is this user's real name. He obviously behaved inappropriately, but at the same time does not want the fact that he used an alternative account on Wikipedia to be the most important fact about his life that appears on Internet searches, and he is concerned that these tags will make that happen. I am not sure that the tags are a material part of the problem, but I concur with those who have urged that there is no legitimate reason to make a further issue of the tags on the blocked accounts. Of course, if the fact that two accounts belonged to the same user is relevant in discussion on a particular article talkpage, that can be mentioned. Otherwise, there is no need for further publicity of the matter. Newyorkbrad 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made the connection clear on one talk page and will continue to do so if advised; SpyMagician has been removing discussions between him and me (as Truth in Comedy) from talk pages. I would appreciate some guidance on this. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Chris, give me a break. Knowing your love of 'diffs' and excessive use of WIki policy as a way to pummel others into submission is no secret. It's the reason why you are busted. And the only discussion I ever blanked was one discussion on a page regarding my real-life identity. It's hillarious to see you scramble to cover your tracks when you are busted, but somehow get upset like a whiny theater drama-queen when someone else does something very minor to clear out an old discussion. For your benefit I will re-add the discussion. But will also make appropriate notes. Cheers! —SpyMagician 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought from another random person passing by: I love jc37's idea. If the people who have been harmed want restitution, I understand that. Think of something that positive that Chris can do for you or the world, even if it's making a donation to a charity, and ask him to consider doing it. Kla'quot 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly focused on removing NN/vanity comedy-related material from Wikipedia with the Truth in Comedy account. One plan I have for my return is to expand and re-work some articles. For instance, I am re-reading the book Something Wonderful Right Away to later work on improvisational comedy. Perhaps this sort of thing will alleviate some editors' concerns. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bogus MfD closure, and then some

I hereby award this giant noisy machine that does nothing to enhance the encyclopaedia to everyone who even tries to suggest that "anti-barnstars", as proposed by freakofnurture here, are useful in any capacity whatsoever to... well, I guess I had a point here, but I kind of got a caffeine lapse. Sorry. I guess I failed at an attempt at the humour. But is this image offensive? I sure hope not. It's philosophical. Gears are the most philosophical of the mechanical things. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I even get into this one, I confess that I was annoying in this particular MfD debate, as I admit at User talk:SMcCandlish#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner, and as amended at this diff with a broad self-revert. Despite no further issues being expressed by anyone, Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the debate while still ongoing, supporting a "consensus" of keep and adding an "admonishment" to me for having proposed the MfD in the first place. I have four issues with this (and if this is really a WP:DRV issue, then say so and I'll take it there): 1) A party to the debate shouldn't close it; it's a conflict of interest. 2) An admonishment is called for in a case of bad faith, but not simply because one disagrees with the XfD nomination or doesn't like the nomintator's debate style. 3) More importantly, the "keep" decision strikes me as faulty; the only conclusion to draw (as much as I would like it to be otherwise) appears to be "no consensus" - a number of ediors raised substantive issues, in detail, that were never addressed by the more numerous but largely "me to" keep commentors, few of whom seemed to understand that the actual gist of the MfD was userspacing (or even another form of compromise) not deletion. And lastly, 4): Of over 30 commentors, only two suggested in any terms that I be admonished for bringing this XfD, and one made it very clear he was kidding, so a finding of consensus that I be so admonished is clearly nonsensical. That said, the fact that one seriously meant it and I got user talk comments about the matter was enough for me to re-examine my participation and change it, to the point of self-reverting much of my own text. I'm not sure what better sign of good-faith could be given. Still, the almost immediate "result of the debate was: keep and admonish nominator" followed by the strangest message I've ever gotten yet on WP, and I've been around since late '05. I don't think I've ever seen an Anti-Barnstar before. From an admin closing a debate he was party to.

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate way to close an XfD, even if you are irritated with the nominator. And I don't like seeing this sitting around in the archives "admonishing" me for having dared to challege something that I thought was (and still think is) ultimately detrimental to the project. That view may be debatable, but it is neither insane nor malicious.

PS: The personal attack message aside, I am being reverted by the same personage at the MfD page in my effort to resolve an edit conflict and add my final comment to that page, which has no effect whatsoever on the closure decision, but simply provides my response to a direct challenge for one. Judging from the edit summaries, he reversions are based on assumptions of bad faith on my part that are not justified (i.e. 'lol "edit conflict". I don't believe you, reverting.')

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from any other issue, what you believe would have been the proper result of "No consensus" would still default to "keep," so precisely how the closer characterized the close is not critical. The "admonition" is one user's view; it's not a formal ruling as part of the XfD process, so I don't think you need to worry overmuch about that. I suppose you can seek a deletion review if you want to, but my recommendation would be to drop the matter and see how this new idea works. If it has as negative an impact as you seem to anticipate, the matter can be revisited in due course. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To interject: Yes, I know that it would be kept as a result of "no consensus", and I have no intentions to going to DRv about it; there is certainly no consensus to detele or userspace the stuff in question. But there was no "keep" consensus either, and a closure of "keep" gives the impression that ther was one, which is misleading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, closing admins need to understand that what they say in a closing has implications, and the "ruling" to admonish the nominator is clearly listed at the top of the delete debate for everyone to see. There is no question that it may be interpreted as an "official" part of the closing and should not have been included. The closer should keep his purely personal opinions, especially when of a negative nature, to private conversation with the nominator. Lexicon (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it would have been better not to include that comment at that location. Perhaps the closing administrator, on seeing this thread, will refactor the wording. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Regardless of anything else, the "middle-finger barnstar" [97] is a bit much. That really doesn't seem appropriate, whether or not the admonition is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that, having only looked at the MfD discussion itself rather than the talk. I have to agree that that was grossly inappropriate coming from any editor and especially from an administrator. I would urge, though, that the closing admin be given notice of this thread (if he hasn't already) before this discussion continues. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lexicon (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate, but funny nonetheless. I can't fault him too much for his anti-barnstar. --Cyde Weys 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the funniest (also grossest) things I've ever seen on WP was an image that Freak used to accompany his answer to one of my questions during his ArbCom candidacy. (He subsequently changed his answer, so anyone curious has to check the page history there.) Sorry, but this image was not in that league and seems to have offended a contributor. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an F-U Barnstar giver, ([98], [99]), I must say his use of it is fine. --Ali'i 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An "F-U Barnstar" in the way Freakofnurture used it is no different from saying "fuck you" outright, and is therefore undoubtedly a significant violation of WP:CIV. How could it possibly be defended as "fine"? Lexicon (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO the barnstar was given in good humor, if it were me I wouldn't consider it a personal attack. Roll with the punches and have fun. hombre de haha 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not dreadfully offended, crying my eyes out in the corner or anything. I'm an old Usenet hand with a pretty thick skin, and the image actually is pretty funny. What concerns me about this is more precedential. If it becomes "okay" or "fine" to do this in Wikipedia, then where does it stop? How many editors will we lose who make great contributions, tick someone off once in a while, and don't have thick skins? Will the pictures start becoming disgusting? Threatening? That's where I'm going with this half of the issue (the other half being that I think the MfD is simply wrong as "Keep" instead of "No consensus", shouldn't be attacking the nominator - again a bad precedent - and shouldn't be closed by a party to the debate. I care about that stuff more than the "anti-barnstar".) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm relieved to hear that you personally were not offended by this. Such an image, as used, is a personal attack, and in general I would not hesitate to deliver a 24 hour block if an editor did not remove such an image and apologize (although I am not threatening a block against Freakofnurture, as this appears to be an isolated incident). This is an encyclopedia, not a cage match. We aren't here to see who can withstand more torment and abuse, whether overt or passive-aggressive. I am concerned by Freakofnurture's action, but this can be a lapse of judgment. I am much more concerned by the attitude of those who think this isn't a big deal. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a playground only for people who don't mind being cursed at and insulted, then there's really no possibility of a viable community or a quality product as the result. If we're going to scrap CIVIL and NPA, there's really no incentive for most people to stick around. ··coelacan 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>. —freak(talk) 18:30, May. 5, 2007 (UTC)

Where? The anti-barnstar is still present on my talk page (I really don't care), and the MfD closure still bears the "admonish nominator" in the closing statement (I really do care). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"<personal attack removed>" was just Freakofnurture's response to me. It's another clever retort. I'll go refactor the MfD. ··coelacan 08:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a non-apology. You could use the good ol' stand-by "I'm sorry". But whatever. Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Limboot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user has been involved in rampant WP:OR and WP:POV pushing, and has been blocked more than once for 3RR violations on related articles. This current edit, where he refers to me as You stupid judaist (believer in the jewish ,religion' is now outright antagonism. Is an RfC required, or can he be kindly informed of WP:NPA rules. I think I'd be within rights to do it myself, but I'd prefer to get fellow admin feedback. Thank you. -- Avi 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very close to indefinitely blocking Limboot. – Steel 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've repeatedly tried to engage with this user (as have others), but have been met with absolute failure. It's becoming clear that he's only here to disrupt. - Merzbow 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Steel, if you don't want to, I will. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The indef block is overboard here. Yes, he did make one incivil attack since the expiration of his block. However, for the most part the only thing he is guilty of is having an unpopular opinion and bad grammar. As far as I know, we do not block for either. Certainly the attack should not be ignored, but I'd recommend a wait-and-see approach before heading for an indefinite block. -- tariqabjotu 01:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Guilty of those, in addition to assuming bad faith, violating WP:ATT, edit warring, PoV pushing, etc - hardly a model editor. Next time Limboot does any of those s/he's gone. – Steel 01:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Having perused contributions, I support an indefinite block pending Limboot's recognition of and engagement with the community's concerns, at which point the block can and should be commuted.Proabivouac 09:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More jewels from Talk:Antisemitism#Anti-judaism is no antisemitism !!!!!!!!!!

• You have to shame your selve. Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi.
• Oh our holy man FayssalF.…
• And I repeat that Avi, also when he isn't a Jew, has to shame himself deeply by calling the murder of 6 biljon Jews because of their religion.
• Oh and if I had writen "stupid Jew Avi" instead of "stupid judaist Avi" should I than not be being banned ? So if you know the difference betweem Jew and jew (judaist) take that than also in practice.

Enough is enough. I believe this abuse is above and beyond what can even remotely be considered acceptable on wikipedia, and it is not as if this user has not been warned. I'd rather someone else apply the indef block, but, IMO, this is not an example of abuse of admin powers, but getting rid of an obvious troll. -- Avi 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Limboot is a man with a mission. That mission does not seem to involve writing an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Indef block. --Aminz 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Gone. [100] – Steel 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing of references

User:Tankred deleted a section from the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, under this: "A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002."

The incriminated section:

"Dusan Čaplovič, the vice-president of the Smer party, has called for the banning of singing the Hungarian national anthem in Catholic Churches, claiming that this is disloyal to Slovakia. Even Robert Fico, current prime minister and leader of the Smer party, has made controversial statements in this regard as well."

In reality, the references, as the whole section was NOT added by User:VinceB, whom the "banned user" refers to.

It was just moved from Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article, by infed banned User:VinceB. Into Anti-hungarian sentiment article, indef banned (for two month - LOL) User:Juro moved [101] from Slovakization article.

So in fact, this section was added into Slovakization article, as well as the refences, by User:Alphysikist [102].

The fisrt parto of deleting reason (A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002.) is obviously wrong then. About inaccuracy: as you see, the deleted section does not claim, what Tankred states. Section says, Caplovic was "vice-president of the Smer party". No "Caplovic was deputy minister" is written in that, nor dates, so "Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002." part of the deleting reason is an obvious misleading for the recent changes patrollers.

All in all

• It was fully added by another user, User:Alphysikist, not a banned one.
• The section does not claim that Caplovic was prime minister (or any similar). Nor mentioning 2002 or any date, and nor in that kind of a context, so it is, as deleting reason is an obvious misleading.
• Tankred claimed many times before, that he's not speaking Hungarian, but here, claimes the sources are inaccurate. Well, they're not. http://www.stars21.com/ - a good page or text translator. for en-hu-en.

Please, block him, this was the 7th time, he abused references. --195.56.28.249 00:18, 44 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned for leetspeak?

What the fuck. Since when do we ban people for using "leetspeak" in their names? [103] I find it hard to believe that this is acceptable. RFerreira 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME#Random. {{usernameblock}} gives instructions on how to change the username. They're not banned; account creation was not disabled so they can just make a new account if they'd rather not bother to change the name. ··coelacan 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked. There's nothing in the policy against leetspeak. --Carnildo 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, using numbers in place of letters is not "random". In fact, it is rather commonplace, especially when you are competing for a unique username and over 1,000,000 of them are already taken. Thanks Carnildo for your assistance with this -- hopefully we haven't lost a valuable contributor as a result of this mix up. RFerreira 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just "over 1,000,000"? Try "over 4,000,000": Wikipedia has 48,466,355 usernames defined. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:I would guess that the block was based not on leet but on the apparent reference to religious figures, not just "God" but "1llah" (why the final h?).Proabivouac 09:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[sardonically] It's probably because the final "h" changes the vowel sound preceding it, changing the leet translation from "Godzillu" to "Godzilluh," a homophone for "Godzilla." Good morning, Wikipedia. =)--Dynaflow 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. I don't think this is religious reference, more like one to a monster trashing Tokyo...Moreschi ^Talk 09:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'd worship something like that. Raptor Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster haven't been returning my calls lately anyway. --Dynaflow 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Raptor Jesus is displeased. Where is your god now????⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand immensely corrected, and ashamed of my unfamiliarity with the conventions of leet.Proabivouac 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Smithsonian, I presume. The FSM might still be in the back of my fridge, though in what condition, I could not tell you. --Dynaflow 10:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Username policy states that using characters that look like the intended character but aren't is discouraged, given its abuse in the past. Another page disputes this. However, I could be wrong, as I read both a long time ago. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first paragraph under Inappropriate usernames.

"Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, harassing, or offensive - both in English and in other languages, as well as misspellings and substitutions thereof such as through Leetspeak. In borderline cases, you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be permanently blocked" Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but this wasn't offensive even when translated out of Leetspeak. Unless you dislike bad monster films. Moreschi ^Talk 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be misleading. There is a user with the name Godzilla spelled normal Godzilla. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's stretching it a bit. They haven't exactly titled themselves M0reschi or something. Moreschi ^Talk 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it could be misleading and or confusing if you were to address one or the other. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did we start spelling Godzilla with zeros and ones??--293.xx.xxx.xx 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse

Over on User talk:HeadMouse, we've been having a discussion about the correct redirect for the page. I've tried to keep it calm, but this user appears to be trying to escalate the discussion. There was a reference to (who I can only assume is me) a "monkey" on their back in the edit summary for Mark VI monorail, and there also appears to be the thinking that this user owns any page they create. The original discussion was about the redirect of Monorail System to Monorail rather than Walt Disney World Monorail System.

I'm going to take a step back because I can feel my temper coming up a little, but would appreciate any input offered - even if it's that I'm felt to be in the wrong. Ellbeecee 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah, this [104] edit summary looks like a civility issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am not an administrator, I did step in as an impartial outside observer and point HeadMouse (talk · contribs) toward the relevant sections of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN. I also fixed [105] the HTML monstrosity that was the editor's first article and answered [106] his/her questions on WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I was worried that if I let my temper get in the way, I was going to escalate things, and I didn't want that, so I appreciate you stepping in and helping out. Ellbeecee 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Kralizec! for stepping in and helping with this - the situation has calmed and appears to be resolved. Ellbeecee 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

12-year-old user?

While on vandal/username patrol, I spotted this on the talk page of new user Mooshka28 (talk · contribs):

She shouldn't be using this site; she's too young as of yet--can someone take a look? Blueboy96 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's user-conduct problems, users of all ages are welcome on Wikipedia. 75.62.7.22 15:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can name quite a few users in good standing who are "underage" as you call it. All users are welcome to edit wikipedia, regardless of their age. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Users of all ages are welcome on Wikipedia as long as they can edit responsibly. That this particular user is not, by reason of age, automatically too young is reflected in the fact that I recently nominated an editor of the same age for administrator status. However, it is also clear that this particular young editor is revealing far too much personal identifying information online (see generally, WP:CHILD and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy). I have removed the information and counseled her accordingly. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Young users should not be banned from Wikipedia. If they were, I wouldn't be typing this now. However, this user is disclosing personal information which is a violation of WP:CHILD, as Brad said. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Young users should not be banned from Wikipedia because sometimes they have a lot of knowledge to give out to Wikipedia and can edit responsibly. On the other case, if one person has created an account to impersonate an underage person solely to harass Wikipedians, then that one person should be immediately banned. Probably this user is nieve about Wikipedia (like many other newcomers) and we should assume good faith because who knows if she could learn from her mistakes or not?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 17:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NO one seemed to be calling for a ban, but for attention, which NYB has taken care of. Nothing more to see here. ThuranX 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"She shouldn't be using this site; she's too young as of yet" would suggest more than attention. Also does someone want to remove the personal information above? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I blanked the quote. I think that should be sufficient unless anyone wants to oversight it. Wouldn't recommend anyone trying to delete and restore ANI without those revisions. Wikipedia might just stop. Will (aka Wimt) 17:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose bannage. According to my innacurate estimates, there are about 100 000 regular editors younger than she is that edit constructively and do not violate policy and do not vandalise wikipedia and therefore should not be banned. I also estimate, innacurately of course, that among those 100 000 editors, about 200 of those are administrators. (Cute 1 4 u was banned because she did not regularly make good edits, I am assuming, so she is not within the 100 000 I mentioned) I also estimate that, innacurately of course, that there are about 150 000 constructive editors 13 and under, 350 000 constructive editors 18 and under, 500 000 constructive editors 25 and under, 1 000 000 constructive editors 50 and under, and about 1 500 000 constructive editors total, out of about 5 000 000 users (including editless and anons). Also I estimate 75 000 constructive editors 10 and under, 20 000 constructive editors 7 and under, and 800 constructive editors 3 and under, innaccurate of course. Also, WP:CHILD did not reach consensus. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Chill mate - I don't think anyone here would be in favour of banning this user or any other minor on account of their age. What is sensible though is to remove excess personal details as has been done here. No point taking unnecessary risks in that regard. Will (aka Wimt) 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling Blueboy thought that COPPA applied on Wikipedia (if it did then we would probably have to disable anon editing and make new users give their birthdate and deny registration to those under 13). "Most of the terms of COPPA apply only to websites and organizations operated for commercial purposes and usually exempt recognized non-profit organizations." (taken from the article). But administrators do remove personal information made public. Funpika 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

@TekWiz/R: Just to clarify, WP:CHILD is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Anchoress 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling upon which the essay is based is an official ruling and must be followed. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that actually true? Anchoress 02:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling, yes, but not WP:CHILD or any other formulation of the proposal yet written. The arbcom ruling says that issues are to be dealt with case-by-case (common practice being to tell them to take down the information) and that it would be nice if we actually could write a policy on the matter, but that is about it. --tjstrf talk 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely true, but we should also bear in mind that the portion of the proposal suggesting deletion of personal identifying information posted by under-13 users has pretty widespread support, and was endorsed to an extent by the ArbCom decision I cited. Newyorkbrad 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Were you replying to me NYB? If so, I agree, but so what? Anchoress 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, I am not an expert on 12-year-old girls, but I'd guess this is more likely a prank than autobiographical revelation. Whether it was intended at our expense or that of the named adolescent, who knows/cares... —freak(talk) 18:20, May. 5, 2007 (UTC)

BAN HER!! BAN HER!! *runs off giggling like a schoolgirl*--293.xx.xxx.xx 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be used as an excuse by vandals in the future. "My little brother was on my wikipedia account" blah. Bulldog123 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it with us and children? There was a vandalized article on here last week that people refused to link to because *ahem* the subject is underage. Does that make any sense? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing issue that needs to be resolved

It started here: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Wii Points doesn't need to be listed, a month ago. A short-lived poll by some users solved nothing (plus Wikipedia isn't a democracy, polls don't control content in articles). A few days ago I made this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Wii Points: (to list or to not list). To sum it up (if people don't want to read all of those mass discussions): two video game systems (Xbox 360 and Wii) have download services for games. The download prices are listed on several articles. Myself and others are against listing the prices, while another group of editors are for the prices staying in the articles. I really don't think Wikipedia should be used as a price guide, as there is plenty of other sites around that are used for that. RobJ1981 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles the prices are listed on: List of PlayStation Network games, Xbox Live Arcade, Wii Points, Virtual Console and List of Virtual Console games (all 4 regions listed on that page). Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide, due to prices for games being different. Prices are different for lots of things! It doesn't mean an online encyclopedia should be used for this content. RobJ1981 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prices change over time, this smacks of recentism. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not with online online products like this. A song released on iTunes 2 years ago is the same price it is now. TJ Spyke 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote a reliable source for that assertion you've just made? Carcharoth 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lose the prices and add guidance to what Wikipedia is not. Carcharoth 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just remove the prices right now, but I know people would just revert my edits. Can an admin resolve this and determine a solution? RobJ1981 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, so the editors involved need to sort it out. Admins only need to get involved when bad-faith editing is going on and an edit war is in progress. I've removed the prices on some of those articles and added my voice to those calling for the prices to be removed, so let's see what happens next. If discussion ensues and consensus is reached, fine. If not, well, then things will be a bit clearer. I left the Microsoft Points and Wii Points stuff alone, as though those are effectively prices as well, the articles on the credit systems are interesting. Still, quoting prices in 'points' is still recentism. Ultimately, they could all be removed as unsourced material. Ask those adding the prices to find reliable, stable references for the prices. My guess is there are none, because prices change. Carcharoth 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "short lived poll", the poll has been open for over a MONTH and Rob was the only one who objected. The Wii Points pages are sourced (look at the references section of List of Virtual Console games (North America), it has links to Nintendo/Hudson Soft/Sega's websites on VC games, all of which have prices). I especially object to remove the Japanese VC one since the prices are really varied. The prices are a vital part of the service (same with Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network), and are just as encyclopedic as the developer or ESRB rating. Does Rob want to have the ESRB rating removed just because most are rated E? TJ Spyke 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to quote some comments from that poll? Try this one on for size:

"It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue??"

I could advertise that poll widely and then we would really see how many people would !vote to remove the points listings. Anyway, talking about the poll misses the point. ESRB ratings and the name of the developers are quite different from giving the price of a game, even if the price is in Wii Points or Microsoft Points. The price of a product (be it a retail video game, a downloadable video game, a CD, a book, an item of clothing, or whatever) is a perfect example of ephemeral information that has no place on Wikipedia. In five years time, that pricing information will be useless and misleading. And before you suggest updating the price as it changes, or that the prices in 'points' will remain constant, that also misses the point. The key question you have to answer is why prices should be listed at all in the first place? There is nothing wrong with a short sentence saying that the games were sold using a 'points' system, rather than 'real' money, but listing the individual prices is close to being a form of advertising. I would ask anyone who has an opinion on this to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not a sales catalogue or price guide. Carcharoth 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 problems

For any admins not familiar with this situation by now, please see his long term abuse report. After systematically stripping the Nick Gulas article down to one sentence with a series of throwaway sockpuppets he succeeded in getting it speedy deleted while I was trying to fix the article, and was generously undeleted by the deleting admin. He's now harassing me on my talk page with a new sockpuppet, and also threatening further spamming on Tommy Dreamer which is currently fully protected due to his non-stop vanity spamming. Other articles which will also be targeted are Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Extreme Associates, Rob Zicari and Janet Romano. Any ideas on how this permanent problem can be dealt with? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to effect a permanent solution on a long-term vandal who uses open proxies. The LTA report recommends blocking on site, which is what I've done for the harrassing account who posted to your userpage. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If these are open proxies we should be going to CheckUser to get them blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The checkusers seem to have left the building. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Put that one almost two weeks ago, and no response. Same happened with the last set of open proxies that JB was using (although that was a regular check user as well). Utterly frustrating that we're letting vandals get free reign for weeks at a time on proxies. (Yes, I know the Checkuser folks are very busy, but if they're THAT overwhelmed, get more folks to do it). SirFozzie 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ONIH for the correction on Coogan. Wikipedia is plain darn stupid. Firstly it's packed with hostile editors, who believe that they own some of the articles. Then it tolerates IP addresses to edit articles, and then it cries about vandals. Some editors spend a lot of their time counteracting vandalism, which is just a waste of resources. Many articles should get the perm status of "no IP edits". I have seen so many good editors go, really nice people, and admins too, WP will fail unless it changes. 86.42.159.119 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Sure, by allowing anon edits we are dooming the project to eternal mediocrity, langushging at the bottom of the top ten websites worldwide and we'll never knock Wikipedia off the no. 1 slot in the rankings of online reference sites. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking on sight - Tootbillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gatorgalen 3RR & SPA

User reverts an article written by cult expert Larry Pile from listed articles based on his dislike for the website the article is posted at and not the author's authority. It should be pointed out that this is possibly a single purpose account for the purpose of pushing PoV in favor of Great Commission Association. Diffs: [107] [108] [109]

User contributions: [110]

Thanks for your attention to the matter. ClaudeReigns 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also asking for notice to be paid to user's conflict of interest as a fundraiser, missionary, and staff member for Great Commission Ministries. ClaudeReigns 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll defend myself. The 3RR claim doesn't belong here; it doesn't really matter, because it's frivolous anyway. For some reason ClaudeReigns has become unwilling to discuss things on talk pages. As for SPA; I only have a certain amount of time. If it weren't for the POV editing by ClaudeReigns, I would be editing other things. As it is, I spend all of my available editing time tryin to make the GCA article NPOV. It's a very tiring task. For whoever looks at this, I would also like to ask you to review ClaudeReigns's edit history as well; though he apparently has much more time than me, he is focused on GCA issues as well, generally as I said in a POV manner. I have been upfront from the very beginning about my involvement with the topic and have tried my bestto remain objective. ClaudeReigns is an ex-GCA member who hates GCA; he is not upfront with this. I would also ask the administrator to investigate possible long-term sockpuppetery between ClaudeReigns and User:Xanthius. They apparently know each other in real life but refuse to discuss their involvement in opposing GCA. They do frequently back up each other's edits. Thanks for your time, I apologize that this frivolous report. Gatorgalen 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting points which Gatorgalen makes, but I can make it quite clear why Gatorgalen's own actions and discussion necessitated my involvement in Wikipedia. He himself mentioned my real name in Wikipedia talk pages. These remarks were since deleted by administrators. Since coming here under an explicit understanding with User:Xanthius that I don't have to agree with him, I find that I enjoy it, and have been attempting to branch out from the core subject of Great Commission Association by developing second and third degree articles as well as get involved in other interests here. I do not always agree with User:Xanthius though it is true that he is a good friend and we often do see eye to eye on the subject of Great Commission Association. We also do share an I.P. address for half of the day. However, since both of our real names have been mentioned by GCA staff members and deleted by Wikipedia administrators, it is only fitting, in my opinion, that we both be allowed to edit. I can also clearly establish how my anonymity has been made necessary by present and former staff members within Great Commission Association. I think you'll find that nearly every addition I make to Wikipedia includes an immediately verifiable source and that until recently I have striven to reach out to current members of Great Commission Association to make them feel especially welcome. All of this stands in direct contrast to User:Gatorgalen's record as editor--and even User:Xanthius'. The administration is welcome to seek any information they would like about my involvement in the topic or relationship to User:Xanthius--my anonymity is only to prevent misuse of personal information by said current and former staff members. I know the administrators will make a good decision in this matter as they have done in the past. ClaudeReigns 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - Claude's memory appears to be fuzzy, it was someone else who outed his real identity, I have no idea who he really is. Just a note. Gatorgalen 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism in M113 Armored Personnel Carrier by anon user

The article M113 Armored Personnel Carrier oftens gets vandalized by an anon user whom I have reason to believe is the same person due to the nature of content that is added. Most recently, this user has used the IP address 24.214.146.99. Would it be possible to only allow edits on that page by registered users to make the process a little more difficult for the vandal? --Edward Sandstig 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They haven't made any more edits for some time now. If they come back, you might want to request a block on the IP or a semi-protect on the page. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This also looks a lot like a content dispute--VectorPotential^Talk 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a separate board to report vandals? AlexanderPar 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is, but the problem here is that one individual keeps editing multiple articles across Wikipedia to further his own agenda. His last changes were a few days ago, so I decided I'd ask here first. --Edward Sandstig 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with Vector Potential -- to an outsider, this looks more like a content dispute than vandalism. The three revert rule prohibits multiple back-and-forth changes, but that doesn't seem to have happened here either. Try asking the individual to supply sources for the statement. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be considered a content dispute if I was openly campaigning to rename the M16 as the "Peashooter" for example, then decided to log onto Wikipedia and replace all instances of M16 in multiple articles with "M16 Peashooter"? Doing that, wouldn't I be using Wikipedia to push my own agenda and effectively making the term "M16 Peashooter" the de facto term through common usage? --Edward Sandstig 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if the population of M16 Peashooters triples. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z

Gon4z continues to revert any updates to the following articles: Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces Command, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. Also his information is outdated, unsourced and he has done about 15 reverts in the three last days. He doesn't read any discussion post: here, here, here, here and here, but resorts to threats, insults and user page vandalism here. Some of his remarks to other editors:

on my (noclador) talkpage:

• "I will take further actions" Gon4z 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)
• "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

on user MrMacMan talkpage:

• "I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians" Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures." Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• "I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article." (unsigned, but once gain by Gon4z)

in the edit summary of Albanian Land Forces Command

• "I am clearly the only one here providing proof from my figures unlike you two whore are spreading bate propaganda"

My information is based on the following sources:

• The World Defence Almanac 2006, page 95, Mönch Publishing Group; Bonn 2006;
• The IISS Military Balance Report 2006- 2007, page 80, Routledge Publishing; 106 edition (May 24, 2006)
• SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Oxford University Press, June 2006.
• Centre for SouthEast European Studies: Albania’s Armed Forces- 2002 Data]
• Bonn International Center for Conversion
• Albanian Land Forces Command

All this is ignored by Gon4z, who bases his information on the same homepage he criticizes as "Greek anti Albanian website". Also the same kind of edit war and personal attacks is waged by him at the article Serbian Air Force, where he keeps reducing the number of active Serbian airplanes, substitutes the correct grammatical tense with the present tense, vandalises the syntax and tells a fellow editor: "this is the last time i will warn you get a profile because if not then your IP address will be suspended from editing any article" Gon4z 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, according to user MacGyverMagic Gon4z is a “editor who has a history of vandalism, POV and unsourced edits.” comment can be found here.

As Gon4z in continuous violation and a repeat offender of the following Wikipedia rules:

• Unsourced material
• Vandalism
• Three revert rule
• Edit warring and
• Personal attacks against at least three fellow editors

I strongly urge to block him for an extended period of time. noclador 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I am not involved in this issue with this user and today I reported the editor to the Admin 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:24h.29 which resulted in his/her 24 hour block. I have really tried to get this editor to explain his reverts and his rational for using his older sources and his actual, apparent lack of sources. I think that this user has disregarded the newer and better sources put before him and has completely ignored all information not coming from his own older sources. When bringing up this newer information he ignores us and makes accusations that I'm biased or using other information that he says is biased (which I wasn't using anyway). I don't understand why he insists without explaining his reasoning so I have to conclude he is not acting in good faith. If this user was explaining his rational for reverting the changes this would be a content dispute but his disregard on this dispute and instead he's been very unresponsive to any comments that have been made to him. I would also say that his blocking period be expanded. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reckless Copyright Infringement

User B7rent has persistently uploaded images that do not belong on Wikipedia for Copyright reasons. The user has also replaced free images from Flickr with images from the Associated Press or other sources. The user has ignored three warnings, and has continued the aforementioned actions, including after being given a final warnings. See User Talk] and [User Contributions] --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you reporting a new issue or an old one? According to the upload logs for B7rent (talk · contribs · logs), this editor has not uploaded any images since April, and even those were marked as {{untagged}} by OrphanBot and/or deleted already. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the User's contributions. He keeps on adding images that have been tagged as copy violations despite warnings. For example, the user uploaded Image:CHester Bennington 2007.jpg on 4/27. It was tagged for deletion because of its false licensing and lack of source. After removing the image, and asking the user to stop adding it, the user has persisted on adding to to an article. He has even attemepted re-adding the image today. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Newbie redirects userpage to main page

Lledd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new user, has redirected his userpage to the main page. Can someone fix this?Blueboy96 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a rule against that? News to me. Picaroon (Talk) 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its a rule but I fixed it. I also posted a welcome to him. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross space redirect is a valid reason for deletion of a redirect, so I'd assume it's not allowed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects from the mainspace to userspace is a ground for speedy deletion. Other cross namespace redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD. WjBscribe 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is the issue, as all that needs to be done is edit his userpage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems an excellent idea, a way of removing the distraction that some people see their user page as. I may do it myself unless someone here can give a reason not to? Notinasnaid 10:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to the main page do not show the "Redirected" from text at the top of the page. Without that navigating to a page relevant to you by clicking the link in your signature would not be possible to all but experienced users. As such, that would disrupt effective communication with you. If you want to your userpage to be a redirect, target at your user talk.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:NYScholar ?

Hi all. Another editor just asked me to comment on an Arbitration case involving the above user. I agreed to comment about 20 minutes ago and signed up. As a result, it would appear that the editor in question made a strong legal threat against WP on the RFAr here. Normally, had I seen something as blatant as that, I'd block the editor immediately for legal threats but as I'm involved, I'd rather not.

Can someone uninvolved in the Arbitration case review, please? Thanks - Alison ☺ 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• My response [111], and theirs [112] confirming their intent to do just that - Alison ☺ 04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a blatant threat to me and I've blocked accordingly. John Reaves (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)bl

What is there to say? There is nothing that could be done in this situation but indefinitely block. It was a blatant legal threat.--Jersey Devil 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I thought I was seeing things - someone makes a strong legal threat in their own Arb case. Incredible! - Alison ☺ 05:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe he now realises his error and has rescinded the legal threats and requests unblock. Can someone take a look here? - Alison ☺ 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I unblocked him. I suggested that he retract his comments on the RfAr page and keep a cooler head, especially now that he has been apprised of WP:LEGAL. -- Samir 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Great! Thanks for that - Alison ☺ 06:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would have unblocked someone who looked directly one of the more important policies of Wikipedia in the face and said "I know, and I'm not going to follow it, and I'm going to do something indef-blockworthy anyway because I don't give a shit what the rules are." and persisted to threaten an editor even further. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him because he claimed to be unfamiliar with WP:LEGAL and retracted his statements, and because he should be unblocked during the course of the RfAr against him. -- Samir 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RMc update

See my archived report. He just removed my last notice from his talk page. This is not the action of someone committed to getting along with others. Daniel Case 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Misbehavior continues. This time he removed both the original discussion and the {{blankown}} warning from his talk page. Daniel Case 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, folks, I'm getting a little tired of snooty little Danny Case ordering me about and then crying to daddy. I let him have his way on South Blooming Grove and Michigan Corners, New York, but, no, that's not enough...apparently, his little feelings are bruised. Here's an idea: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP HARASSING ME. And it's called a life...get one. RMc 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia community and its collegiality are injured by your actions. They demand satisfaction, given that you have already been blocked for this behavior once before. If you want to engage in personal attacks on this page, you've earned whatever happens next. Daniel Case 17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "Wikipedia community" isn't as thin-skinned as you are, ace. Good grief. Won't somebody please get Case off my daniel...? RMc 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Users with truly thick skins don't try to cover up their past misdeeds as much as you seem to. Wikipedia is not, in any event, about who can shout the loudest or out-revert the other person. There are plenty of other websites for that. If you continue to treat WP:NPA and WP:CIV as if they only apply to other people, I will continue to press this. I have, in fact, contacted some of the same admins and users you dealt with before to look at this situation. Daniel Case 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good gravy, man...do you ever read your own posts? "Misbehaviour continues"..."collegiality injured"..."demand satisfaction"...come on. You're doing a perfect impersonation of a pompous, braying jackass. If anyone's violating NPA and CIV (not to mention "don't make threats" and "don't be a dick") it's you, not me. Chill out. Please. RMc 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

When reverting what appeared to be simple trolling/etc, I came upon Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) and his strange edits. I have already had to perform a deletion on an AfD of a redirect that he did a copy-page move for which I may have to move back to its original placement because I had to history merge. I do not know of the original reasons for his block/ban/whatever, but I have left a message that relates to what little actions I could find of his errors in editting on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive85#Jeff Merkey wishes to return to en:wp. --bainer (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever he did in the past, I hope he's careful in the future. He's recently deleted quite a lot from Cherokee; see my question (and I hope soon his answer) at or near the foot of Talk:Cherokee. -- Hoary 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These edits are also problematic (odd stuff about the sex industry and stock fraud): ChurchOfTheOtherGods 08:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my slight reformatting of your immediately preceding comment, COTOG.

Yes, they are indeed strange, not least the addition of one paragraph ending with "{{fact}}": If an editor thinks something needs evidence, I don't understand why he'd add that something. -- Hoary 08:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's moved the disputed content to the talk page put up a bounty for this article. --Duk 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think all of these concerns have been addressed to the relevant parties now. If there are any other questions or concerns, please visit my talk page and we can certainly air them in the open. "Strange" does sound like me, BTW. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Comments below are from a Banned user (user:Vigilant) banned from Wikipedia by Tony Sidaway under the direction of the ARBCOM. This user is a disruptive troll and should be blocked on site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk • contribs) 16:26, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you know as well as I do that I was never BANNED. That is a personal attack and I take great exception to it. You WERE BANNED by Jimbo himself. That is a matter of public record.

Jeff, you cannot declare, on your own, that everyone is satisfied with your explanations and edits. The edits, particularly the Eric Schmidt article, are libelous, violate NPOV, NPA, NLT, no sources and problematics of the entire biologies of living persons problems. Your edits are exactly what is not wanted in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk • contribs) 10:27, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

64.139.4.129, please find something constructive to do around here rather than following Jeff around and complaining. He's removed the disputed content and put up a bounty for the article. --Duk 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said anything outside that article and it was libelous and unsourced. Please show me what you mean by harassment as that is a serious and unsubstantiated charge.

Note: 64.139.4.129 admits to being Vigilant. I'll start blocking if he keeps harassing Jeff. --Duk 17:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell mw what rules I am violating and please give examples. I was not banned and as far as I can tell, I've done nothing even slightly outside the rules. Have you read the edits that Jeff made to a Living Person's Biography (Eric Schmidt)? What he wrote makes most other problem biographies pale in comparison.

see the post directly above your own, this link in particular. --Duk 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Mr Merkey seems to think everyone is trolling him. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=128741022 I have been added to his list and being accused of a Troll from Yahoo SCOX. I do not have an account on that board and I have no idea why I have been singled out except because I dared criticise his editing. --Kebron 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ParthianShot

• Note - Many links have been commented in this discussion because a website has been blacklist at meta. Please view section in edit mode to see the links. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across ParthianShot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when I had blocked him some time back. After going through his contributions I saw that he had uploaded many images from a website called . is the website of the "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies" at "School of Oriental and African Studies" at the University of London. All the images were properly linked to the site and the site had the appropriated GFDL message at the bottom of the page. So far so good.

But digging a bit deeper, it looks like ParthianShot may have knowingly uploaded copyrighted images and inserted copyvios in wikipedia articles. The CAIS is nothing but a forum or group at the SOAS. By their own admission the website is no longer related to the school. . In fact, the website is run by a person called Shapour Suren-Pahlav.

This site has repeatedly been identified as hosting copyvio and plagiarised material, as well as some pseudo-scholarly fringe stuff written by its owner. Much of its content is articles mirrored from "Encyclopedia Iranica" (a respectable scholarly resource, but copyrighted). Others have apparently been plagiarised from other sources. Here's a complaint on the web: [113], [114], [115], [116]. Here's another fishy case, about an image that was first stolen by Wikipedia from a third-party site, then stolen from Wikipedia together with its article by CAIS, then borrowed back into Wikipedia as allegedly copyrighted and released by CAIS.

The way the images are uploaded is identical. ParthianShot claims to have corresponded with Shapour Suren-Pahlav. The webpage adds a note about the correspondence at the bottom of the page. See bottom of . ParthianShot claims to be Khodayar Bahrami and has vigorously denied being Shapour Suren Pahlav, the owner of the CAIS site. He has also vigorously defended its value as a source and external link.

But ParthianShot is not his original account name. He was earlier called Surena and got his name changed. Surena was an identified sockpuppeteer. See the case at RfCU here. There is more. One of his sock accounts, oddly, was named User:Shapour SP, i.e. obviously "Shapour Suren Pahlav". The website has been linked to as an EL or source, or a source of images, in a huge lot of Wikipedia articles: [117]. Most of these links have been inserted by User:ParthianShot/Surena. Both accounts also made many edits to the article "Suren-Pahlav Clan" [118]. Surena/ParthianShot has also on some occasions uploaded images described as authored by "Shapour Suren-Pahlav" and simultaneously as "pd-self" or "gfdl-self", and later "corrected" that license description. See for example Image:Suren-Pahlav.JPG Uploaded 25 December 2006 by User:Zoroastrian, one of the confirmed socks of Surena/ParthianShot. The licensing disclaimer notes User:Zoroastrian as author of the work.

In light of all this evidence I conclude that ParthianShot is none other than Shapour Suren-Pahlav who runs the website cais. The website has committed copyvios which are being subtely inserted into wikipedia through bogus emails exchanged being the "two" people. So I propose that we delete all the images uploaded by the user and possibly blacklist the external link to the website so that no more copyright violations are inserted into wikipedia. Action must also be taken against ParthianShot a.k.a. Shapour SP. Maybe a long block for trying to deceive wikipedia and violating out image upload rules is in order. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it may be suspicious, and yet I see no conclusive evidence that connects the two. Bear in mind that Shapour is common name in Persian speaking countries, Suren Pahlav is the name of historic clan, and Shapour Suren Pahlav is a historic figure that walked on this earth about 2000 years ago. Many people pick their usernames based on their heroes' names. AlexanderPar 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. I do understand that people do use usernames based on heroes, but in this case the evidence is too strong. A user who has used a sock called Shapour SP inserting links, using images and corresponding regularly with the owner of a website also called Shapour SP. Also consider that there are 507 (!) links to the CAIS website from wikipedia. Most of them added by PS. Surely the evidence is too strong. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Aksi is citing as evidence of wrong-doing by CAIS, and as we can see CAIS had corrected the error a long time ago . ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the names involved, it looks like Aksi_great has uncovered enough evidence to call into question any copyright claimed by CAIS. The safest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to delete the lot of the CAIS images -- Samir 09:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is obvious that Aksi have taken this matter quite personally [119], [120], [121]! Aksi has banned me unfairly [122] for only "ONE RV" - then he went further and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry [123] – his accusation confirmed to be false [124] and the extension was overturned [125]. It is quite evident that Aksi is being influenced by his compatriots Fullstop as was observed by MediaLady [126], [127]. It is quite sad to experience an Admin has taken resolute to these kind of childish behaviours. However, I am not the SSP as he falsely claims, and as I have advised Aksi before if he has any concerns regarding CAIS he should take it to them directly [128]! Nonetheless, after studying Aksi’s contributions, apparently he is also in direct contact with Behnam! Behnam who is also perusing my presence here [129] had discussion with Aksi in past about me [130], [ ], has recently deleted my contributions, interestingly Aksi has also left a tag [131] on one the images in question that Behnam has already objected [132] – however there no record of any discussion about this between these two in any of the discussion pages – but all of sudden Aksi places a tag there similar to Behnam's concern! This demonstrates that Aksi and Behnam are also in direct contact with each other outside Wikipedia! In any case, in CAIS defence, it is a respectable website, and contrary to Aksi claim of they “stealing” articles from other sources, in this case Wikipedia is guilty as charged too! However, how do we know that they have published their “mirrored articles” as Aksi put it without permission from the poriginal source – and also at the bottom of their WebPages all the source is being mentioned, or by clicking on the name of the authors! Number of contributors here such as those Islamic Fundamentalists namely “Behnam” as well as well as Zoroastrian orthodox namely “Fullstop” are opposing CAIS because, it exposes the destruction of pre-Islamic sites by the Islamic Regime , , etc, and also advocates conversion to Zoroastrianism – and unfortunate Aksi blindly has fallen to their tarp, and his naivety got the worst in him! Nonetheless, I believe Aksi should be investigated for breaching the Wikipedia rules and regulations – he is obviously having private email exchanges with other users namely Fullstop, The Behnam and possibly more. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you understand the issue, ParthianShot. Despite your claim that CAIS is a respectable website, Aksi has uncovered evidence that some of the material on this website is of questionable copyright. This really calls into question the copyright of CAIS images that are uploaded onto Wikipedia under GFDL, as one cannot trust CAIS's assertion that these images are licensed under GFDL. -- Samir 09:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I do appreciate your concerns, but how do we know that the images from CAIS are copyvio as being claimed by "Aksi, Fullstop and Behnam triangle"? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Aksi identified 3 separate issues with cais-soas.com and copyright: mirroring Encyclopedia Iranica, the plagiarism of the article as mentioned on public.kubsu.ru, and the Babak image. In my opinion, that is enough to call into question the copyright of anything uploaded onto Wikipedia from cais-soas.com. We do not assume good faith on issues of image copyright; if there is a question that an image claimed to be GFDL licensed is not free use, it needs to be deleted -- Samir 10:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

        This is the problem with ParthianShot. Whenever I try to engage him in a discussion about the images he has uploaded he either tells me to write to he website or comes up with silly conspiracy theories. I have already said that I was reviewing the images uploaded by you. That is why I came across that image without a source. Now he is saying that just because the bottom of their website mentions source, they are not violating copyrights. Also, please do not call wikipedia editors Islamic Fundamentalists. Please see WP:NPA. You will be blocked the next time you say something like that. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

        • Please spare me playing innocent card here - You have never tried to engage in any discussion with me; only thing that you have done so far were false accusations and unfair block which was later overturned! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 12:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

          I don't know what you call this then. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Aksi claims that after a painstaking investigation and studying my contributions, he concluded that me and SSP are the same people – interesting to recall the same claim by Aksi’s friend, Fullstop who accused of the same in past [133]. This is another evidence for private contact between these two, and Aksi receiving instruction form his compatriot friend! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a final warning to you. Please do not bring my nationality into question. If you cannot reply to my accusations without bringing my nationality and others religions into question then please don't write anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aksi: Please do not evade the observation regarding your breach of Admin rights by manoeuvring and redirecting the dispute to different matters and showing yourself as a victim here – however, your nationality is NOT under question, BUT your evidential-affiliation with FullStop outside Wikipedia as well as your personal attacks on me and false accusations! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the real-life identity of ParthianShot, the web site is a proven host of both pictures and text in violation of others' copyrights, and deceptively posts a GFDL license statement. As such, I would not object to a de facto blacklisting of text and photos hosted on that web site. Thatcher131 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher - Two things - 1. as I asked you before [134] on what bases you are claiming that CAIS is in violation of others' copyrights? Please provide us with your evidence -- I hope you realize that accusation and assumption are easy to declare, providing proof is totally different matter, as you have experienced in recent case [135] with MedianLady. 2. Also I hope your judgment in this case is not being colluded with our previous dispute [136]. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot, you appear to have got it the wrong way round. Aski great has shown above that there is a significant reason to doubt the copyright information at CAIS. It is not up to Thatcher131 or anyone else to prove that these images are a violation of copyright, it is up to you as the uploader to prove that they are not in violation. Until that time it would seem sensible to me to remove the potentially offending material. Will (aka Wimt) 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Dear Will - First, thank you for your mature and civil behaviour. Second, with all due respect, I have not got it wrong at all - I do not wish to go through it again about Aksi’s irresponsible and reckless behaviour, as I'm sure you can observe the above entries. His problem is not the images, but it is with me - just please observe his latest action ([137]) as he deleted all my contributions! Do you still thing it is all about the images? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Here's one more image which clearly shows that these images do not belong to CAIS - Image:Khomeini 78.jpg. I don't think they could have obtained such a nice image of Khomeini. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you know that they don't have the permission for its distribution, or they may have copied from a journal which has no copyright? Can you prove otherwise? Anyhow in your case is too late - wait for Wiki management to decide about your faith! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Read my comment above, ParthianShot. If it is copied from a journal that has no copyright, it is up to you as the uploader to prove this fact. It is not up to Aski great to prove otherwise. Will (aka Wimt) 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Dear Will - I have and replied to your comment. However, CAIS has not proven to be in the breach of any copyvios, asnd as far as academia concerns it is a reputable and scholarly source of info about pre-Islamic Iran. However, it is Aksi who alleges that it is copyvio - so my question is where is the proof for his allegations?← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have removed the images from the articles pending some more information from ParthianShot. But it looks like he isn't in any mood to add sources or address the real issue here about possible copyvios. I asked him to mention the source of some images uploaded by him and not attributed to the cais website. All those images also look like copyvios to me as they are strikingly similar to the cais images also uploaded by ParthianShot. But he won't give me a source till I show him the words in a policy that will compel him to give more information about the images. Can someone clarify our policy to him here. It may be too late for me now that he has complained to wiki management about me. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Aksi - you are not truthful again! I ahve left this message in your talkpage [138]: (Show me a Wikipedia policy that requires that the contributor of an image should come up with a ...short description of how and where you took the photographs.., and then I will provide you with. Don't make on your law! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)) - so where is that Wikipedia policy? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:HomaDarabi.jpg Example of hodood punishment in Islamic-Iran: This women was given 50 lashes for violating Islamic Sharia Law.

I think User:ParthianShot does upload images which are useless and frankly offensive to a large group of editors in wikipedia. One example is the folowing image. As you know there are thousands of propaganda unreliable websites around. This image is uploaded from one such unreliable propaganda website. The image can be very well a forgery. It claims the following story:"This picture was sent to Dr. Homa Darabi from a woman in Iran.This picture was taken 20 days after she was lashed fifty times for being present at a family gathering where men other than her father and brother were present. Her crime? She is a single woman. It is forbidden for women to be present under the same roof with men other than their close relatives (father, brother and son) without proper hijab."- This image is not useful in wikipedia as it comes from a non-reliable blog with certain motivations. Further, the copyright status of the image is not established."

Now, of course women do have problems in Iran(that's beyond dispute) but as someone who has lived in Iran, I can say safely that such a story feels completely unrealistic and ridiculous. First of all, Islamic Hudud prescribes punishment only for the five crimes of unlawful intercourse, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, drinking wine, theft, and highway robbery. It says nothing about "proper covering". The subtitle of the image: "Example of hodood punishment in Islamic-Iran" is written by somebody who doesn't know much about Islam hudud, but with a desire to spread false anti-Islam information. Secondly, this story is completely unrealistic: If somebody goes out with a very improper hijab in the public(right now the standards of proper hijab are very low as compared to the early years of revolution), then of course someone may arrest her. BUT here we have a woman who have been "present at a family gathering". This is something inside family and to have a family member lash her for 50 times is Sadism and lack of human dignity. This story is only proper for those propagandist websites. It is no "Example of hodood punishment in Islamic-Iran". Those users who upload these offensive pictures in wikipedia disrupt wikipedia. --Aminz 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point may be valid. Do note that the images license is under question. So I'm changing the display to a plain link. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aksi personal attacks and abusing of his admin rights

I hereby wish to draw everyone's attention to Aksi's vandalism by removing all of my contributions [139] for no reason from Wikipedia pages! He has been in breach of his admin privileges in past, and he is continuing to do so as discussed above [140]. I already have submitted an official complain to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia management for his act of vandalism and breach of his admin rights. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm... which admin rights would that be? For everyone else, please read this post above. It is clear to me that instead of adding sources to images uploaded to him, this user prefers to sidetrack the issue by throwing around accusations of bias. See his reply to Samir, me and Thatcher131 in the above post. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help Aksi clarify the copyright issues on these images as opposed to making unfounded allegations of vandalism based on his removal of spurious license tags -- Samir 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Aksi needs all the help that he can get from his fellow Admins - but before doing so, ask yourselves is it right thing do? Are you willing to put a price on your conscious - by defending wrong? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying it is immoral (or, as you put it, not the "right thing do") to follow image copyright laws? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kralizec - I never said that! I said support Aksi, if he is right, and do not support him just because he is one of the Admins! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

His morals look entirely in order to me. While I don't question the sincerity of yours, I do question the results. Images with inadequate source information, particularly that appear to be copyright violations, may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD - David Gerard 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear David - I do appreciate your comments, but the problem is not the images - it is the force behind Aksi's actions - Aksi is in direct contact outside Wikipedia with another contributor who is in dispute with me. Please read the above [141]. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• That gets an official "so what" from me, I'm afraid. Inadequate source info on images is an unambiguous speedy delete, we do it hundreds if nto thousands of times daily. Persistent offenders get the Wikitrout. This is perfectly normal, and a rational response to the fact that some people either don't understand or don't accept that copyright abuse can get us sued into oblivion. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec.) Hm, from what I've gathered so far I'm not sure what the problem about the alleged back-channel communication is supposed to be. Even if it were true - in the present case, I think that might actually be quite wise, as it avoids dragging around publicly the name of a real-world person, Sh. S.-P., in the context of rather embarrassing copyvio and plagiarism accusations. Isn't that in everybody's best interest? - By the way, ParthianShot, I do wonder now, instead of questioning other people's motives, why don't you just explain to us (1) why you had a sockpuppet under the name of Sh. S.-P., (2) why you uploaded images that you first said were your own and then said were by Sh. S.-P., and (3) why you now claim you are not Sh. S.-P.? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

FutPerf - Admins are part of Wikipedia system and therefore Wikipedia has legal obligations to observe legality here! Therefore, thank you for giving me the idea of informing CAIS about Wikipedia’s slanders and accusations of plagiarism and theft. Thanks again - your assistance is greatly appreciated! :) ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note - ParthianShot has now been indef blocked by User:Alkivar for making legal threats against me. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More evidence

• Hmm, I notice somebody has indef-blocked ParthianShot for making legal threats. Just for the record, here's a few more apparent copyright issues on CAIS that I found on a very casual browsing through the site:
  • CAIS: . Source: [142], ("All rights reserved")
  • CAIS: . Source: [143]. No assertion or evidence of permission.
  • CAIS: , creditecd to H. E. Wulff, Scientific American, April 1968, p.94 - 105. No assertion or evidence of permission.
  • CAIS: . Credited to: "FEZANA journal, Winter 1994". No assertion or evidence of permission.
  • CAIS: . No author or source attribution. From [144], a text credited to "Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia. © 2006 World Almanac Education Group. A WRC Media Company. All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted by written agreement, uses of the work inconsistent with U.S. and applicable foreign copyright and related laws are prohibited."
  • CAIS: . no credits to the translator of the ancient text. Same translation also in other places on the web, e.g. [145]. Source unknown.
  • CAIS: , from Wikipedia article Ancient_Azari_language (authored in this edit: [146]), no attribution.
  • CAIS: , from [147]. No assertion or evidence of permission. Used as source for Wikipedia article Bartangi_language by ParthianShot. Same source as the following:
  • CAIS: , from [148].
  • CAIS: , from [149].
  • CAIS: , from [150]
  • CAIS: . Same text as in [151] and elsewhere on the web. Ultimate source unknown.
  • CAIS: , apparently from [152], written by Karine Megerdoomian. Some parts have also been used in Wikipedia, e.g. paragraph on "word boundaries" in Persian_alphabet

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is very strong. I have already deleted all images uploaded from the website. I think it is time to get the site blacklisted, or atleast not use it as a primary source anywhere. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it. Maybe somebody should notify editors who work in that domain, over at the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board perhaps, so that everybody will know what's going on when all those links are going to begin to vanish. In many cases, content sourced to CAIS might be salvagable by finding the original sources and using those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, somebody has been transferring a number of CAIS images to commons. ([153]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already tagged those images and contacted a commons admin. There should not be any problem in the future as the site has been added to the meta blacklist. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Siân Rees-Cleland

Could someone take a look at this article? The page is practically empty, it doesn't look like an encyclopedia entry. AlexanderPar 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag you are looking for is {{db-nocontext}} ··coelacan 09:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. AlexanderPar 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta violating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Resolved

User:Certified.Gangsta's Arbitration case has closed and the Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now placed on revert parole. Certified.Gangsta is now forbidden to revert-war by arbitration case. See Certified.Gangsta's contributions, Certified.Gangsta's contributions since his ArbCom case ended were mass reverts and and personal attacks. Certified.Gangsta has now blatantly violated the ArbCom's final decision on many articles which, according to his ArbCom case "shall be enforced by blocks". Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction on over four articles. See here, here, here, and here. His latest ArbCom violation here. An administrator should enforce this flagrant violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision. Thanks. LionheartX 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are baiting him by blindly reverting his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not baiting him. He is forbidden to revert-war by ArbCom. See his latest ArbCom violation here where a different editor reverted him. Anyways, the evidence is in the ArbCom case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Thanks, LionheartX 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you both deserve to be blocked, certified.gangsta for revert warring and you for revert warring, disrupting the Wiki by spamming this report on every talk page you can find, and flagrant wikilawyering. Arbcom sanctions do not justify your actions in the slightest, since EVERYONE is forbidden to edit war by default. --tjstrf talk 09:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not "baiting him", Certified.Gangsta reverted my edits before I reverted them back. This is a blatant violation of ArbCom decisions and sets a dangerous precedent if not enforced. The fact is this: Certified.Gangsta is forbidden to revert war per his Arbitration case. I am not spamming this report, I am trying to find out the procedure for reporting a violation of ArbCom decisions. This is a flagrant violation of ArbCom Final decisions and should be enforced. All of the evidence of Certified.Gangsta's behavior is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Please enforce this ArbCom violation. Thanks. LionheartX 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[[154]] YOu recruited him. Sumple is also a Ideogram fanclub-guy in my arbCom case. His opinion is hardly neutral.--Certified.Gangsta 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta, your opinion, like many of your other opinions, is offensive, obnoxious, completely baseless, and defamatory. --Sumple (Talk) 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta is clearly misrepresenting the facts. This user reverted Certified.Gangsta's edit before that post was even made. In fact, the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram speaks for itself. This is a flagrant violation of ArbCom decision. LionheartX 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to the actual diffs not the history, in the future. Regardless of who is under arbitration restrictions or not, you should not be inducing edit warring or edit warring yourself. Just because Certified.Gangsta is restricted by that ArbCom case does not give you free reign in reverting him because you two are in a dispute. You should be lucky that you are actually unblocked, as you had proclaimed that you were a sockpuppet, as Certified.Gangsta points out below. Right now, I agree with tjstrf that you should both be blocked; Certified.Gangsta for violating his arbitration restrictions, and yourself, LionheartX for generally being a dick to him and trying your best to drive him off of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX blocked for 48 hours for reasons stated above.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a bit ridiculous. LionheartX almost obsessive activity here has been, for months and under many usernames, to bait and edit war with Certified.Gangsta. He was previously blocked indefinitely by me after the umpteenth reincarnation, then allowed to use this account later after discussion on ANI (which I did not notice in time to comment). I would advise you to read this comment from the discussion [155] ("Any further disruptive behavior on his part (and massive spamming of admins' talk pages, which he did just now, is very close to being disruptive) will be the last straw."). His talk page discussion then, from [156] down, is also instructive. It's time to ban him for good. Dmcdevit·t 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the "last chance" message was from the one guy willing to let Lionheart back after his previous indef, and he's now engaged in the exact behaviour he was warned would lead to a re-ban, I would think that he's certainly hit the point of exhausting the community's patience. And his latest correspondence at User talk:LionheartX shows that he is either totally clueless as to why his behaviour is unacceptable (which I doubt is even humanly possible) or is simply refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong, hiding behind the wikilawyering "but arbcom!" diversionary tactic. So I agree with Dmcdevit that it's time we rectify the error of unbanning him. (In case anybody wishes to claim bias in this statement, I have no reason to support Certified.Gangsta whatsoever.) --tjstrf talk 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Provoking someone to violate ArbCom ruling, in order to get them blocked? That looks like plain disruption to me, and the fact that he doesn't eve know that what he's doing is wrong, just makes it worse. I'm leaning towards Dmcdevit's suggestion of a ban. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the ban. Full disclosure: I'm on friendly and somewhat mentoring terms with Certified.Gangsta, so I'm not entirely neutral here. On the other hand, I've had a good view of Lionheart's activities. I do think his last chances have all been spent. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Would you prescribe a similar ban for Certified? Because I can't work out which of them started it, and I've been more involved with both of them than most people. They've both been blocked for 48 hours. I suggest leaving it at that for now. If either of them repeats the behaviour, a 96 hour block will be applied and so on. It only takes a little longer than us "assuming" they won't learn and skipping straight to banning them, and it gives them the chance to learn. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful here to invoke the "Tu Quoque" principle of the recently closed arbitration:

Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Passed 7 to 0, 20:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This would tend to support the idea of an even-handed approach. --Tony Sidaway 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong blocked Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for violating his revert parole and LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for baiting Certified.Gangsta. Editors under ArbCom sanction are not caged animals you can poke sticks at. However. CG needs to bring his problems to dispute resolution first, rather than revert, if he is going to have any chance to reform himself. Thatcher131 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX poor behaviors

Resolved

I reported this user on the community noticeboard, receivng little feedbacks. So I need admins opinions on this. User:LionheartX, a ban-evading sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX User:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User:Guardian_Tiger User:Apocalyptic_Destroyer and User:ApocalypticDestroyer's was previously community banned (or indef. blocked)[157] per this thread on AN/I for being an abusive, disruptive sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template Here's what arbitrator and admin User:Dmcdevit had to say about one of the socks. [[158]] After multiple attempts to wikilawyer and as well as abuse of the unblock template on User talk:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User talk:Guardian_Tiger, his talkpages were protected by admins, [159] [160] [161] which resulted in more sockpuppetry and evasion. Admin User:Nlu was lenient and agreed to give LionheartX another chance despite all of these violations, disruption, and sockpuppetry (ban-evasion). [162] But also made it clear that LionheartX is on a very short leash and that other admins are not bound by his decision. User:BenAveling, the main advocate who campaigned for Lion's unblock also made it clear that Lion is on a very short leash [163] After more disruptions followed, admin User:Durova indef. blocked the sock account User:LionheartX per [164] [165] The block was overturned one week under cloudy and controversial circumstances. Nevertheless, Lion was advised to stay out of trouble [166]. I have always been a victim of Lion (and his previously socks) tendency to stalk, spam, and harass. Several harassment campaign has been launched by LionheartX to drive me out of wikipedia. The newest one started couple of weeks ago even though he was advised to stay away from me and to stop harssing me. [167] This didn't stop him to orchestrate an anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign by proxy. (spamming usertalkpages to campaign to ban me)[168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]. Spamming in my arbCom case with User:Ideogram [[179]] (there are way too many diffs so just glance through his contributions and you'll see it) and stalk my contributions and POV pushing . [[180]] [[181]] [[182]] [[183]], disrupt Wikipedia:Changing username [[184]] [[185]] [[186]], wikilawyering, and spamming/canvassing [[187]] [[188]] [[189]]. Now he's stalking, spamming to campaign to ban me, and POV pushing. Somebody please stop me. PLEASE--Certified.Gangsta 09:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restrictions. LionheartX 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which has no impact whatsoever on the utter unacceptability of your own behaviour. --tjstrf talk 09:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong blocked LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for edit warring and baiting Certified.Gangsta. Thatcher131 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

C&S Wholesale Grocers

Hello, I'd seriously appreciate some help in this. I originally came across this article while looking at "Recent Changes" for anything suspicious. I saw an anonymous edit that removed a large chunk of text. The text was totally disputed, and I added it back with a note that totally disputed sections should not be removed without discussion on the talk page. A little while later, the my changes were reverted saying that "all discussion in the talk page agrees it should be removed". I checked the talk page and found two comments. When I checked the contributions for those comments, I found them to have only edited this article. It seemed very sockpuppet-like. I went ahead and added citations to the article and also added some more information to balance out the article ([190]). However, now I am having a problem with an anonymous editor who insists on removing the "ongoing lawsuit" tag. I don't know if that tag is only supposed to be used for articles describing lawsuits. I thought of using "current", but I thought that "ongoing lawsuit" seemed more specific; I don't know if it is correct though. I am assuming it is (because the article does document one). This anonymous user has also threatened to keep deleting the tag (as can be seen on the talk page). Am I wrong in using the tag? Is there another tag? Any help would be appreciated! The edits are coming from the following IP's:

• 68.237.142.241
• 198.185.64.201
• 128.84.153.15

Possible sockpuppets:

• Intel836
• Expat73
• Moot28

--vi5in^[talk] 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit history and talk messages on this article, it would appear that at least two of the unregistered editors are in danger of running afoul of WP:OWN. As such, I went ahead and issued {{uw-own1}} warnings and will also keep an eye on the article. I also reiterated that it is appropriate for the {{ongoing lawsuit}} tag to be used, as the company is under legal action that is detailed in the article itself. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also left a note at the talk., and will try to look in on the article for a few days, to see what happened. ThuranX 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring and actively sabotaging by deleting links that are found on Scientology related pages

The pages that so far have been sabotaged: Golden Age of Tech, Patter drill, Scientology controversy, Rundown (Scientology), Fair Game (Scientology), Study Tech, Mary Sue Hubbard, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, Scientology: A History of Man, Xenu, Disconnection. The history pages of these will fold out that which is deleted and will also tell the reason they give for removing them. For the first 4 pages listed in the above the argument has been forwarded that these discuss New World Order theories, which is an erroneous and absurd claim when one consults these pages where these external links lead to. On his talkpage user Tilman writes: "I see the words "new world order" on the page, THAT is enough to put this in a fringe corner."

On user Tilman's talkpage one can read that both user Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring to remove a variety of external links and referencing from Scientology pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tilman#Reverting_valid_links A few quotations: "These Snoeck pages should be pulled from other articles' link sections as well. wikipediatrix 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" & "I know there's a script for this somewhere. I want to run for the "Debernification Project Force" (getting rid of links to the anonymous "Bernie" page) --Tilman 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" (please consult the supplied link for various data about their position on this)

Noted is that both these persons are antagonistic towards Scientology and intend and are removing links that directs to information that may oppose to their personal ideas and convictions, or sites that provide for objective studies. It can be clearly seen on various of these altered pages that socalled critical 'personal' sites are left intact. See for example page Fair Game (Scientology), section 'Critical sites' is left intact. Section 'Other studies' is however deleted. On page Altered texts in Scientology doctrine we see that user Wikipediatrix left various external links to personal sites intact, why were these not deleted together with the others? The same we can see on page Xenu that lists a long list to critical 'personal' sites that is left fully intact. In particular the links and the referencing that lead to Bernie's site, and Michael Snoeck's site have ALL been systematically removed from these pages. Both these sites represent independent studies attempting to be fair and objective about matters. These are about the only sites around that attempt to view matters from various angles and give an abundance of referencing. Neither of these sites make in particular a case in favour or against the Church of Scientology. They represent studies. The argumentation from user Wikipediatrix that they are blogs is erroneous as they are studies (see definition of Blog). Both these sites (esp. the Snoeck site) provide for unique material and research not found or available anywhere else. Is this a personal vendetta of Wikipediatrix against in particular these 2 sites? Wikipediatrix is highly invalidative in particular to the Snoeck site.

The Wiki rule for these is Wikipedia:External links: "When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article."

Please can any administrator have a look into this rather serious matter! I also would propose an investigation into these 2 users as to their intent and approach, and to establish if these oppose the aims of Wikipedia. --Olberon 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for the administrators would you please post the external links in question here? Anynobody 11:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Both the Bernie's as well as the Snoeck's site are fairly large. The main index of these sites are respectively found here http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm & http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/INTRO.html#popup. From there you can find the various pages that have been linked to from the respective Wiki pages (all listed at top of report). --Olberon 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for an administrator, but these look like personal opinion sites that don't cite sources for the most part (and when they do it's not a verifiable source because it's an argument between unknown users on an internet forum. Anynobody 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Patsy Moore

Recently the article, Patsy Moore, suffered libel from two editors. Boofbaby (blocked indefinitely, account creation blocked). However, another contributor, 71.123.18.83, participated, also. The victim, Patsy Moore, has created an account at PatsyMoore, and has sent "cease and desist" messages to both parties. A request for oversight assistance has been sent, so the revisions may or may not currently appear to all users at the time. The reason why a report is being filed here is because 71.123.18.83 still hasn't been punished for libel. Boofbaby has, but 71.123.18.83 hasn't. This is more than just simple vandalism, this is libel, in which we were lucky that Patsy Moore's friend caught it and told her, or this could have ended less quieter. For some reason, 71.123.18.83 hasn't been blocked. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 11:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Libel #1
• Libel #2
• Libel #3

Other users and I have taken action because PatsyMoore got involved in the incident. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The anon's only contribution seems to be describing Patsy Moore's company Patchouli Grove Publishers as "self-pay for publishing book releases", which I take to mean that they are being described as vanity press. You've labeled that as libel 2. A quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything they've done, other than her book(s). Am I correct on all those points? Are you saying that they aren't a vanity press, or something else? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, she seemed upset with that user too, so I'd try to get a hold of User:PatsyMoore. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know PatsyMoore (talk · contribs) is actually Patsy Moore?--VectorPotential^Talk 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the user who caught and reverted the libel, and requested semi-protection. I don't think blocking that IP will do much good--it's a DSL IP from Verizon. There's too much risk of collateral damage, I think. I have, however, emailed Verizon to let them know what happened--their AUP forbids damaging the reputation of third parties, so I don't think it'll be too much trouble to nuke the responsible party.Blueboy96 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that seems extremely inappropriate, their actions aren't even blockable, let alone enough for their ISP to terminate service--VectorPotential^Talk 14:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's enough for Verizon to nuke the person who was using that IP at the time. Verizon's AUP forbids using its service for any action that "might be legally actionable for any reason" or, more importantly, would "damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties." I've already sent an email to Verizon's abuse department--if this isn't a nukable offense, what is?Blueboy96 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The changes marked Libel #1, 2 and 3 appear to be silly vandalism, of the kind that we try to quickly revert all the time. This is the kind of thing that gets sent to WP:AIV, though because of the apparent defamation, it might seem to justify an indefinite block of User:Boofbaby, that would remain in place until some appropriate explanation or apology is received. Since the statements inserted by Boofbaby don't look very credible on their face, and are unlikely to seem plausible to Wikipedia readers, I don't see the need to start major countermeasures in motion. EdJohnston 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good--should someone tell Boofbaby? Like I mentioned below, I think we ought to make this a community ban until and if he publicly apologizes to Ms. Moore.Blueboy96 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on User:Boofbaby

Whether User:PatsyMoore is really Patsy Moore or not is irrelevant. The fact is, some pretty egregious libel took place. This sort of behavior can't be tolerated on Wikipedia, even from a newbie. I therefore propose a community ban on Boofbaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at least until and if he publicly apologizes to Ms. Moore for his behavior. If you guys feel he should be banned even after that, I won't mind.Blueboy96 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:Steel359 indefinitely blocked User:Boofbaby on 5 May as a vandal-only account. He also semi-protected the Patsy Moore article. Since this admin seems to have the situation well in hand, I see no need for a community ban proposal. You should keep the article watch-listed to be alert for any new vandalism, which you could report to Steel359. EdJohnston 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, makes sense--someone should tell him that he'll stay blocked until he apologizes to Ms. Moore. I'd do it myself, but not sure if I have that authority.Blueboy96 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary. Boofbaby was a run-of-the-mill vandal account and it's been two weeks. – Steel 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Valley High School

Resolved

 – Try the Help Desk--VectorPotential^Talk 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking to have the Page for Indian Valley High School in Lewistown, PA re-established. Could you please help? "Bannerville 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)"

• Try the Help Desk, which is for questions about wikipedia--VectorPotential^Talk 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet--but of whom?

Resolved

 – now indefblocked as an RMS sock - Alison ☺ 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seosaimh Mac Domhnaill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Camillus McElhinney, which I nominated for speedy deletion. He requested that the speedy deletion be delayed in favor of a normal AfD discussion to give the rest of the community time to respond.

I was just about to open the debate when I noticed he was already using in-universe lingo here, despite having only been created at 10:35 am Eastern. Moreover, his user page contains a message that seems to be directed at User:Alison (it's in Gaelic) and the original version claimed that someone had accused him of being a sock. I don't know whether I'm being too overzealous here, but something about this stinks like a fish decaying in the moonlight--can someone check this out?Blueboy96 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against creating more than one account, as long as they don't try and use their previous account to vote in their AfD, I don't really see what the problem is--VectorPotential^Talk 15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair enough. It just looked a bit fishy to me.Blueboy96 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• From the other edits [191] and [192], this looks like a sockpuppet of community-banned Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), attempting to harrass CPMcE (talk · contribs). I recommend speedy deletion and indef blocking. Demiurge 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Plus Rms was editing from 216.194.0.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) right before the account was created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So maybe I wasn't too jumpy after all, huh? I may not be an admin, but after seeing that message to Alison, I say nuke him.Blueboy96 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd help by tagging that IP's talk page with {{IPsock}}.Blueboy96 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• 10:30am. Get out of bed. Indefblock yet another blatant sock of RMS ("A mhúirnín dílis" - "darling sweetie" - awwww). Get dressed. Have brekkie - Alison ☺ 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Immediately returns here on my talk page. IP blocked 48 hours - Alison ☺ 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange comment on my talkpage

Hi. If someone would check out this diff, some anon placed a comment on my talkpage. He/she thanked me for supposedly placing a comment of their talkpage, when in fact that talkpage is empty. Just a few days earlier, another anon placed a comment on my talkpage, but another user recognised it as personal attack and trolling, and removed it. Also, this new anon called me a transsexual for no apparent reason, so would that be a personal attack? If so, my talkpage is repeatedly being attacked by anons, and if so, it should be semi-protected. What do you think? Should the comment be removed? It makes no sense anyway, just like the previous comment that was also removed. I am going to check these user's contributions, talkpage links, etc, to see if they have any connection. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you really proclaimed yourself to be a transsexual, then I would say this is trolling. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I did NOT, so could you or someone else or myself please remove that comment, and possibly even semi-protect that page? Also, after searching the contribs, and WHOIS results, I would say that both anons are likely the same user (eg, both come from Los Angeles, according to the WHOIS results). I guess I will remove that comment, and should that user be warned against trolling? Please semi-protect my usertalkpage (both my userpage and my sigs page are already semi-protected), and I hardly ever recieve any helpful messages from anons anyway. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fluent

I am a recording artist name Fluent. I have been trying to add myself and label as a reference on the Fluent disambiguation page for sometime, but your bot keeps removing it. Please not I am only trying to add "Fluent, is a recording artist on <a href="http://www.VigilantPro.com>Vigilant Productions, Inc.</a href>" If 50 Cent can have a Wikipedia page, surely I can be listed under disambiguation.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.34.53 (talk • contribs) 11:06, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to some independent secondary sources about you? It looks like the bot is removing you because it is assuming the link that you insert is spam. Generally disambiguation pages only refer to other Wikipedia articles that have a similar name, for instance Fluent (musician). Also note that it is frowned upon to create an article about yourself for marketing purposes--take a look at WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC for some more information. Don't hesitate to leave me a message if you want some more information!--Xnuala (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a bot. User:Tizio is reverting. Take a look at Talk:Fluent as tizio's edit summaries say to look there for discussion on the situation. ~Crazytales 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User 129.29.227.4

User 129.29.227.4 Can someone block user 129.29.227.4? I understand that it is the IP address for the United States Military Academy, but they have had a history of vandalism.

Last edit today was a reversion of vandalism. Let us know if vandalism starts up again -- Samir 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Using anonymity to evade the consequences of breaches of wp:civ?

On May 4th and May 5th I got two notices from User talk:72.75.73.158, that they had placed speedy delete tags on two articles I had recently started. [193], [194].

I left them a note, on their talk page today. In my note I urged them to start using a wiki-id. I didn't notice that they had already offered a couple of explanations for why they chose not to use a wiki-id. I think a fair paraphrase of thei explanation would be:

"I don't use a wiki-id because I am unwilling or unable to comply with the wikipedia's policy on civility.

I took a look at User:72.75.73.158's User page. I find their note disturbing. They seem to think they can absolve themselves of responsibility for the tagging of articles for speedy deletion. In their opinion the responsibility for the deletion lay with the administrator whom completed the speedy deletion process.

Surely the person who placed the tag should feel responsible for {{db}} tags they place?

User:72.75.73.158 acknowledges making dozens of speedy deletion nominations, per day, and obfuscating their responsibility behind using an anonymous IP.

Unlike other wikis the wikipedia allows contrbutions from anonymous IP addresses. I thought it was so posible contributors could contribute, even if they lived in a totalitarian country — not so they could evade the consequences of an unwillingness or inability to comply with the wikipedia's policies.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week - David Gerard 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding block? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No ... just housekeeping. :-) —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer to the "avoiding block?" question is yes, however it appears that an admin "supporter" arranged for an un-block [195]. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. (Isn't blocking an IP kind of like herding cats? :-) —68.239.79.82 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted

• TFU Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tfustudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contacted OTRS asking what is the problem with the content of his article about his company, and what he should do to fix it. I have manfully restrained myself from reflexively hitting Delete as I normally would when I come across a blatant corporate autobiography. I have explained the problem to him; there is a claim to notability but it is )of course) completely unsourced. And as we know, "worked with" Mr Famous can mean passed him a coffee, though I guess it's probably slightly more in this case. Anyway, maybe someone a little less WP:ROUGE can look at this for me. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 18:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it (while not logged in) last night, and I'm responsible for proposing deletion and making our friend Jason so upset. His editing pattern shows a clear conflict of interest with no exceptions. I have not yet found any evidence that his company is notable independently. Placeholder account 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder going apeshit (be on the lookout)

SummerThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder), the venerable sock puppet edit warrior, has been stepping up his blitzkrieg-like rampages. In the last few days, he has attacked his favorite pages and favorite editors with the following known sock puppets:

• Worthaddlction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Surenuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crowdalert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plainnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lawsnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crazyruns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If any user is seen matching his MO, they should be reported to AIV at once or simply indef-blocked as quickly as possible without a further word. If you are watching AIV, please be alert for reports of SummerThunder socks. The puppetmaster tries to do as much damage in as short a time as possible, so time is of the essence whenever he deigns to shower his blessings upon Wikipedia. --Dynaflow 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I should add, though, that SummerThunder also has a habit of reporting his "enemies" to AIV as sock puppets of either each other or of himself, and has shown himself willing to "alter" the AIV reports of others. Block quickly, but not blindly. --Dynaflow 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy has an easy-to-identify modus operandi, shouldn't be too hard. I find this edit not to be ironic at all. Grandmasterka 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Built0CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)} The latest, active as of now. AIV hasn't yet banned. --Dynaflow 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SpyMagician

SpyMagician has harassed me for months, and now that he smells blood, he has continues again, unabated. I would appreciate other editors' taking a look at SpyMagician's edits and examining whether the way he is handling my situation is appropriate. It may be, for all I know, but, well, I'm a little too close to the situation to make judgment calls. SpyMagician's other edits might need to be looked at as well, particularly his restoration of unreferenced POV and OR to articles, including his restoration of his mainly unreferenced biography. He has tried to bully me on Wikipedia and off for a while now, and I would prefer not to see others to have to deal with the same from him. It is because of users like this that I created an alternate account, and while I have admitted my ethical wrongdoing and accepted my punishment, this editor is not satisfied and wants to make me suffer more. Currently, I simply would like to be irrelevant to discussion on Wikipedia so I won't feel like I should be available to discussion on the subject and can just go away for a while. I may just have to regardless, but I would prefer some sense of closure before I leave. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would personally support a block for haressment, even it's just for the past few days editing, just look at his contribs. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also endorse a block. SpyMagician's conduct is extremely inappropriate (see Special:Contributions/SpyMagician). Sean William 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just noted in a thread higher on the page a comment from this user that I found to be objectionable. Frankly, I would very much prefer that we not have to block, because the block would be misportrayed as "administrators banding together to shield one of their former colleagues from criticism." I would much prefer to see SpyMagician take a deep breath, accept that he's made his point, and continue editing in accordance with our standards. Here's hoping that can happen. Newyorkbrad 20:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He said earlier on today, on ChrisO's talk page, that he'd give it a rest, but less than an hour ago he was still at it. He may need some help to give it a rest. By the way, what on earth is wrong with administrators banding together and protecting one of their former colleages from this kind of personal attack? --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony here, everyone disapointed by what Chris Griswold did, but he's received his punishment for it, the only person not willing to forget this is SpyMagician, he's been warned on his talk page, yet he continues the harassment, a block would hopefully put an end to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to AGF to the maximum benefit of the doubt, given the discussion on my talk, but having seen that SpyMagician has brought this issue to yet another page (the talkpage of the checkuser case), I am running a little lower on patience. Newyorkbrad 20:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading this comment on Bishonen's talk page and this comment elsewhere, I'm finding it hard to believe that this isn't just trolling. It certainly looks like that to me. -- ChrisO 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked for 48 hours, hopefully this will stop the trolling. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User has posted a request for an unblock review. My comments are above and on his talk. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've unblocked per concerns that my block may have been punitive, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but spy's behaviour should stop immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was punitive, maybe a little premature, but as I said above hopefully the bad behavior will stop, and that's what we need. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope SpyWizard's behavior does stop immediately, but experience suggests to me that this will probably not end soon. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Schadenfraude isn't ever sexy. I've had problems with ChrisG for a long time, but I think that kicking him while down is definitely incivil and childish, and given the extent of his commentary, and his persistence, Should Spymagician be blocked for inciv violations? ThuranX 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I could swear that of the little interaction we've had over the past few months or so, it's been cordial, and I vaguely rememebr supporting you in something. I'd like to discuss this with you because any criticism I had before with the way you carried yourself here faded away as your edits, as well as your understanding and maintenance of Wikipedia, improved greatly long ago. Any disagreements I was involved in prior to that were mainly due to my work in maintaining the Comics WikiProject, and as such I was usually drawn to such conflicts after they had started by the comics notice board. Anyway, I will be e-mailing you if you have that feature activated; if not, please do e-mail me so that we can put all that behind us and work together as we have more recently. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a block, having had to bear the brunt of Spy's trolling further up the page (the comment NYB quoted was directed at me and Thebainer, I believe). Daniel Bryant 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank the admins for unblocking me. That said, if what I did was considered trolling, my apologies. I feel I would deserve a block or even a banning. But was not even given a notice in any way and only found out about this ANI after the ban was in place. I'm not too sure how I feel about this, but in the efforts of moving forward I accept responsibility for whatever ills I might have caused in the methods I used, and I apologize. But I would like to say one thing in my defense regarding the initial post of this ANI. He has tried to bully me on Wikipedia and off for a while now, and I would prefer not to see others to have to deal with the same from him. The claim that I have bullied him off if Wikipedia is a bold-faced lie. I will say that today I did contact him via MySpace once prior to the ANI, and then once after the ANI. But that is it. The image he portrays of me stalking him in the real world for months on end is simply false. It is because of users like this that I created an alternate account I don't know what to say about this, but somehow Wikipedia—and even this specific discussion—is filled with editors who do not choose to create shadow accounts to deal with others. To blame me—or anyone—for individual behavior is really sad. And that's all I will say about this. And as this ANI discussion as my witness, let this be the last thing I ever have to say about this matter. Unless the ex-admin in question does something heinously egregious, I will not comment on day-to-day transactions with regard to this user. And if we do cross paths, I will stick to the topic at hand and not expand beyond that. 'Nuff said, Excelsior! —SpyMagician 02:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I turned message notification off on Myspace, so I wasn't aware of these messages until reading this. If anyone is interested in seeing the type of messages I get from this editor off-Wikipedia, contact me and I will send you the text. I'd like to think otherwise, but I'm pretty certain this will continue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, at first you said He has tried to bully me on Wikipedia and off for a while now, and I would prefer not to see others to have to deal with the same from him. which is an outright lie. You know very well I never contacted you off of Wikipedia before today. Now you say I turned message notification off on Myspace, so I wasn't aware of these messages until reading this. So that really seals the deal. Please do me a favor and realize that I welcome you to share these messages with anyone you see fit. But please do not use these messages as evidence of me stalking you for months. You know that's a lie and exaggeration yet you stand by it despite your own words contradicting yourself. This issue will end when you too Chris end it. And at least I have been honest about my communicatons; so much so you have chosen to use my words against you. Your facts speak otherwise. Is there a way this ANI can be locked so the issue can truly be put to rest? —SpyMagician 07:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Moju123 posting personal details and accusations of paedophilia

Resolved

 – User Indefinately Blocked

Take a look at this diff. Going back though his edits, it seems that he's posted the full name and address of this person several times now without any action being taken. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have blocked this user indefinitely as a vandalism-only account and for personal attacks. Please see WP:OVERSIGHT for information on how to get the edit you described removed from the history. Newyorkbrad 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks a lot. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lilkunta, indef or long term block requested for repeated violations

Lilkunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm requesting that an admin indefinitely block this user for repeated WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP, WP:USER violations, as well as failure to discontinuing to use HTML mark up on talk pages (and even a request to discontinue it as well. This user's idea of dealing with such warnings is to claim that the user is vandalizing their page, stalking her, and the blanking the warnings. She has been blocked twice now for such actions, and has continued her incivility and has refused to remove her comment about the Virginia Tech massacre, and continues to use inappropriate HTML font tags. Here are some examples of warnings that she has received: [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206]

She has proven that she will not follow policies, and when warned, she becomes incivil and makes wild accusations. Please consider either an indefinite or a long term block for the repeated violations. Thank you. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pizza Big Liar Vandal

Resolved

 – User was blocked indefinately

[207] created an account for the specific purpose of vandalizing my user page. "Pizza Big Liar" = Pete's a Big Liar... LOL! Could somebody please delete this user's account or take appropriate action. This is obviously a sock of some other user. Thanks! Pete K 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pete K 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

68.60.137.139

Resolved

 – User blocked. Sean William 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This user refuses to stop removing useful content on SpongeBob SquarePants (character). Evidence can be found on their contributions. This is really getting annoying, I've warnexd the user several time, but the user still refuses to cooporate. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, they have most likely already violated WP:3RR. Please do something about it. - Super48 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be better for WP:AIV methinks. --24.136.230.38 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the user. An administrator will probably take care of it quickly, now. --24.136.230.38 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Super48 is blocked as a sock of 98E. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the AIV report. --24.136.230.38 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard just fucked up badly

A username just created an edit sufficiently odious to be oversighted. I checkusered it and blanched. [deleted] appears to be the user's main account, and he's been creating a sockpuppet every few hours for quite a while. If he were to claim these were entirely different people I would note the remarkable commonality of interests. I'll post a list when I've finished blocking the socks. I've blocked J Greb for 48 hours in the meantime, to give users time to investigate and clean up the mess - David Gerard 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an idiot. I just blocked every username on a given proxy. Excuse me while I go back and unblock most of a small town - David Gerard 22:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard. Everyone makes mistakes. bibliomaniac15 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pavement moved against consensus by Parable1991

The page Pavement (material) was moved to Road surface by Parable1991 at 14:03, 5 May 2007. This appears to be a unilateral move without prior discussion. I believe it was done against established consensus, and by someone who has a history of engaging in such acts (see past warning and user edit history). I would like to request that the page be moved back. As the user has disregard the direct warning of an admin, and has also been doing things like adding dubious redirects (e.g., [208], [209]), I think it may also be time for a short block for disruptive behavior, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should be moved back, since it goes against WP:MOS. Pages should not be moved just to put the British Spelling first. Remember that other people use this encyclopedia, too. --24.136.230.38 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone could have moved the page back, thankfully, because he didn't edit the redirect, thus not requiring a delete-and-move. I've done so. FCYTravis 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article HD DVD Code

Resolved

I believe that this is illegal material and should get deleted immediately. Darkspots 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No. See the massive amount of discussion at WP:AN and elsewhere. Grandmasterka 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't talking about deleting the article AACS encryption key controversy ; he was talking about the redirect itself, HD DVD Code, which I deleted and Asterion recreated as such. See the deleted history. Picaroon (Talk) 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. In any case, it seems to have been resolved. Grandmasterka 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User Kirbytime: trolling behavior

Crux

I archived the above because it was degenerating into mudslinging from all sides. I have protected Kirbytime's userpage because he continually reinserted obvious trolling. The protection will be removed when am happy that this has been resolved. All other disputes that have been raised in the above should be taken through the usual WP:DR channels. Have a nice day. Viridae^Talk 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I don't understand who I'm trolling on my user page with an invisible comment, but if someone's feelings were hurt by it, I apologize, as I had absolutely no intention of such a thing. --Kirby♥time 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ gone rogue

Admin AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just went rouge, blocking Ryulong and deleting the main page. A couple people and I are in the stewards channel working to get him desysopped. Sean William 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Eagle 101's deletion of the main page was an accident and in good faith. Sean William 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean, that's rogue not rouge. There's nothing wrong with Rouge admins. Rogue admins on the other hand... WjBscribe 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He's already been desysopped I think. I do believe I saw User:Drini over at meta change group membership for User:AndyZ from sysop to (none). --24.44.158.33 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, to be precise he was desysopped at 1:37 UTC. That's about 10 minutes ago and three minutes before you posted here. --24.44.158.33 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For explanation, his first edit summary was, "My password is password!". Tell me it's not true.. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was. It seems the account was compromised. Sean William 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, I thought that the devs indefinitely blocked every user account with weak passwords. (Or maybe that was just where the password=username.) --Iamunknown 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Since another admin logged in, changed the password and unregistered the mail address, I am guessing it was true. Now I wonder how long it took this vandal to guess the password. A dictionary attack maybe, although MediaWiki should have a protection against such attempts. -- ReyBrujo 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "fortunately" he blocked an admin and deleted the home page, things could have been much, much worse. -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's Robdurbar (talk · contribs), who happened to go on a wikibreak at the same time as Andy, and went on a similar rampage last month. -- tariqabjotu 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Wikipedia:List of administrators, added to Wikipedia:Former administrators. Picaroon (Talk) 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh - Sorry about the confusion, I intended to delete and restore the page back to the original state, problem is my broswer froze. I did the action in thinking that there was edit history missing, and that needed to be restored, frankly it went so fast that I did not think that a simple "go to history, restore revisions" would work. Again sorry for the mistake on my part. My account is not comprimsed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Full credit for keeping a look out and doing your best to act in our interests. Mistakes are easily made. The important thing is that (again) the damage from a sysop account used to attack the Wiki was minimal. WjBscribe 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2 questions, is a checkuser in order to check if the account was compromised, secondally, is anyone in contact with AndyZ to see what happened? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mark Ryan has already e-mailed Andy and that Dmcdevit is currently working on the CU. Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the clarification. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that is correct. Things are moving a mile a minute at #wikipedia-en-admins. Sean William 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still have no idea how I'd go about getting access to that channel - I'm pretty much a luddite as far as IRC is concerned :-). WjBscribe 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I can determine from the CheckUser evidence. AndyZ (talk · contribs) had two logged actions, one on each of two IPs. The first, deletion of the main page at 01:32, May 7, 2007, was using the Tor proxy 88.198.175.78. At 01:33, BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs), on IP 24.185.34.152 (which appears not to be an open proxy; it's the only IP he has used for hundreds of edits over the last month) makes an edit creating the main page [221] (the diff is misleading, since the history was restored after it). One minute later, 01:34, AndyZ's second action, the block of Ryulong, was also on the same IP as BuickCenturyDriver: 24.185.34.152. The conclusion is that AndyZ's two admin actions were done by the same person as BuickCenturyDriver. What I can't determine is whether BuickCenturyDriver hijacked the AndyZ account, or whether both are AndyZ, since all of AndyZ's older accounts are too old. We should compare their editing and see if there are any clues as to whether they are the same or different. There does not seem to be any connection to Wonderfool/Robdurbar here. Dmcdevit·t 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disbelieve that BuickCenturyDriver is behind this. He is a very good editor in standing, who would probably be the last person on my mind to delete the main page and block an admin. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is unexpected. Then again, who would have thought that Robdurbar (talk · contribs) would have done those things... WjBscribe 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the only thing we can look for is any behavior simularities. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, maybe his account was comprimised? Is thereany way of working this out from checkuser? Was it his usual IP? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BuickCenturyDriver's IP is not compromised. It is the only IP he has been on for months. Someone needs to look at the two accounts. Do they have similar edit histories and interests? Similar quirks? And importantly, has AndyZ ever revealed where he lives before, because we don't have any of the IP evidence from before his wikibreak, so I can't tell if his account was compromised, or if he is BuickCenturyDriver. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar behavior? How about the fact that Buick just happened to be the first person to put something on the Main Page after Andy deleted it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why Andy would not have just created the page on his own account. -- tariqabjotu 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, either Buick's account was compromised, or it was him all along, Andy and Buick on the same IP, sorry, but that too much of a coincidence. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If Buick was using that same IP for months, then yeah, that's hard to refute. My question is, what IPs was AndyZ editing from previously? If we could find those, maybe we could figure out if the account was compromised or not. Either way though, Buick is looking pretty guilty. Grandmasterka 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was just the main page, I could AGF. But not with the other things that have happened. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC) and I changed the heading

Buick appears to be currently in charge of his account (per his unblock request), and checkuser says he is editing from his usual IP, which appears to have been static for months. The only credible explanations are either Buick hijacked AndyZ's account, or is AndyZ. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may have simply been a mistake. People screw up, using open proxies but then connecting sock accounts by accidentally editing with the same proxy for multiple accounts, all the time. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need is, buick and andys normal IP whois reports - then it might be obvious. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Andy's from New Jersey. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Buicks from New york, are they near each other?? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Optimum Online (which is what the IPs are from) is a large north-eastern ISP with a large range of dynamic IPs. The IPs will probably geolocate to random locations, anyway. Sean William 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But Buicks appeared static didn't it? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple contrib checking on the IP shows that Buick was the only one to have any noticable edits from that IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we publish CheckUser evidence?? RxS 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's frequently necessary for investigations and blocking IPs. All IPs are logged and usually out the IPs of the intended vandal. The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Frequently, when's the last time Checkuser evidence was made public?? Investigations within checkusers certainly, but at ANI? And wasn't the incident over when the info was added here, how is that a suicide pact? RxS 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree here with RxS. There was no need to publish the static ip. However, everyone makes mistakes. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. All IP blocks are logged publicly, and that is unavoidable. The information is important for the investigation. Think of most banned users who have used sockpuppets: their IPs are outed, and rightly so, because this is the only way admins can deal with them. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

God how I hate the drama that comes with any use of Checkuser on any established contributor. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just the drama of John254. —Centrx→talk • 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He tipped his own IP address right here so what is the problem? IrishGuy ^talk 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

if it makes anyone feel better, it seems to be a dynamic IP, as the user came on IRC with a different IP address. hombre de haha 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Interesting. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the privacy policy does explicitly say that the information may be released "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers". In addition, the IP is clearly that of a large ISP and is not personally identifiable "where they're one of millions of users" and is "unlikely to be personally identifiable". —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done a separate CheckUser which confirms, without any reasonable doubt, that BuickCenturyDriver edited using AndyZ's account. I don't know if they have always been the same editor, but they certainly are now. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather belated and unnecessary, but editing times indicate that sockpuppetry was possible. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I was asked to do a second CheckUser, and I did so. What do you mean by "sockpuppetry was possible"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean I'm inherently distrustful of anything that I can't see the raw evidence for, so I make sure that the results of the Checkuser were possible. The checkuser still definitely confirms it. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on

Wait a second... I got blocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel honoured. He chose you above all others... :-). WjBscribe 03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep. Right after the main page was deleted. Sean William 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider

Right, I've just looked at Buicks contrib list -[222], he makes an edit after nearly a day off, 20 minutes before andy deleted the main page [223], 1 minute after the main page was deleted (and after a 20 minutre break), buick creates the main page stating where is the main page, another minute ater, Ryulong is blocked under AndyZ's name but on Buicks IP. Buick has also stated on his talk [224] that he doesn't have a weak password. I'm struggling to assume good faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to assume good faith too, but unless there is a bug in the log system, or he is sharing the ip with someone else, recreating the page and blocking with the same IP passes the duck test. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right Reybrujo, the fact that he made the first edit after it was deleted is just something else to consider, the fact that the block occurred with his IP address is the hard evidence. I am thinking that is difficult to occur, unless there is a known glitch that causes some kind of false logging of actions and associated IP addresses. hombre de haha 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, maybe a year or so ago, there was a weird quirk with Wikipedia's proxy network that allowed spoofed addresses to appear in the logs, but the real address was still available in the proxy logs. And, IIRC, the devs plugged the hole back then. It might be a good idea to ask them to check for a regression, just to rule out the possibility that Buick's Pc wasn't actually involved. --71.162.93.43 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

MARMOT got banned for spoofing addresses to impersonate other editors. I'm sure it's been fixed since then. — MichaelLinnear 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if he didn't delete the main page with it, it seems possible that Buick saw the deletion summary ("my password is password"), and took advantage of it. Seems crazy unlikely that he didn't do the block, unless there's some technical glitch. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems unlikely; we'd have two rogue editors, one coming back only to delete the main page, and the other only to block. The evidence is overwhelming, but I'm just curious: Did Buick ever have any disputes with Ryulong? Grandmasterka 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember hte time when an admin accidentally deleted the Main Page. It was restored, but without protection, and an anonymous user managed to hit twice before protection was reinstated. It isn't unheard of, though CU evidence > likely coincidence. hbdragon88 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm struggling to assume good faith. " Me too. Well, user got into irc a couple of minutes after the incident, playing the "I'm not technically savvy, I onlyu know how to use a browser" attitude... and eventually he ended up assuring us he had just switched IPs using the ipconfig DOS command (I wonder how much people know it exists let alone use it properly) to get out of the "bad IP". -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can switch IPs? Viridae^Talk 04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DHCP Release, then Renew. That is, drop the DHCP lease, and then ask the ISP for a new one. With most ISPs, excluding the few with static IPs, this will do it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Woudln't "ipconfig /renew" be?. Ues Crustacean, but he specifically said he used ipconfig. Moreover, when someone suggested the possibility of his computer being rooted, the technically unsavvy user said

<BuickCenturyDriv>	It's not rootes
Used a proxy-checker I have no malware Please, I promise no bad will come from me

So... talking about ipconfig, proxies, etc, doesn't really makes me think of an unsavvy user, rather a cracker wannabe playing the dumb card. By the way, did we mention that he knows how to use TOR? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Drini summarizes it very well. A pity we lose an apparent good contributor, though, for a one-time mistake (I will assume good faith and think some cracker through TOR breaks into AndyZ's account and deletes the main page (32'), BCD discovers the fact and creates a temporary main page (33'), reads the edit summary and notices the password of AndyZ account, logs into it and blocks Ryulong (34')). -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that the two users were sharing an IP address at the time. Both pieces of evidence are circumstantial on their own, but when put together... --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that AndyZ no longer has admin powers, isn't an indefblock a bit harsh? hbdragon88 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounts that have been compromised are always indefinitely blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page protection once deleted

When the Main Page was deleted today it was recreated and edited by 7 IPs and 3 registered users in the two minutes before it was protected. Am I correct in assuming that adding the Main Page to the protected titles list may prevent this from happening the next time the page gets deleted? If so, are there other pages we want to protect from recreation by non-admins should they get deleted? NoSeptember 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but you'd need to get rid of the big "DELETE" button.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:PT can only protect non-existent pages. If the page exists, it'll be equivalant to full-protect, which doesn't work if the page is deleted via "the big red shiny button", as Ryulong stated. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was tried by several admins after the last 'problem' and the main page can't be protected with cascading protection from WP:PT. -- Nick ^t 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can still transclude the page and protect it, which is how I believe the protected titles pages works. I'll play around with the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding protection? Ryulong... If that works, then anyone can salt articles... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a "bug" that came about with cascading protection. If you transclude a non-existant title onto a page that has cascading protection, that page is protected from creation. That is how the protected titles pages work, however one needs to actualy edit a page that has had cascading protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I see how it works now... So every page that is linked to a cascading-protected enabled page has full protection? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Only pages that are transcluded like templates. If {{cookie}} was on the page, Template:Cookie would be protected from creation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately designed the {{protected title}} template to only protect nonexistent pages, but this is an artificial limitation. To protect the main page against re-creation/editing by a non-sysop, we need only transclude it by placing the code {{:Main Page}} on a page with cascading protection enabled. Note, however, that anyone with malicious intent and access to a sysop account could simply remove the transclusion or delete that page when deleting the main page itself. And of course, such an individual could just as easily...well, I'll refrain from finishing that sentence (for fear of invoking WP:BEANS), but let's just say that there are worse things that this would do nothing to prevent. —David Levy 12:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins with obvious passwords

If there are any remaining admins stupid enough to have obvious passwords, perhaps we should write a script to locate them and send a list to meta for them to be summarily desysopped on security grounds. This isn't funny. --Tony Sidaway 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate precaution, perhaps, but I'm not sure how much it'd accomplish. I'm not convinced these accounts sit around for ages with obvious passwords and then do stupid things. I think it's likely that the passwords are being changed shortly before the rogue activities. --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your suggestion could be done, Tony. If we can program a script to find obvious passwords, a hacker would have done it before us and compromised the security already.... If we could do it, so can they. Unless, we actually base the script in Mediawiki software, which could be potentially hazardous if something goes wrong... --Kzrulzuall 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because we know that this can be done that we should ensure that we do it first. The Mediawiki software should stop people using stupid password, that goes without saying. --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly a past review did reveal several admin account with blank passwords whilst they were still allowed. --pgk 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the Wikipedia Signpost story on disabling of blank passwords. Graham87 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot being bad

User:AccReqBot keeps trying to do this. Could we block it until someone sorts it out? -Amarkov moo! 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked it indefinitely, pending the resolution of the issue. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot wars are always funny. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the same way cancer is. HalfShadow 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Bot wars are funny in many ways that cancer isn't. Unless you're a misanthropist. --Cyde Weys 03:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I suppose it depends on who it is who has the cancer. I concur. HalfShadow 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive issues at WP:NOR talk page

Centering over this non-consensus change [225] to the policy. There's a lot of bitching back and forth on the talk page, but they're arguing there is a "consensus" to modify a 5-pillars policy, with less than a handful of people discussing. It's getting entirely incivil, and it'd be nice to get some outside attention.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, part of the proposed change: "4. If doubt exists over whether something is original research, consider the overall necessity to the article. If there is a consensus that article suffers significantly without it, put it in (see WP:IAR.)" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over unsourced images

At Image:DerSturmer stand.jpg and Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg. Sent to WP:PUI as a compromise, please keep it there.

It helps to remember two things:

• Stuff from That Era is important but unfortunately still under copyright
• When uploading historical photographs a website isn't a source. A link to the archive or institution that has the negatives is.

Dr Zak 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff from That Era is most often not under copyright. Take the Octopus image: the latest date it could have been published is 1948. It doesn't appear to have a copyright notice on it, so it probably was not copyrighted. But if we nevertheless assume that it was, it would have been for 28 years. That would take us to 1976. For there to be a copyright on the cartoon today, there would have had to have been a renewal in 1976. Does anyone seriously believe that Seppla renewed his (postulated) copyright in 1976??? - Nunh-huh 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a centralized database where it can be determined if a copyright from that era was renewed, and, if so, is that database available online, or would a check have to be done in person? Crotalus horridus 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused? I thought that things were copyright by default and no notice is necessary. In Europe anyway. You don't have to register something as copyrighted, it just is. Also, where is the 28 years coming from for copyright length?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In Europe the copyright term is the standard 70 years after the death of the author. (By the way, the tag went away again, could someone keep an eye on it) Dr Zak 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If we don't know the originator of a picture and cannot determine its copyright status, then unless there is an overpowering justification for its use we should delete it. --Tony Sidaway 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what the copyright status is, there is no reason why images should be exempt from the verifiability policy. About the only picture that really really everyone knows is the Mona Lisa; everything else needs an attribution line. Nothing but good form. Dr Zak 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

An individual from IP address 67.72.98.82 has been vandalizing pages since his/her last block.

I don't see anything only one recent edit, you can feel free to warn them with warning templates, such as {{test1}} etc. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Duck test used at checkusers

I think, this is one of the worst things, that can be used for proving sockpuppetry. Why? If two ppl are saying the same, then they can be banned as sockpuppets. This bans opinions, not disruptive editors !!! Sockpuppet is what a checkuser proved, that it has the same IP as an other registered user. --193.224.247.34 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if the checkusers were all idiots, maybe it would do that. But they aren't. When they say "duck test" they mean "it's the same pattern as his last 600 sockpuppets, just block him and don't waste our time with formalities". --tjstrf talk 06:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is easier for Wikipedia that we do not differentiate between users who are in fact the same person or have been acting like another person. This is the definition of "meatpuppet"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If a guy has a moustache, like Stalin, same height as Stalin, and even he's Russian, then Stalin is the one, who's editing? --193.224.247.34 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And if a vandal is smart enough to use only public IP addresses, then the only way to decide that some other user is his sock-puppet is using the duck test. Od Mishehu 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Duck test has a logical fallacy in it, called ignoratio elenchi. And it is a serious problem. --193.224.247.34 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the checkusers are not idiots. And if you are acting exactly like a guy who is banned for sockpuppetry, then you deserve to be summarily blocked anyway. --tjstrf talk 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone's Russian, has a moustache, was born in the 1870s, and wants to give the proletariat power, then he's Stalin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone's Russian, they can't be Stalin Zocky | picture popups 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I've blocked the IP utilizing the duck test that if he's complaining about being subject to the duck test through checkuser, he must be someone blocked as the result of a checkuser.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Do people seriously not think we'll be suspicious when they make what is supposedly their first real edit to AN/I? They might as well just start their posts "Hello, I am a blocked user and would like to complain about you all..." Now if he were posting at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, then maybe I'd be more inclined to believe his story about his "friend". --tjstrf talk 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Oh the irony" you just proved him right, the above ip address has been blocked for the crime of editing here. PS i'm complaining about the duck test therefore i MUST be a banned user? If not what EVIDENCE do you have for blocking this annon.Hypnosadist 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody was proved right! We should semi-protect or say "New users or anons complaining about processes used to prevent sock puppetry or vandalism will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 1 week!" in big red letters on the top of page. :P Funpika 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Five users vandalising eachother

The following accounts appear to be meant for the sole purpose of vandalizing eachother:

• The Last Saxon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quintinathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joefish253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chad Sharman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hamish007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can tell from contribs, they've primairly made edits to each other's pages. Either it's a single person doing self-masochism or a group of children playing "Wikipedia Forum". At the very least, I'd recommend protecting their main user pages to cut down on their activity, but feel free to take other action. --Sigma 7 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned user NisarKand

Resolved

User blocked and where possible, contributions were reverted back to the last version prior to RavinBill editing.-- Nick ^t 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned User:NisarKand is back as RavinBill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as confirmed by user-check. [226] Would an admin please block the sock-puppet and revert his contributions? --Mardavich 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep² (talk · contribs) - major WP:DISRUPT, trolling, and personal attacks

I'm starting to get tired of Eep² (talk · contribs). This user has a history of personal attacks including referring to admins and other users as "wiktators" ([227], [228], [229], [230], [231]), as well as trolling deletion discussions such as the Bob Dobbs DRV and the MFD on his user page ([232], [233]). The user has also made some clear WP:DISRUPT moves, such as creating Wiktator (which I deleted per G10), User:Eep²/eep (now deleted) and User:Eep²/Cathy O'Brien shortly after their respective XFDs opened (despite the fact that the latter will likely be kept); as well as Template:Userbox-wiktators-suck, which I deleted as G10 and T1 although a substed version is on his user page.

I left the user warnings for incivility and trolling, and a final warning after I deleted the userbox. He proceeded to respond with more incivility. I'm posting this here because I've been involved in trying to deal with this user and shouldn't block him myself, but it's a good case for a long-term or indefinite block, in my opinion. --Coredesat 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Can't disagree; I remember him from the deletion debate of Eep a while back, he was pretty tiresome back then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eep (7th nomination) Guy (Help!) 08:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• I also noticed a bit of recent edit warring where they were trying to slap "voting icons" all over deletion discussions, like this one, and this one. It's tough to believe they're not being intentionally disruptive at this point. WarpstarRider 10:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep underway. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note here to say that the WP:DISRUPT shortcut used here is very confusing. I'd expect it to point to our Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, not the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline. Disruption of Wikipedia is always a bad problem. Doing so to make a point is seductive, and the guideline simply emphasizes that such disruption isn't excused by the wish to make a point.

But this serves to underline the importance of using English as much as possible when writing on Wikipedia. If we want people to understand what we're saying (and if we don't, we shouldn't be editing) then we should try to communicate as clearly as possible. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake secure server?

I have been asked to sign in to Wikipedia via a secure server but I then get a message warning me that the secure server may be a fake. Can you explain please? 86.21.225.104 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikimedia's https servers use a certificate whose root authority is not trusted by default in IE. You can trust the root (cacert.org) and the issue will probably go away. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Verdict

Resolved

 – Blocked by Riana. – Riana_ऋ 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned user User:Verdict has recently been using sockpuppets to ask for the Brock Lesnar article to be unprotected. [234][235][236] Just hours after I placed an editprotected request on the article's talk page, the guy made a new account I ll Nino0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and started editing the temporary page. I have no doubts that the user is Verdict, especially after making his own version on his user talk page (with images from his Commons socks, which I have sorted out now over there). Could somebody please sort this out? Thanks in advance. -- Oakster  Talk   10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. – Riana_ऋ 10:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. -- Oakster  Talk   11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by Phaedriel. – Riana_ऋ 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

LadyHawHaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as can be seen by the recent edits going over articles that I've reverted to due previous sockpuppets. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's not sure, the account was already tagged as a sockpuppet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove improper DYK entry

Hi. Would an admin please remove the current DYK entry on "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics". That is not appropriate for DYK as the rules for DYK specifically state that it is supposed to be NPOV, not topic-centric, and of wide interest. I am disputing the neutrality of the relevant section of the article. The author of the book as a disgruntled ex-partner of Hubbard and his views on Dianetics cannot be taken to be neutral. Thank you. --Justanother 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)