Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Post a new incident

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

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · block log) I'd appreciate input from other admins about this user. S/he's been here for just over two weeks, seems to make very few useful edits, and spends most of her time causing problems and insulting people. She has 500 article edits (most of which I guess are reverts), but 1,633 on talk, project, and template pages. [1] I get e-mails every couple of days from editors she's offended wondering how long they have to put up with it. She's been warned many times and blocked 10 times, but nothing makes any difference. I asked her to stop again today, [2] but her response was to change the header of my post, [3] delete my second post, [4] then alter my first one. [5]

As this is an encyclopedia, I'm wondering what the benefit to Wikipedia is of her presence, and I'd like to know whether anyone agrees that the account should be blocked. Or if I'm wrong and she is in fact contributing constructively in some non-obvious way, I'd appreciate hearing about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this user is limited, but I do have some, and it hasn't been positive. She was extraordinarly rude and disruptive at Zatanna over a fairly minor issue. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I also blocked her there for violating 3RR. While blocked for 3RR several anons began to show up to continue reverting. The article remains protected, in part because she (and other users) cannot agree on this continuing problem. You may also be interested to inspect this diff [6], the results of a sock check suggesting that Miss Selina Kyle may be User:Chaosfeary. (I note that she left a message on Chaosfeary's userpage as well [7]). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the last block of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, by Kelly Martin, may have been a bit of a stretch. See User talk:Kelly_Martin#Chat transcript for why the block was done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - (s)he should send karmafist a thank-you letter for cleaning up after her/him. Anyway, I do agree that if it continues kyle should be blocked - but lets take it in increments please...Start with a day, then a week, etc.. Simply outright banning looks bad - and that's the last thing that is needed at the moment. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this user quite closely. She is an unrepentent edit warrior on multiple pages. She has an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia's politics for being here just two weeks. She's been attacking and disparaging multiple users. Blocks of ever-increasing length is a good strategy, until/unless someone can confirm whether she's a reincarnated banned user. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon comparison, I am absolutely convinced that this user is a reincarnation of User:Chaosfeary. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 3 January 2006

Hmm, you have a point there. Started contributing just after Chaosfeary stopped, too. User:Chaosfeary wasn't permanently banned, I thought? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced they are one-in-the same based on some specific editing quirks of both users. Chaosfeary was getting blocked progressively more often and longer. In fact, SlimVirgin mentioned a permanent block, right before Chaosfeary's last edit on Dec. 9th. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of her other contributions... but see this revision of {{User antimonarchist}}. There were at least two others like this that I saw. Given the timing of her block, I also strongly suspect it was her behind User:N000 (see its deleted revisions, if you don't mind waiting a long time for it to render), User:Saveus, and the other two IPs I blocked on the 1st in relation to this whole mess. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% convinced she is a reincarnation of SOME long-time user, banned or not - nobody truly new leaps into Wikipedia and instantly starts MULTIPLE wars on known contentious subjects and knows how Wikipedia works like that. I haven't seen any credible theory on who she might be a reincarnation of, however. The sockpuppetry allegation should be checked out, that's for sure. I would support blocks for excessively warring behaviour; we are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to argue as a goal in itself. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but just a brief note to confirm that MSK, in my experience, has contributed only hatred and disruption. Zora 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I met MSK when she was replacing pics of Jimbo with those of a video-game megamaniacal warlord and I was doing vandalism patrol. After a few 'pleasant' comments on my appearance in the photo on my userpage I made a joke, she felt bad, and we have since gotten on fine. She is a handful to be sure, but does make some constructive contributions to the article space from time to time. My favorite editor? No. (that'd be me of course)... but not beyond hope or redemption. Guide upwards... not crush downwards. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Mr Data (talk · contribs), a new account that turned up to revert to MSK's version at Aisha just after she was blocked for 3RR, and another one on the same day, forget the name, both of which she claimed were friends. CBD, can you direct me to any constructive contributions she has made? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A user with the name "Mr Data" screams "I'm randomly looking around my computer desk for a new name to use". Mr Data is a company that makes cheap recordable optical media. --Kiand 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[8], [9], [10], Macro virus, Macro_virus_(biology)

Likewise to CBD here. I think she's her own worst enemy, and far too vitriolic when facing those who disagree with her, but not a bad faith editor. I've let me know that she's just making it worse for herself, I will only intervene again if she's blocked by someone she's having a dispute with or she needs a friend. These are trying times for all Wikipedians. karmafist 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy on wheels seems to hate me, surely I can't be that bad? more than 10 impersonators, wow.. -_-

1. 18:03, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Ky1e (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
2. 18:01, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress-Selina-Kyle (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
3. 18:00, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Discuss my sockpuppets (mistress selina (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
4. 17:59, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle creating a sockpupp (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
5. 17:54, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle - Wikipedia prostit (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
6. 17:53, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle = ME = THE WIKIPEDI (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
7. 17:51, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle personally attacks (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
8. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (abusive sock)
9. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
10. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
11. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's Sockpuppet for va (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
12. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (sock for personal attacks)
13. 17:20, 30 December 2005, FireFox blocked Aspergersgeek9 (infinite) (contribs) (WoW)

um anyway joking aside I'm not a vandal or whatever and I'm definitely no-one's sockpuppet: And those other people (Mr Data, CSB and N00000) are NOT me: I bet SlimVirgin never even checked first - *They were* internet friends though, but in getting people to help me I was just doing the same as what Yuber was doing at the time: going round to other editors and getting them to revert for him:

(example, Farhansher, who immediately afterwards went on every Islam-related article and reverted back to Yuber's POV version) - I was just trying to help stop the rampant POV-pushing going on

One example

• Labelling the Pro-Islam source "evidence" while the other is a "claim" is wrong: they're both claims as I tried to point out, I talked to Svest (talk · contribs) and he was ok with it after I explained in more detail on his talk page and pointed Yuber towards that but he wasn't interested and carried on revert-warring
• And it's true that there's no way someone could end puberty at 9. I mean come on, that's a relevant observation: It's a sick joke to say someone at 9 is post-pubescent.

See Lina Medina and think again. alteripse 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The labelling of one view/opinion as "traditionalism" is wrong, it's just another side of the story: The fact is there's no proof on either side and that's something that's accepted, which is why there's two sections (proof for, proof against etc) in the article already -_-

Some of the edits by Yuber are just blatant censorship and SlimVirgin supports him all the way: Anyone accused of being a "sockpuppet" against him is banned immediately, while anonymous IPs with no contributions tend to appear out of nowhere and revert for him and no action is taken at all

What you say is demonstrably false. I submitted evidence in a fairly recent arbcom case against Yuber, and have taken recent admin action against him. But I will support him when he's being unfairly attacked and possibly stalked, as seems to be the case here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She really seems to have something against me, probably because I tend to oppose her blatant nepotism and cliqueism (as I have said before). Recently she decided she'd paste on my talk page a link to Irishpunktom (one of her editing friends) insulting me on another article's (Islamofascism (term)) talk page and then complains when I change it, that's what's triggered this off she seems to REALLY want the last word.

Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s not neutral in this at all, he'd love to get me banned not because he's "convinced" I'm a sockpuppet but because I opposed some of his editing on articles like Eminem: He's said before he'd like to get me banned, he's pretty vindictive. After daring to change "his" infobox celebrity (to try and make the image work better, it was resizing ALL images even small ones to be a certain size so messing things up and making them look distorted) he stalked me onto Eminem and reverted me several times and reported me for 3RR on that and then later on Latex, an article he's never even edited —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2006

I've never edited Latex, but I did notice it in your contribs while checking other things. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and deal with this in a way which doesn't go into personal attacks. She's still trying to 'find her feet' here, as the metaphor goes. --Sunfazer 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, she's a new user and she does make valuable and valid contributions, so perhaps we should take it easy on her. If she violates WP:NPA, she should be warned with the {{npa}}...{{npa4}} templates and blocked if necessary. But no permanent blocks. - ulayiti (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to start implementing blocks of increasing length for disruption and personal attacks. Karmafist, you said or implied MSK had made some useful edits. Does anyone have any diffs? I'd like to give MSK the benefit of any doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to start pasting my contributions onto the administrator's noticeboard because you think I "may not have made enough useful edits" ..That doesn't belong here, and there's definitely no rules about "not making enough edits" - it looks more than anything that you're clutching at straws trying to imply I'm a ""bad editor" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin) I'd just like to point out that some people may have contributed anonymously long before bothering to get an account and log in; their real list of contributions may be more than what is on their user constributions page. Also, some users do not bother to log in unless commenting to a talk page. This may also explain the familiarity of a "new user" with WP. - Synapse 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Karmafist seems to be MSK's main supporter, I've left him a note asking that we keep in touch regarding how best to proceed. [11] Hopefully, that way we'll avoid wheel wars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is obviously a personal one with me and the fact I don't like how some of your friends act, this shouldn't even be here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal issues whatsoever with you, and hope you're able to turn into a constructive editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I already am. Your definition of "constructive" seems to mean nothing more than "let my friends walk all over you and revert war all they want" though: This is what's been going on recently. If anyone's "stalking" anyone it's Yuber and Farnhansher doing it to me. For example how Yuber tells him to go around reverting every edit I make all the time on articles he's interested in back to his own personal POV which often include unsourced personal opinions, original research and clear bias: For example like in Aisha how he was venhement in labelling the one saying about that Aisha may have been older as "evidence" and the others as "claims" and reverting when I tried to change this to say both as claims (NPOV): He does this kind of stuff all the time and when he needs help in revert wars he goes to you and you help him: You block my friends claiming they're sockpuppets with no evidence, yet his group of reverting anonymous IPs (with just as much evidence, often with no other contributions than reverting) that appear occasionally when needed are ignored out of hand --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you'd try to defend your editing and revert warring at Aisha with your unsourced, original research e.g. that "post-pubescence at nine ... is unheard of in medical terms ..." [12] and while I've no doubt you have a point (though I think you may be wrong), you need a source for the edit, because your name is not Professor of Gynaecology Mistress Selina Kyle, and the editors who reverted you on the grounds of WP:NOR were right to do so. Your sole purpose in making the edit was to underline that Muhammad, believed to be a prophet by Muslims, was a nasty old pedophile, which shows a lack of knowledge about male-female, male-male, and possibly female-female, sexual relations during that period. If you want to be a Wikipedian, you have to edit and interact within our policies and do at least a modicum of research. If you're not prepared to do this, you ought to leave, though I hope you'll choose the former course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I was trying to get rid of the POV and disregarding out of hand any evidence that points towards the view that shows otherwise. You don't seem to know the meaning of "assume good faith" that you supposedly hold "highest of all" (quote from your user page) and seem to want to stifle any criticism of anything to do with religion, especially Islam

And offtopic: I do know that it was considered "acceptable" back then for such things but that's nothing to do with it at all: just because middle-aged men having sex with nine year old girls was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it isn't still sick: We know better than to allow people to abuse children now, even if you get certain weirdos occasionally wanting to return to the "good old days" of being allowed to marry and have sex with kindergarten kids. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read through this all, Selina, the point does not seem to be as much about what opinions you have, but rather about the way you seem to be expressing them. Revert wars, fights with other users, incivil behavior, all must stop. You seem to be accumulating blocks regularly, and that usually has no good consequences. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- there is an odd combination of unwarranted hostility toward me (calling me an Islamist and so forth) and an unwillingness to engage with me in discussion, even benign discussion. (For example, my query to you about your vote on the deletion measure for Fascism (United States). This combination of instant hostility and strained silence is strange, since you and I have never had any disputes before. BYT 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- I don't care if the user is an incarnation or a mirror of some or a few ex and present users but the behaviour of MSK is to be changed. Seriously!. They have been asked gently many times to refrain from using the ists when interacting with fellow wikipedians. I was one of the first users who noticed the hotty behaviour of the user being curious about about the userbox admin that they posted for fun on their userpage the first day!. I was assuming good faith believing they are really newbies! A few weeks later, still assuming good faith but this time believing I was totally wrong!

One more issue. I am not a fun of festivals of userboxes (I got enough though) but i saw the user creating havoc and anarchy in the community re the issue, which i personally consider it is not the first thing we need here. We need good editors, editing and avoiding useless controversy. I mean, seriously, we have some weird userboxes (i avoid to name them wikiboxes to not participate in their spread and be accused of conspiracy) and see that as a sign of individuality in wikipedia that i am against.

MSK, appart from the non respect of policies (being blocked more than enough) and the amount of conflicts they have had with tens of wikipedians, including myself in the case of Aisha and its relative discussion. This is something serious as it is the problem touches the community and one can never make life horrible for many. We spend more time arguing and witnessing incidents and infrigements (like here) than we do contributing. We got work to do and I can't accept contributing more to this board than to the main reason we all came here for. Cheers -- Szvest 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Just noting here that I've blocked MSK for 12 hours for this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Could people please focus for a moment on the first thing SlimVirgin said: this "newbie" has been blocked ten times in two weeks. Block the account indefinitely right now. Please note that "don't bite the newbies" doesn't mean "let the reincarnations walk all over us." Bishonen | talk 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Make that eleven. I'm not blocking indef, as I have no first- or even second-hand knowledge of Chaosfeary, but a week for repeatedly removing others' comments from WP:TFD is at best lax given her history just at this username. —Cryptic (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Twelve, rather. Sean Black blocked her indef just before I got there. —Cryptic (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - it is kind of sad, but I've seen nothing but meaningless edit wars from the user, and have seen various pages protected etc. because of it. No objection here. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. 12 blocks in the span of 2 weeks is pretty much showing to me, at least, that the user is pretty much impossible to save. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with an indefinite block as well—I've had enough of this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'm going to disagree. Looking at the "evidence" of disruption available on this page, I see hardly anything worth a block (with the exception of the vandalism to Iain_Lee), much less an indefinate one. Looking over her block log, I can see only six or seven blocks that were not a) two admins blocking at the same time for the same offense, b) a block to reblock, or c) blatant corruption innappropriate interpretation and application of WP:NPA. Looking at the evidence initially provided by SlimVirgin, I have a few things to say. First, there is no rule against re-structuring your talk or userpage. Changing headers on your user talk page is not innappropriate behavior. Second, I fail to see any evidence in the diffs provided of innappropriate removal of talk page comments. Third, when Mistress Selina Kyle editted SlimVirgin's comment on her talk page, it was to correct the diff she had provided. SlimVirgin had linked to a diff where MSK was removing a blatant personal attack - MSK corrected the link to point to where she implied the user was a fundamentalist muslim. Certainly not "hiding" anything - in fact, being so polite as to point it out to you. Mistress Selina Kyle is disruptive at times, I'll grant that, but I fail to see any egregarious violations of policy. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that short blocks applied liberally for specific bad edits may be less controversial than an outright indefinite block. (I'm not saying I particularly disagree with the block in this case tho.) Also, as previously pointed out, she sure looks like no newbie, so a sock check could be informative. Friday (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A sock check was very informative: Mistress Selina Kyle is a vandal. Of the five IP addresses she uses, two belong to a hosting company (unusual) and one of those is shared with at least two dozens vandals of the worst sort, including at least one incarnation of Willy on Wheels. An indefinite block is clearly warranted as it is now quite obvious that she was here for the primary, if not sole, reason of stirring up trouble. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral as ever. Yet another "neutral" point of view in relation to an issue that directly concerns you, in which you suddenly come up with "evidence" that you for some reason don't feel it necessary to present to anyone. Is a vandal? Since when. She was just someone who was trying to prove your corruption. Glad to see that you've managed to get rid of someone who was proving your corruption. Now you can feel free to act however you like without fear of reprisals. This is User:Zordrac/Poetlister all over again. And I suppose now you'll have to ban all of the people who protest MSK's block too. When will it ever end? Will there ever come a time when you tire of the coverups? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those black helicopters are really coming to get you. Ambi 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would make for a better atmosphere if you tried to understand his upset. He seems to have misconceptualised the situation but slamming him won't fix his misconceptualisation, will it? Be gentle. I don't think Kelly's "evidence" proves much. So she uses a hosting company. Does it issue IPs on the fly? If so, MSK has the misfortune of sharing a hosting company with vandals, and so much for "research". I daresay she uses them because she was banned under a previous name. I agree that MSK is more trouble than use, but it seems to me she's fuelled more by overenthusiasm than malice (the one silly vandalism aside). It surely would have been more friendly to block her for a couple of weeks to think about whether she wants to contribute constructively, and to place her on a revert and PA parole (by which I mean suggest that she should agree to both and agree to be blocked for a week for a breach -- paroles are after all supposed to be agreements on the part of the person who has been punished). You have to ask yourself whether you can believe that she genuinely wants to contribute. Some -- and I don't blame them, SlimVirgin in particular, who has been sorely tried -- are going to think not, but I like to be positive about people -- assuming the best I can about them -- and I think she should at least be given a shot at redemption. Grace Note 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note, I never thought I'd see the day I agreed with you on something, but it appears today is the day. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Evil, for being entirely unaware of who you are, and as a consequence, entirely unaware of why you would disagree with me on every issue. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

Oh no problem. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hosting companies are almost always (I've yet to find a single counterexample) instances of CGI open proxies. A normal user will not get an IP from a hosting company. If she (or anyone else) used two IP addresses from a hosting company, both should be indefinitely blocked as open proxies, unless someone comes up with a really good excuse for the specific IP. OTOH, the use of them is no indication of malice — some people simply like using them, and they being shared with vandals is an inevitable consequence of they being open proxies. She could also have used them to evade collateral blocks (which can happen often if you use AOL, or some ISPs which use a single shared proxy), or to try to access Wikipedia from somewhere which blocks Wikipedia. --cesarb 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking by Evilphoenix

• I would like to point out for those reading this discussion that Evilphoenix has now unblocked MSK with the recommendation that she take her case to the arbitration committee after the elections. Apparently MSK thinks new arbitrators will be more favorable to her case. I am all for an arbitration case so all relevant facts can be aired and I think the case should begin immediately so that justice is served either way. Waiting to see what the election brings is a form of temporal forum shopping, and it is contrary to our best interests to hold up action. If MSK has been wronged, or if she has wronged Wikipedia, then in either case the community needs to take and enforce remedies quickly. Johntex\^talk 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to unblock in this case--looking at his recent contributions on this matter, it seems to me that Evilphoenix leapt to conclusions and took precipitate action without proper consultation, against substantial support for this indefinite block. I have restored the block but bring the block here for review as is my practise. I will not block again if this block is removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that a half-hour prior I had also reblocked the user based on Kelly Martin's sockpuppet check. [13] Demi ^T/_C 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of Tony's action. It would be helpful if Evilphoenix posted here, also, if only so that we may know whether s/he has consulted the arguments above. Especially the argument about 12 blocks in 2 weeks. How does it conduce to writing the encyclopedia to keep such abusive, timewasting users around? Bishonen | talk 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I did look at this thread, and I think this is all very convoluted, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. From what I've seen on her Talk page though, she seems frequently incivil but not bannable, and I'm trying to sort out why she was banned. I unblocked her because I don't at this time support a ban, and my understanding is that if Admins dispute a ban, then it's not a community ban. (those being ones where user are banned simply because no one else supports unblocking them). That being said, I'm also not going to unblock again, I've taken my action, I'm not here to engage in a wheel war over it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Kelly Martin used as a justification to block MSK that she was connected to vandals who used the same (or in someway connected) proxy. However it turned out that the user had to use a proxy as her College bars access to Wikipedia so it is unlikely she was in anyway connected to the vandals. The user has made valid contributions and is a member of Wikimedia UK. Although she has exhibited incivility I don't think a indefinite block is justified. Arniep 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Arniep on this, there's definitely been some vandalism connected with MSK though, 212.183.131.161 is particularly worrisome, and I think we need to figure out if there's a connection there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've looked through her contributions and don't see justification for an indefinite block. There has been enough incivility and personal attacks to warrant some form of block, though not an indefinite one. I think a week ban as originally suggested would be appropriate. JYolkowski // talk 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK did make that claim, which has not been verified. Meanwhile Kelly Martin found that MSK has used an IP from the same provider that has not been used by other editors. You say she's a member of Wikimedia UK--has she attended meetings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/212.183.131.161 Jkelly 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not big on wheel warring, but given the above, I'll indef block her until doomsday. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we get confirmation that that's her? If it is, so let her be blocked. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That's obviously not her. I think that's User:Lir, based on his comments on http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general . Almost certainly a user from there. MSK doesn't use those boards. So take your pick which already banned user it is. The IP address should obviously be permabanned of course. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not her. The ISP doesn't match her usual ISP (the one she uses when she's not editing through random open proxies). Kelly Martin (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. Jkelly 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The comments are still deeply distressing, however.--Sean|Black 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can chime in, the vandal that Jkelly points out has been on my thoughts- as you can imagine, I was deeply hurt by the things this person said, and if it was MSK, I have lost any sympathy I had for her.--Sean|Black 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that you actually showed her any. Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please, and please don't assign me motives. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Steady on. "I'm going to block you indefinitely next time you do something I don't like" isn't "sympathetic" in anyone's books, Sean. And I have no idea what your motives are for anything that you do and wouldn't dream of assigning you any. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

This 12 blocks thing. Can we clarify that she has actually been blocked 12 times in two weeks and that it's not a case of blocking, unblocking, reblocking? How many offences actually was she blocked for? If it's fewer, can editors please stop stirring the pot by repeating the claim? Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• She recieved four blocks for violations of 3RR, one block for vandalism, and two blocks for questionable definations of "personal attacks". The rest were multiple blocks at the same time, or unblocking to reblock. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 03:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I forgot to note the eighth block, by Sean Black. However, I am not aware of the reasoning behind that block, as no specific edit or series of edits was pointed out. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• So basically eight blocks, not 12, and at least a couple on spurious grounds? Four for 3RR? Well, that's not good but it's not quite the trail of evil it's painted to be. Even admins get into revert wars from time to time. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

So, frankly, let's review. The anon above that's posting inflammatory posts isn't her, so Cryptic's (one of the indef blocking admins) comment that he'll block her till Doomsday shouldn't apply. I'm looking through the diffs people have been posting and I'm seeing incivility and some bad choices, but somebody help me understand what exactly it is that's gotten her banned. This needs to be an RfC or an RfAr. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't been banned; she is currently just blocked indefinitely. Bans can only be imposed by Jimbo, by the arbcom (neither of which applies here) or by community consensus (which doesn't apply here either, as there is patently no consensus). JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with unblock by Evilphoenix. Appropriate procedural actions (RfC, RfAr) weren't taken, so we have a user, indefinitely blocked for NOTHING (remember presumption of innocence and WP:AGF). I think MSK has already learned her lesson and having this ridiculous block continued is damaging to Wikipedia and its core values. Grue 07:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, drop the drama, please. MSK had virtually no edits to the encyclopedia, and had dedicated virtually all her attention to playing wargames with other users. We've assumed good faith for the last few weeks, but it's gotten well to the point where the ongoing damage she's causing to the project vastly outweights her five or so edits in the article namespace. Arbitration is not required for someone who's making no productive edits. Ambi 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that she made a number of useful edits, in several namespaces, and certainly a lot more than "five or so". Sure, she was heated often, and definately overzealous in her contributions, but as for "ongoing damage to the project"... there is none. She vandalized one article, and was reprimanded for it - no other vandalism has taken place. She has more frequenly been involved in revert wars, but the way I see it, a revert war takes at least two people. As for "dedicating attention" to "playing wargames", it could be argued that pointing out abusive behaviour is far more beneficial to the project than passively ignoring it under the pretense of building an encylopedia. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop blatant lies like that. It is obvious that she did good edits in various areas of Wikipedia. Just run Kate's tool and see for yourself.  Grue  09:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Spare the personal attacks, Grue. Edit counts really don't cut in here, as even MSK, in her own defence, could only give about eight examples of useful things she'd done - about four relatively minor edits, and about four things in the userspace. I notice that you don't even try to show otherwise, but instead throw ad hominems around. She was a nightmare to deal with for anyone who disagreed with her, and she was actively engaged in driving her opponents off the wiki. At the same time, there was very few, if any, ongoing useful edits. It is patently obvious that an arbitration case would have resulted in the exact same result two months down the line, with either the old or the new committee. As such, there was absolutely no benefit in keeping her around pending the inevitable. I'd like to think you two were above this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense. Just someone is attacking someone you dislike does not mean that they're worth defending. Ambi 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: cut the bullshit. Read her contributions instead of recycling the lies of her opponents. There are lots of good edits in main namespace. Of course there are also bad edits, but good ones outweigh them. Grue 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those that are undecided, could you provide 15-20 diffs of good mainspace contributions? If you're correct that "There are lots of good edits in main namespace", this shouldn't take long. I think it's important to establish whether her good contributions were closer to "very few" or "lots". Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Green Berets created from a redirect
2. Saint Hill [14] replaces link to the poor Google sattelite image with a better one.
3. Black Mesa Research Facility [15] Cleans up article, adds a logo.
4. Blue Blood, several good minor fixups, wikifications
5. Latex clothing, [16] looks like a valid addition.
6. Black Triangle, good and valid article created by MSK.
7. Creates several useful redirects such as American Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of the USA.
8. Albert Einstein. reverts vandalism
9. World citizen. [17] Provides images.
10. Cloning. Minor fix, but a useful one.
11. Christmas, [18] Good constructive edit, provides interesting history.
12. List of punk cities, [19] Cleans up article.
13. Macro virus (biology) Valid article created by MSK.
14. Latex [20] Good expansion.
15. Flogging Molly [21] Good expansion.

Hope that helps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, after taking a look at those diffs and the ones on her talk page, I think we should send this to the ArbCom. If her behavior is poor during the case, an editing injunction might be in order. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just someone is attacking someone you dislike does not mean that they're worth defending. I defend MSK because she was a valuable contributor, not for personal bias. Suggesting otherwise is a clear assumption of bad faith. I'm with Grue - cut the nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think if we do unban her, she'd definitely need someone to follow her around, assign her to mentcom perhaps. NSLE _(T+C) 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• There's no need to unban her at all. Ambi 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is clearly no consensus that she should be banned. Personally I would unblock her myself now, but I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak and don't want to get involved. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am going to have to make myself unpopular with the people who are concerned with cutting the nonsense and side with Blu Aardvark here. I have looked through MSK's contributions list and she has several valid edits to the main article namespace, so I think saying that she only has five or so is highly inaccurate. I am not sure either that the ArbCom, present or future, would impose an indefinite ban. Even with highly disruptive and unpleasant users such as Irate, the ArbCom initially imposed a ban of three months only. MSK has vandalised once, but is not an indisputable vandal account like Willy on Wheels so an indefinite block for that reason seems unwarranted. MSK has engaged in edit-warring, but we don't impose indefinite bans for that, initially we enforce 3RR (done here, no complaint about that), and Arbcom penalty for that is typically imposing a 1 revert-limit or a ban from a certain type of article. There does not appear to be community consensus to support an indefinite ban either, considering that several respected users such as Aardvark, Evilphoenix and Grue are opposed to it. Disruption is what this indefinite block is based on, but if we look at the blocking policy: "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits". The only thing here which I think would justify an indefinite block is if MSK is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is possible but I cannot see that it is proven. In this case, I do think ArbCom review is warranted, clearly MSK has upset several users and caused quite a lot of disruption, but whether or not the disruption is serious enough to warrant an indefinite block is a decision which should not be made by a few admins only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK has made a list of some of her positive contributions here User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#A_list_of_some_positive_contributions. Arniep 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: The only thing here which I think would justify an indefinite block is if MSK is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is possible but I cannot see that it is proven. -- I would like, once again, to draw attenntion to the (not-yet-addressed) fact that MSK has a mixture of instant hostility to me and an unwillingness to engage with me in even benign conversation. This despite our never having had any conflict whatsoever. Does this not suggest that there is a past history that took place under another username? BYT 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Who do you suspect she might be a sockpuppet of? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, I think she's User:Chaosfeary. Note [the first response to my post here], which was critical of a long-simmering pet project of Chaosfeary's. I've never had any problems with this person, and she moves instantly to name-calling. I've left about half-a-dozen comments on various pages for MSK since this, and she seems quite eager to steer clear of me. Odd? BYT 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Instant dislike? That could be evidence of sock-puppetry (though not neccessarily implying that the original account is blocked) or just general unpleasantness on the part of one or both of you. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. MSK was against Slim Virgin in relation to her behaviour in the banning of User:Taxwoman and extended that towards her behaviour on other projects, which then led to her attacking of User:BrandonYusufToropov. Note that the ban of Taxwoman happened a long time before any attacks on BYT, and can be seen as an extension of her attacks on Slim Virgin. That being said, I would like to know who Chaosfeary was. He is NOT a banned user - but was someone who was given a few short term blocks, therefore even if she was a "sock puppet", then it is not grounds for a ban. However, I can see no evidence that they are the same person, and indeed User:Jayjg had already proven through CheckUser that they were not the same person, and I think that we should take this as given. Whilst it is obviously unfortunate that she didn't like BYT, I think that the issue should be what she said to BYT rather than any allegations of sock puppetry, which, in my opinion, is irrelevant anyway. Since MSK wasn't banned for anything she said to BYT, I think that BYT should perhaps present what she said to him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the very first response to the post I just cited. S/he called me an Islamist, a strangely familiar epithet coming as it did from someone who was supposedly new to the conversation. BYT 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think her calling you an islamist suggests that she knew you previously, just that she is anti-muslim. It looks like Chaosfeary is a friend of MSK as she left a message at the top of their user page User:Chaosfeary. Arniep 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked TonySidaway to reconsider, as a number of people (myself included, based on what has been said here) don't seem to think the case for an indefinite block is sufficiently clear at this time, and it therefore either needs to be made more clearly (either here, or through RFC or RFAR) or replaced with some other measure (eg mentorship). Rd232 ^talk 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight; I reinstated a block, originally placed on the basis of known bad behavior over a protracted period and a checkuser report, that appeared to have been removed by one editor without any discernible discussion. I brought it here for review--a practise I have made with all blocks almost since my first actions as an administrator. I wouldn't presume to second guess the checkuser information and I have yet to see an adequate explanation of why this editor, supposedly at a British college, cannot simply edit Wikipedia from a direct connection. This isn't China. The user's pattern of extreme personal attacks since being blocked does not fill me with confidence in his or her willingness to edit Wikipedia. Nevertheless I would not oppose a considered unblocking on the understanding that any sign of this user continuing her attacks will result in reinstatement of the permanent block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

in some UK Colleges Wikipedia is classified as chat so is blocked. Arniep 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Names of such institutions, please? Also, I'm amused by the claim that she's a member of Wikimedia UK, given that's not fully set up yet. I'd love to know what JamesF and Jguk have to sy about that. Not to mention David Gerard and Tony Sidaway who are, IIRC, also involved at some level. Rob Church (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

go to my talk page and find the link for a screenshot, do a search on the page for "photobucket": No I'm not telling you what college I'm going to, as I already said that was the reason for me using http://www.concealme.com (try it yourself, I also said about this on my talk page but half the people posting here didn't seem to bother to read the huge discussions going on there) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

She said she used the hosting service because she was scared someone would trace her to her college and cause her trouble. I think that's plausible enough. Tony, I don't see any "extreme personal attacks" frankly. A bit of mouthiness, that's all. Do you not think that a user who's been blocked permanently might feel hurt though? There's lots of editwarring on Wikipedia and lots of people talking to each other like shit, some of them "respected users". She's probably not quite clear that she's done anything much wrong. Why not unblock her, ask her to agree to a personal 1RR with a day off for each infringement and caution her not to mouth off at other editors? Surely that would be much more constructive than throwing the book at her? -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

Oh I've already indicated that I wouldn't oppose an unblock if she doesn't continue with her personal attacks--which, whatever you may say, were extremely inflammatory. She's been unblocked and I'm fine with that. I've tried to follow her instructions about "find the link for a screenshot, do a search on the page for "photobucket" but, alas, without success. If anyone could help out here, I'd be grateful.

In reply to Robchurch, I'm not a member of Wikimedia UK but I do know people who have attended preliminary meetings. As far as I'm aware nobody answering her description has done so--she could well be involved in Wikimedia in some way but if the extent of that is to put her name down on a wiki page or subscribe to a mailing list it's not really getting us any further in refuting the checkuser evidence.

Of course it's MSK's right to use an anonymizing proxy, and also being somewhat kinky myself I understand that she could plausibly be reluctant to give away any informtion that might lead to her being identified, but users who use such proxies to misbehave risk being blocked. It's best not to misbehave in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: the link you can't find. Here is the link. It appears on MSK's talk page in the section "=(". --Tabor 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That screenshot may or may not be genuine. It would be very easy to make such a thing in the simplest of paint programs. If it is legitimate, it would show that MSK is willing to circumvent the rules of her college, which may have some bearing on whether we think she will abide by the rules here. As for the involvement in Wikimedia UK, a look through her Talk page history shows that she has been invited to join, but she has also expressed some skepticism about joining if it means that she would have to give her true identity. [22]. Johntex\^talk 23:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do college IT departments really use such bad English? Comma splice, random capitalisation... Educational standards these days, really. Mark¹ 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

I just saw that MSK was indefinitely blocked and came here to see if there has been any discussion about users with Asperger Syndrome. I stumbled into a revert war at Template:User Aspie and saw a telling comment. I'm copying the discussion here. I have not as yet gotten a reply to my comment. -- Samuel Wantman

You're telling an Aspie to stop being obsessive? Do you have any idea what the syndrome entails and what the primary symptom is? :p That is all. Rogue 9 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I know? Should I assume that an editor has a serious neurological condition, and tread carefully around them? I'm sorry, but I refuse to stare at the wheelchair, if you get my meaning. -- Ec5618 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know much about Aspies, but I have come accross a few of you here and there. The above note points out a problem I have been pondering, and for which I don't as yet have an answer. The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that it really isn't my role to figure this out, but rather is up to the Wikipedia Aspie community to address. While Aspies have made some wonderful contributions around here, I and others, have found some behavior to be very disruptive. There are some rules of behavior that have been reached by consensus by the community. Some of these rules, like assuming good faith, the three revert rule, no personal attacks, etc... are essential for the continued success of Wikipedia. It seems unreasonable to exempt some people from these rules because of a neurological condition. Instead, I hope the Aspie community could figure out a way to participate without being disruptive. I don't know what that is, but I'm willing to help out in whatever way I can to implement it. Perhaps some sort of mentoring situation is possible.

I was the first admin on the scene here yesterday, and my first reaction was to block everyone. It is not the first occasion that I have felt like blocking an Aspie and didn't. I believe in talking about things and trying to work them out first. It would be very unfortunate if these problems do not get addressed and many Aspies get permanently blocked. I hope that doesn't happen. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, there was a bit on the mailing list (wiken-l) a while back. I'll reply with more on your talk page. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that discriminating against someone for a mental disorder is discrimination. Whilst each country has their own laws, I am sure that in USA such behaviour would be considered to be illegal, and it would also cover internet use. Whilst Wikipedia can legally ban or allow whoever they like, they cannot forbid someone entry on the basis of race, gender, religious preference, sexual preference, or mental disability. Pretty simple thing. Whilst you are entitled to treat her as if she did not have a disability, you are not entitled to consider this to be a factor warranting a ban. To do so may be illegal, and put the individual person doing the ban/discriminating and/or Wikipedia itself in to jeapordy for legal action. Just seriously not a good idea. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got this backwards. Please re-read my comments. I am trying to think of accomodations for the disability to help keep people from getting banned. I resisted blocking the revert war because I knew that AS has some compulsive behaviors related to it. Had I not tried to accomodate the AS I would have immediately blocked them. My comment was an outreach to try and think of a way Wikipedia can make accomodations. -- Samuel Wantman 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I guess that I am a bit wary of people doing things like this. Going for equality really is important, and discrimination is an issue that needs to be considered. I mean we wouldn't ban someone for being muslim, would we? Or even for believing in Goat Cheese. But we might not like them pushing these views. I hope that you didn't think I was attacking anyone there. I just get very nervous when people talk about things like this, especially as at least a few people have commented in a way that suggests that they should be able to ban autistic people for being autistic. Quite simply, you can't. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, please refrain from commenting on legal issues when you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. You're becoming as bad as Everyking - you comment first, then think and research later if we're lucky. Ambi 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we can discriminate on any basis whatsoever; as a private entity receiving no governmental support, we are not bound by any nondiscrimination law whatsoever. Volunteer organizations are not required by law not to discriminate when selecting volunteers. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify how being 501(c)(3) is "receiving no governmental support"? If I started "church of the white man" tomorrow, I would not receive tax exempt status. Avriette 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I have ever seen a more obvious Wikipedia:No personal attacks than the one above by User:Ambi. I trust that you recognise Wikipedia policy with regards to such things. You should know it, after all.

I have no clue what I am talking about, do I? I dare you to prove me wrong. Because you won't be able to, you know. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist

I was simply noting that you hadn't read any of this discussion before launching into one of your predictable "fight the power" tirades. No one here was suggesting anything like banning people just because they had Asperger's syndrome, which you would have known had you read any more than the section title. Ambi 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The law (in the US) only applies to employers discriminating against employees anyway... the whole argument is silly. --W.marsh 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, (so sayeth the psychs) I've got Asperger's syndrome; however, I am of the distinct opinion that the behaviour demonstrated by MSK could not really be ascribed to that. Asperger's syndrome sufferers are widely held to have issues with social skils, with emotional development and integration happening late-on (or to an impared degree). Asperger's syndrome could not possibly be used as an excuse for some of MSK's vitriol, because quite frankly I am capable of restraining myself from her distinctly unpleasant mode of interaction. Although I do have my odd moment of difficulty in this area I could not see it being expressed in such a manner. I think Wikipedia needs to bear AS in mind, perhaps, but it is not by any means carte blanche to behave poorly. Indeed, to ascribe MSK's inability to behave in a civil and reasonable fashion to AS would be to do a great disservice to its sufferers. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And everyone is affected to precisely the same degree as you are? To say that someone could not possibly be affected in a way you are not seems a rather extreme generalization of personal experience. --Tabor 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As the father of a son with HFA I've grown familiar with the varying degrees of PDD and spectrum disorders. While it's true that all individuals with these disorders share the trait of poor or unusual social skills and vary in their abilities in this regard I would find it extremely hard to believe that one would actively seek out confrontation like MSK has. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but if it has I've never heard of it. The typical reaction would be to shy away from such confrontations and occasionally fall into one by mistake. But, I'm not a shrink, I only deal with my son's issues day in and day out and explain this stuff to people almost daily! --Wgfinley 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Like Nicholas and MSK, I also have Asperger's, and he's right, it shouldn't be an excuse for rudeness or incivility. Indeed, despite my eccentric nature at times, i've done things that you wouldn't associate with someone with "social issues", such as running for public office, as well as the seeds of careers in heavily people orientated careers such as Journalism and Real Estate. Asperger's isn't an excuse.

However, Tabor's also right, it's different for everyone, especially for people like MSK, who not only has AS, but is also young, which usually exasperbates the misconceptions that are common between neurotypicals and those with AS. I'm not going to touch the block for the time being, because she needs to calm down anyway, but I hope there's some way we can make her realize that being a jerk to those she disagrees with isn't cool, because I don't think she does or feels that kindness won't work at this point with what's been going on during the past few weeks. karmafist 05:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of autism is that it is a spectrum rather than just something specific. It is extraordinarily ill-defined, and in fact covers a wide range of different disorders. It is also one of the most poorly diagnosed syndromes imaginable. So saying that this is how one person behaves therefore all of the others must behave in the same way is wrong. The spectrum has an allowable set of behaviours in order to be considered to be autistic. Mistress Selina Kyle's behaviours comfortably fall within this spectrum. This does not mean that all autistics will exhibit these behaviours. It is probably less than 10% who would behave in a similar manner to MSK in similar circumstances.

As for the confrontation, no, Aspies aren't scared of confrontation. They misunderstand confrontation. What this means is that in school they will often be teased and take it literally, not realising that it is an attack on them. Similarly, they may tease others and not realise that there is anything wrong with it. This means that Aspies are regularly incorrectly believed to be "stirring up trouble" when in fact they are not. This is typical behaviour. And if you look at the allegations of MSK's "personal attacks" and "incivility", all of them fall comfortably within this boundary. MSK hasn't actually personally attacked anyone here, nor has she been incivil. What she has been is a typical Aspie.

That being said, her confronting Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin is not typical Aspie. That has nothing to do with her condition. That is because she felt that these people were corrupt and needed to be exposed. So if she is being criticised for trying to expose corruption, people should realise that her doing that had nothing to do with Asperger's Syndrome. She might have done it in a different way to others. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see the supposed abundance of unjustifiable personal attacks; she's simply blunt. This is to be expected, and I find it an admirable quality, though those with thin skins and a better ability to sift through bullshit tend to disagree with me. Be that as it may, despite my status as a plebe around here, I see no reason for an indefinite block. Presuming that she does indeed have Asperger's (unusual in a female, but it does happen and would explain her unusual behavior), then her only behavior which isn't almost inevitable in an Aspie (that is to say, conflicts of personality arising from failure to empathize, not from malice) is her crusade against perceived corruption among the admins, and that is not a blockable offense in itself, as much as any theoretical corrupt admins (or admins annoyed at being so investigated) might like it to be. What that speaks of to me is integrity and overzealousness, and God help us if either of those traits become bannable offenses. Rogue 9 08:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment

I think it should be noted that most "Aspies" are possibly self-diagnosed. The existence of a userbox makes this extremely easy. It is unfortunate that in this day, bad behavior is hidden behind a constructed disorder. We say a child has ADHD and administer pharmaceuticals instead of addressing the possibility that she lacks discipline. When the child grows up she can hide behind the label of an "Aspie" instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk. This is unconscionable. Even if someone has a legitimate though manageable disorder, it's the person's responsibility to deal with it instead of hiding behind it.

After reading Kelly Martin's comment on MSK's lack of quality editing and MSK's replies on her talk page, I decided to look into it myself. When I ran an edit count last night, I found that only 30% of this user's edits were on articles, images and associated talk pages. This means that 70% of this user's edits have nothing to do with developing the encyclopedia (unless you strongly believe that userboxes have extraordinary value to the project). Furthermore, if you remove talk pages, deleted edits, and vandalism from the statistics, her useful edits only amount to about 20%. --malber 14:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The dismissal of a diagnosis of any other user, cheapning it as "self diagnosis" is... Well, I'm at a loss for words, in that regard. Let's toss it in the "evil" bin. Secondly, I think some of you fail to understand the symptoms of Aspergers, or more correctly, the behavior of those so diagnosed. I don't particularly feel that the user went out of her way to confront anyone. As others have said, she is dedicated to producing articles and does contribute. It is when that is interfered with (this is commonly referred to as "hyper focus" in text on the subject -- see ISBN 0684801280 for more details), the user is left with very few coping skills. What you see is the result. Lastly, going after edit counts can be used on just about anyone. I recently examined the same statistics for NSLE. The reply was a juvenile "why don't you make me?" Let's leave the edit count out of this, and the deprecating of a person's psychological state as well. Avriette 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never "hidden" behind it and have never used it as an argument for anything so please don't start insulting me, especially making personal attacks like "instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk".

I think it's mostly irrelevant really. Not that it's any of your business at all but as you seem to want to accuse me of being "fake" or "covering up for myself", yes, it was done by a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist (I have no idea which but it was at an early age)

a minor point to Wgfinley, "father of a son with HFA" who finds "it extremely hard to believe" that I have asperger's because of basically 'not being shy enough': I'm tended to just not say anything with regards to your perhaps surprising bigotry, but there is nothing about aspergers that makes people "shy away from such confrontations" - maybe occasionally from social situations out of shyness but I know more as well as having it myself I probably know more people with aspergers than you and several I know have been expelled from several schools for standing up to bullies and getting in fights etc

malber (talk · contribs): On the other subject of "useful edits", you really are quite a venomous little man aren't you (don't quote NPA at me, you prick, you're already accusing me of "hiding behind my aspergers" and calling me a "jerk"..) - lies, damn lies and statistics: "I found that only 30% of this user's edits were on articles, images and associated talk pages. This means that 70%" - Sorry, community is not important at all now? And just because it's not an article/image edit doesn't mean it's automatically "userbox"? Ever heard of "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:"? Sorry, but this is Wikipedia, not Britannica. We're not paid, we're not employed to edit here: If there was no community for Wikipedians to work together, no one would be editing.

Are we now judging wikipedians on the amount of editing they do and banning those who don't work hard enough? What is this turning into? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't say Wikipedia isn't a gulag. If the community wants to ban you because they think your socks are smelly, then too bad. There's no such thing as an innate right to edit Wikipedia. (This is not to say that the community wants you gone; if they did, nobody would be protesting your block.) If it takes a gulag to build an encyclopedia, a gulag is what we're going to have. All other goals besides building an encyclopedia are secondary. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, that's an incredibly frightening statement you just made. It almost sounds like you're saying this place is little more than a popularity contest, and you can be gone regardless of whatever contributions you've had. Basically, an ochlocracy. If that's the case, wait a second while I go contact the Crips and the Bloods... Karmafist 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Had you read my comment more closely, you would see the disclaimer: "This is not to say that the community wants you gone; if they did, nobody would be protesting your block." This (consensus/unanimity or something close to it) is pretty much the foundation of Wikipedia governance. I'm not advocating ochlocracy. I'm stating a basic fact; if nobody wants you around, you're gone. And besides, if this were an ochlocracy, we might have had fair use images on userpages a long time ago, regardless of their legality. If anything, I fear we're headed in the direction of such a form of governance. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This subconversation of a subconversation is meaningless then, since you're basically saying that the foundation of Wikipedia governance is ochlocracy. If anything, our current state of ochlocracy on here has acted towards witch hunts against users who use fair use for no apparent legal reasoning other than fear mongering. I hope one day to fix the problems here as well, my friend. Until then though, make sure that somebody "wants you around", and if you get any time after that, feel free to contribute to the encyclopedia... Karmafist 04:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ochlocracy is not consensus. Consensus is the foundation of Wikipedian governance, although it's breaking down fast. If someone is strongly opposing a witch hunt, then there is no consensus, and as a result, no action should be taken until consensus is gained. That's the boon and bane of consensus, and if you want to see it in action, mosy on over to FAC or FARC, quite possibly the last two places on Wikipedia where consensus still rules. So you are plainly wrong. Under consensus the majority cannot overrule the minority. If nobody wants you around the encyclopedia (as in if a vote were to be held on whether you should be banned, every Wikipedian would say "yes"), maybe you should reconsider your behaviour or get the hell out. There is no innate right to edit Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes extreme vanity to assume I was talking about you. I was responding to Zordrac's suggestion that your behavior should be excused because you're a self labeled "Aspie." Asperger's seems to be one of those "bumper sticker" illnesses that people tend to publicize about themselves, like a special club. It's especially troubling that there's a userbox for Asperger's. If we take what Zordrac is suggesting, all a troll would have to do is slap that userbox on his userpage and all should be forgiven. This is troubling. If you want to throw around quotes, here's a good one.

I'm not even going to discuss your personal attacks. I think they speak for themselves. If you wish to regain the good graces of the admins, a little bit of humility and contrition would go a long way. Kelly Martin has a valid point. The ratio of encyclopedia building to "community building" is skewed. Indeed, if there is even the slightest impression that you've been disruptive, the idea that you've been building the community is dubious. --malber 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Normally I wouldn't dare enter these types of situations but after reading this and witnessing all the fighting and bias I'm afraid I have no choice. To those who seem to think Aspie's "hide behind our diseases" or "we use it as an excuse" is entirely untrue, pathetic, sickening and offensive to all who have this rotten disorder. Yes, I realise some of MSK's actions may not be due to AS, but for you people who are lucky enough not to experience this disorder firsthand I fail to see how you possibly have a good understanding about it. You should be considered lucky; I went undiagnosed for over 10 years and it's safe to say my life was a living hell back then. I would suggest reading Asperger Syndrome if you haven't already done so. I can say I have never had a bad experience with MSK and I wish the bias and personal attacks would all stop together. I thought Wikipedia was fair; apparently I was horribly misled. Fell free to use your bias and block me, however you will have one less member reverting vandalism. --Winter 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really not the place for debating the merits of an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis, or whether or not this is a true neurological disorder. My response was regarding the idea that a user's disruptive behavior should be excused because of a possible self applied diagnosis. Anyone with a legitimately diagnosed disorder should be offended by this idea. Note that I'm not saying that every "aspie" behaves this way. --malber 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And nothing says her diagnosis is self-applied except a gross assumption. I have the syndrome (and yes, it was professionally diagnosed by two separate psychiatrists) and can tell you that no one's saying she should be excused for her "bad behavior" because from where she's coming from there was no bad behavior in the first place. Her reactions were perfectly normal for an Aspie; if I was plunged into a situation where a lot of my work was suddenly deleted by an imperious admin going on about how I was a waste of space I'd be going off like a volcano because I frankly wouldn't know what else to do. Hell, that's not even being an Aspie; that's being human. Asperger's will simply make the reaction worse because it makes it difficult to understand what the other people want unless they come out and say it, which makes negotiation difficult to say the least. Rogue 9 04:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate result, then, that Asperger's Syndrome makes one rather less suitable for the project. Phil Sandifer 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As does speedy deleting a redirect without justification in WP:CSD and recreating it half a dozen times. Karmafist 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, as does bringing in irrelevent material to slander and troll. Did you have a point? Phil Sandifer 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you when you did the same above in regards to those with AS? Karmafist 04:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to recommend for User:Snowspinner to be given a 1 week block for the above edit. It is EXTRAORDINARILY discriminatory.... --Zordrac

Blocks are not punitive. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Then if I were to say what he so richly deserves to have said to him right now, I wouldn't be blocked as punishment for this? Somehow I doubt it. Rogue 9 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. There is no consensus on permitting admins to block those who make personal attacks, and generally this only occurs in extreme cases where the one making the attack has proved unrepentant and refuses to stop making such personal attacks. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's also note that it wasn't a personal attack. If you are actually incapable of avoiding going off like a volcano when Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are enforced, you should not edit Wikipedia. A compulsion to go off like a volcano makes you less suitable for the project. If Asperger's is why you have this compulsion, then Asperger's makes you less suitable. That's why it's a disorder - because it makes you unable to do things that healthy people can. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize. That doesn't mean I haven't winced when I've blocked people who obviously have Asperger's or some similar disorder. But it does mean that, well... if you can't play well with others, this is not the project for you. That's not a personal attack. That's just a really sad and unfortunate truth. Phil Sandifer 17:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite capable of avoiding exploding over enforcement of the rules; I'm talking about abuse of power like that which happened to MSK's work in the userbox project. What's said below about Asperger's patients working better with structured rules is true; what's also true is that breaking those rules in an unpredictable manner is upsetting because we expect those rules to be followed by everyone. Try to look at this from Selina's point of view; from where she was sitting, Kelly Martin just swooped in and, ignoring every possible policy on the matter, unilaterally deleted a large body of her work while simultaneously expressing utmost contempt for not only her but everyone she worked with on the project. This is upsetting to anyone; having a disorder that makes it difficult to cope with sudden change and unpredictable situations makes it worse. Oh, and I didn't accuse you of a personal attack; I was attempting to avoid making one myself, because the rules make no allowance for insults thoroughly earned.

Anyhow, now that I'm calmer, I will address Snowspinner's profoundly ignorant remark concerning Aspergians and suitability for Wikipedia. (If one will pay attention to the subject of that sentence, it was what Snowspinner said, not Snowspinner himself. Don't try to whip out NPA at me.) I contend that having Asperger's makes one more suitable for the project than your average neurotypical, not less. The penchant for almost obsessively gathering and sharing information is the most obvious benefit to a repository of knowledge such as this, of course, but it's hardly the only thing. The same mania for organization that makes dealing with (too often inconsistent) people so infuriating makes one fact-check and organize to no end, as well as spell-check to no end for that matter. We're able to focus on a problem or subject with an intensity that most others simply don't believe; as an example, I once read through Robinson Crusoe in a span of two hours and ten minutes at the age of eleven. Repetitive tasks such as checking through articles one after the other for spelling errors are easy for an Aspergian. Frankly, if everyone on Wikipedia had Asperger's, the project would be a whole lot better off, even though a lot of the editors wouldn't. :p That is, of course, too much to ask for, and I wouldn't wish this condition on anyone, but the point is that problems occur when we're interfered with, not when left alone to work on articles or whatever else one of us chooses to work on. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go clean up the article on Characters of 8-Bit Theater; the spelling and grammar is atrocious. Rogue 9 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules apply to everyone

I would like to present, off the top of my head, some practical information about working with people that have Asperger Syndrome and about disruptive behavior as alleged above.

• The rules apply to everyone. Disruptive behavior is not to be tolerated. I should add that it is quite uncommon among Aspies, and ascribing it to their having Asperger Syndrome is unwarranted in virtually all cases. And even if one does ascribe it to AS, the remedy remains the same. Explain, point out rules, be civil, assume good faith - be a good wikipedian and it doesn't matter whom you are trying to correct. Stay cool. Blocking and problem resolution as usual.
• Asperger Syndrome is much more pronounced in children. Like other children, Aspies learn to adapt to the differences between them and the rest of the world (since the rest of the world won't adapt to the differences). It takes them longer and is more difficult, but in the end many do not really stand out from the crowd in day-to-day communications. It means that, probably even more than regular teenagers and adolescents, Aspies can be expected to improve their behavior given time, and getting a new chance after six months or so should always be negotiable. And since we're building an encyclopedia, it would be a pity if Wikipedia unnecessarily lost the contributions from - often quite intelligent - people with a knack for gathering facts and a far more than encyclopedic knowledge of specialist subjects.
• As to being "wheelchair friendly" - Wikipedia is all that and more. Most Aspies do not have a problem with rules per se; in fact it is almost a defining symptom that they fare better in a well structured environment with clear rules. The absense of eye contact and body language when co-operating via the Internet solves any remaining sources of miscommunication so in fact Wikipedia and Aspies are a well-suited combination.  AvB ÷ talk 08:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I find this comforting, if beside the point - I don't think anyone here is arguing that we ought ban Aspies. Rather, I think people are saying that whether someone is an Aspie should be wholly irrelevent to whether or not we ought ban them. If being an Aspie does not lead one to behavior that would get one banned, this makes that question comfortingly academic, but it instead opens the nasty can of worms as to whether the self-diagnoses are accurate or not, etc, which remains a messy subject. Cleaner, I think, to just note that the basic rules of conduct apply, and that, for the purposes of enforcement of those rules, we don't really care why someone is incapable of following them. Phil Sandifer 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not have said it better myself. --malber 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil, it's good to see you think what I wrote is comforting. But beside the point? I think most of this Asperger Syndrome section is beside the point (the point being an assessment of MSK's conduct, which I haven't even looked at). I argued that Wikipedia should not give Aspies preferential treatment. One of my reasons for posting the above was your assertion (which could well lead to the opposite of preferential treatment) "that Asperger's Syndrome makes one rather less suitable for the project". I was hoping you would retract it, or provide us with supporting facts and statistics. Anyway, seeing that you support my main line of reasoning (no special treatment on Wikipedia) takes away most of the doubt your assertion had raised in my mind. AvB ÷ talk 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor claims that all third party edits to his user page are vandalism

Dschor appears to have decided that his userpage deserves the same protection from outside editing as a geocities account. As a result he has accused other users who've made simple changes of vandalizing his page. He has since equipped his userpage with a notice which claims that edits made without his authorization are vandalism. Can someone else please ask him to go get a free web account someplace if he is interested in maintaining a personal web presence? --Gmaxwell 07:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? He can presume that all he wants. However, I would avoid editing it unless necessary (as I do with all user pages) but simply reading Wikipedia:User page will tell you they are community space. gren グレン 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He's just mad because I edited his user page. He needs to grow a sense of humor or something. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, he's changed tack :) [23] --Interiot 08:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:User page:"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." Crystal clear: it's a convention, but only a convention. Dschor can (foolishly or otherwise) presume what he likes about people who breach it. Rd232 ^talk 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't be editing someone else's user page unless there is a very good reason for it. I will check out the edits and comment further. But please be a bit nicer to him about it. He is clearly assuming that Wikipedia runs in a way that places like Geocities/LiveJournal etc work, and that your user page belongs to you. It is a reasonable assumption to make. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked it and User:Snowspinner has been making misleading edit summaries, stating incorrectly that he was removing text because it was a personal attack, when there was none on there. Really, there was nothing wrong with Dschor's version, so let's just leave it be. It's just very petty to go around changing people's user pages for these kinds of reasons. Get rid of personal attacks by all means, but not opinions. We might call it vandalism if you do edit his user page like that, and with good reason. So please stop. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner has made one edit, with the remarkably accurate summary: "Reverted edits by User:Dschor (talk) to last version by User:Tony Sidaway". Tony made the changes you refer to, and I'm curious why you didn't discuss things with him before acting. Questions of intent and civility aside, you need only look at Dschor's talk page for your comment:

Obviously stating that you oppose Kelly Martin for ArbCom is not a personal attack. However, perhaps you should not include "Beware the Cabal".

And Tony's above that:

Secondly, while your stated opposition to Kelly Martin was probably okay, the allegation that she is a member of some Cabal is an attack and we don't allow personal attacks. I've removed it for now; please feel free to restore minus the attack.

...to see your thinking is along closer lines than you might suspect. Maybe before attempting to set Dschor's expectations regarding his User page, you should reach a consensus here first. I'm sure Dschor doesn't feel like being the subject of a wheel war. InkSplotch^(talk) 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am getting tired of fighting this type of vandalism on my page. I never stated that Kelly is a member of a cabal, but I did notice the prominent display of an "I love the cabal" image on her user page. Seemed like a harmless reference to her own stated affection. I assume good faith, but I ask that you please notify me before making significant changes to my user page. It's simply the polite thing to do. --Dschor 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism suggests malicious intent. I don't see that here, but I'm only a neutral party. What I see is a difference of opinion on two counts: should Users (such as yourself) be allowed to reserve edit rights to their User page, and was the "cabal" comment a personal attack. While consensus doesn't seem too firm yet, it doesn't seem to be going your way at the moment. I'd ask you consider the comments above about User pages and community space. I'd also suggest that Kelly Martin's original edit, regardless of it's factual accuracy, was a good faith edit and not a personal attack or attempted vandalism. Use of the word "cabal" would probably be best dropped by all sides.

To others, I'd like to echo Zordrac's comments about "...be a bit nicer...about it." Dschor might be making a test case here over User rights to their User Pages, but poking at him to see how he reacts ("I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says.") isn't going to help all of you reach a stronger consensus, or Dschor to be more amicable to your position. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

m Signing my comments, now that I have an account to do so. InkSplotch^(talk) 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but the heading for this section does not reflect any statement that I have made, and is a straw man created to distract the casual observer from the fact that Administrators are taking their POV and inserting it into a user page against that user's strenuous objections. I do not claim unique rights to edit my user page, but in the interests of accuracy, I cannot permit editors to remove my own opinion, or insert their own. I do not doubt that Kelly felt she was doing a service in adding her name to my user page, but her failure to revert upon my request was not appropriate, particularly considering that my account was blocked during her edit. There are many other users who use the same travel brag sheet, and as far as I know Kelly made no effort to add her name to their pages. I did not have any notice advising users to clear changes with me, because I assume good faith. Unfortunately a number of edits have been made to my user page that show a pattern of aggression toward free expression. I believe I have the right not to have my opinion distorted or deleted so long as I follow the guidelines for user space on Wikipedia. I consider this matter closed, and expect that editors will respect my user page, and refrain from edits that do not improve it. Thanks for your attention. --Dschor 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any property rights here except accurate attribution and licensing of your contributions. If you want a homepage, go and find a webhost. Your userpage can and will be edited by other people and you are not justified in presuming malicious intent. In particular, you must refrain from making personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: after reflection on this, I have edited Wikipedia:User page to see if I can reach a more realistic description of what the userpage means to Wikipedians. It really isn't on to say you'll presume that people who edit your user page mean harm. This is a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My user page is intended to be a description of me, not a place for editors to add their own false claims and opinions. It can and will be edited by other people, but if they don't make improvements, then I will revert their edits. I do not presume that all people who edit my user page mean harm, but I reserve the right to make the determination on my own terms. I like to think this is a wiki, but when I observe admins speedy deleting the contributions of others for no reason, I have to wonder. And when admins come to my user page to make counterfactual edits while I am blocked, I presume that this is vandalism, and revert it. --Dschor 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Inexhaustible vandalism from the UK Internet for Learning: range block warranted?

Explanation: I'm bringing the following out of the archive to discuss the returned vandalism by the IP block range owned by UK Internet for Learning. The following is my note on the vandalism to User:Demi:

I have just stumbled on your research at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive54#Recent_activity while trying to find out what has or can be done to deal with the massive amount of vandalism coming from the IP block 62.171.194.0 - 62.171.194.45 (owned by Research Machines/IFL up to 62.171.195.255, though no vandalism seems to be coming from the rest) which is the network for a school or several schools in the UK. You originally suggested that users be blocked individually for a few hours at a time. The vandalism seems to have died down during the holiday break but now is coming back in full force (except for the weekends). In particular, there have been some especially nasty edits like subtle word changes (bonds to bondage on Three Gorges Dam) and numerical changes (33% to 37% on Asch conformity experiments) that weren't caught for days and that I only caught because I was checking for vandalism from these users. This is in addition to countless incidents of blanking and childish vandalism, dozens happening just today (the 10th) during school hours.

Most of these IP addresses have been blocked 5-15 times, and it doesn't seem to be doing the trick. In fact, the vandals probably don't even notice they have been blocked most of the time. I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible? I would hate to see dozens of people working hours each day to chase down and revert the changes these IP addresses make, not to mention the many harmful edits that might make it through unnoticed.

...It seems to me it is not worth the effort to continually warn, re-warn, block temporarily, and repeat. There must be a better way...

And following is User:Demi's response:

(copied from talk page)

You wrote:

I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible?

Unfortunately it is not. When an IP range is blocked all edits from the range are blocked, including editors with user accounts. I was on the fence before about blocking the whole range, the fact that there is an admin editing from the range as well as an increase in vandalism. I would like other people's attention--would it be possible for you to copy the discussion out of the archive and bring it up on WP:AN/I again? Thanks so much for looking into it. Demi ^T/_C 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This vandalism has occurred again extensively today (the 11th) in many IPs (I am only up to .13, from .5). Also of note is this instance in which 62.171.194.7 (now blocked for 31 hours) blanked a page and added "I will not stop until all IPs are not able to edit Wikipedia."

What can be done? This is extremely harmful to Wikipedia - who knows how much vandalism is slipping through the cracks? --Renesis13 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have just completed a check for vandalism from this range today. There are 19 IPs involved:

4 - 13

36 - 38

40 - 45

All vandalism from today has been reverted I believe. Now that school is out, we have about 18 hours before it starts again.

-- Renesis13 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to ifl abuse yesterday on this subject matter and so far have received only an automated response. I did note in my email that their entire connection to Wikipedia might be blocked if they didn't deal with the vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be all proxies.

PING webcache-01.swgfl.ifl.net (62.171.194.4) 56(84) bytes of data.

PING webcache-02.swgfl.ifl.net (62.171.194.5) 56(84) bytes of data.

PING webcache-03.swgfl.ifl.net (62.171.194.6) 56(84) bytes of data.

etc. All the way up to webcache-25 (62.171.194.45). Sometimes packets come back from ge4.dist-01.core.th.ifl.net (217.180.8.193) with Packet filtered. Don't know if this helps in any way. - FrancisTyers 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Guessing from the name of this host and a traceroute, I'd say that the thing that is filtering the pings is one of their external gateways in telehouse. Of course this is pure conjecture. - FrancisTyers 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.171.194.0/26 (62.171.194.0 - 62.171.194.63) for 24 hours--because I'd like to give the abuse desk a chance to respond to Zoe. These 64 addresses are tighter than the 512 that were blocked before; we can hope this is the correct suballocation. Demi ^T/_C 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I still have received no response from them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RM aren't, in my experience, the most competent, nor the most helpful educational IT provider out there, and the South West Grid for Learning is a joke at times. You might not get one. Rob Church (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From Archive

These IPs (and surely others that I haven't come across, and indeed the whole range) are registered to the UK Internet for Learning, according to notes on several of the talkpages:

• 62.171.194.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From them flows a steady, deep, inexhaustible river of childish vandalism into the encyclopedia. After quite some time spent sampling, I haven't found one single good edit from any of them, though I can't swear that one isn't hiding out somewhere, obviously. All the warnings posted on all the talkpages by all the ambitious Wikipedians have an air of pathos, if you read them all together. Don't we have enough to do? If the range is indeed static, and the sole purview of enthusiastically scrawling children, can it be blocked wholesale, by someone who understands the art of range blocking? Or can somebody who's better than me at navigating the intarweb find their way to someone in a position of responsibility at the UK Internet for Learning? Or, does anybody have any other suggestions? Please? --Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My thought is to block all of these and then wait for some feedback from any legitimate users. It seems to be a network which would go to all primary schools in the UK when it is built out. Fred Bauder 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

From whois "All abuse reports should be sent to abuse at ifl.net Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent [24] by User:62.171.194.12. Which is not to say that I object to massive blockage. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to Fred Bauder, the whois indicates that Research Machines have sub-allocated 62.171.194.0/23 to ifl.net. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... I ... see. (Not.) Could somebody get on it, please? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

See Classless Inter-Domain Routing. 62.171.194.0/23 is a range of 512 IP addresses from 62.171.194.0 to 62.171.195.255. It's also the format that you use for range blocking on the block page. Personally, I would like to see a greater consensus here before we take action to indef block such a large range. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do it. Just make sure the blocking admin has an email set and send a complaint at the same time.Geni 18:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I blocked 62.171.194.0/23 indefinitely. I sent an email to their abuse desk advising them of the block and the reasons that it was implemented. I also asked them if they subnet in any way that would enable us to reduce the size of the block and if they had any additional comments. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:-) Outstanding. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Make sure that indefinitely means indefinitely and not infinitely! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable about potentially blocking every primary school in the country. It seems horrific. Secretlondon 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that 18 IP addresses cover every primary school in the country. I think that was a misconjecture on someone's part during the above research. In any case, I see no problem with blocking editing from a set of IP addresses which contribute 99% vandalism, including dozens of incidents per day. If these IP addresses are only used by schools, then I assume anyone with good intent would still have other opportunities (home/work) to contribute meaningful content. --Renesis13 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would probably only effect users accessing through the South West Grid for Learning. - FrancisTyers 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment... primary school is quite young. I have a child at one. I'm rather doubtful that a school would encourage children to edit wiki anyway... they tend to be sensitive to possible exposure to naughty things. So for a school to lose write access would probably be no big thing... though this is a guess. William M. Connolley 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

The X grid for learning aren't just for primary schools, but for secondary schools aswell. I doubt highly that the vandals are primary school pupils. I don't know what primary school is like now, but I'm doubtful as to whether, 1. the kids would have much unsupervised time on the internet, 2. that internet would not be a walled garden or something similar. It's been a while since I was in the school system though ;) - FrancisTyers 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I received an email indicating that this block is also affecting some libraries in the UK. I still haven't heard back from the ISP and I asked the user that mailed me to try and get the IPs of the library computers to see if I can work round that range with the block. Is this worth maintaining if we're going to cause collateral damage? --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds promising. They must divide that block of addresses up. Fred Bauder 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If we can get the library range (i.e. if the vandal fonts are, indeed, static), we can except them, but we need to be aware of the fact that libraries may be one of the sites of vandalism, and the only thing denied them now is the ability to edit. We're still good for researching on. The amount of spew the range was producing was truly staggering. Geogre 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikibreak, so I removed the block on this range. Feel free to re-block it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent activity

In order to try to get a handle on what these folks have been up to, I've documented the contributions from all the IP addresses in this range (addresses with no contributions are not shown):

Activity since 1 Dec

Address	Vandalisms	Other
62.171.194.6	[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]
62.171.194.7	[38] [39] [40] [41]
62.171.194.8	[42] [43] [44]	[45]
62.171.194.9	[46]	[47] [48]
62.171.194.4	[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]	[62] (revert) [63] [64] (revert) [65] (revert) [66] (revert) [67] (revert) [68] (revert)
62.171.194.10	[69] [70] [71]	[72]
62.171.194.11	[73]
62.171.194.12	[74] [75] [76] [77] [78]	[79] (questionable)
62.171.194.13	[80]
62.171.194.37	[81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]	[89] (revert)
62.171.194.38	[90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]	[103] (new) [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] (revert)
62.171.194.40	[113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120]	[121]
62.171.194.42	[122]	[123] (revert) [124] (revert)
62.171.194.43	[125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133]
62.171.194.44	[134] [135]

The "other" edits are good-faith attempts to create content, or at least, aren't clear vandalism (some of them have been reverted, some have not). Many of them are reversions of other edits from this range. The overall pattern seems to me that of schoolkids teasing each other using Wikipedia, and some other people (older students?) reverting them and sometimes adding content. The vandalism seems to come in short spates, and I'm guessing the IPs might correspond to workstations in a computer lab or school library. My gut feeling is not to re-block the IP range, but since the vandalism doesn't come very fast, to block the individual IPs as needed for short periods (but without separate warning). Demi ^T/_C 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalking

This is probably one situation where a "stalk" feature might be useful (i.e. the ability to watch a user and show all edits by that user on your watchlist, instead of just watching a set of articles). --cesarb 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is easy enough to place a link to a user's list of contributions on your user page or a page in your user space. You cna then visit that list any time. it is not integrated with your regualr watch list, but it fulfills the purpsoe pretty well. i have such a link on my user talk page right now. DES ^(talk) 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The integration is the key part, as if you want to watch 20 users you'd need to open 20 tabs. --cesarb 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Celestianpower

Sorry for the new section but I don't know where to put this. This is the IP address of my school's network so if it's blocked indef, I'll never be able to edit at school again. Am I allowed to unblock temporarily so I can edit, then reblock (like I have right now)? --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, if the block is not directed at you (i.e. you are an innocent bystander who was hit as a side effect), you can unblock. --cesarb 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this interpretation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, then I support the permenant blocking of this IP. --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

When you say "this IP"--do you have a specific IP that you always get? Maybe we can block the others. 64 addresses isn't too much to block individually if necessary to make an exception for legit users. Demi ^T/_C 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant "these IPs". Sorry. I usually come up with 62.171.194.6 and .9 but I'm sure its different in the various rooms around the school. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to leave the block for a week or so so that the users who have been adding vandalism in the past get used to not being able to edit? Then you could probably go ahead with unblocking for yourself without much risk of anyone trying to vandalize while its open. Another option is the 19 IPs that have contributed from that range could be blocked individually, and then you could unblock one at a time for whichever you come up with. Just a thought. -- Renesis13 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will only be unblocking briefly to make a few edits then reblocking, so no more vandalism should come out. Also, I plan to do this mainly out of school hours to reduce the risk. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I recieved this on my talkpage and thought it best to reply here:

Hey man, first of all, do you have access to "Internet preferences" ? Tools->options in Firefox, Tools->internet options in IE. If you do, you could try changing the proxy settings to just one of those IPs (its probably currently a round-robin) and then use that one and block all the others. If it is only set to one IP, this is probably some kind of local proxy that makes requests to a round-robin of upstream proxies. In this case, you can still try and make direct requests to the upstream proxies, but I don't know if it will work. Is your sysadmin a reasonable (and non-braindead) guy? You could ask him about it. If all else fails I can set you up some kind of HTTP/HTTP proxy. If you have no idea what I just wrote and you think you might be interested in it, feel free to email me. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First, no. I have no access to that. Second, no idea what on earth you're talking about ;). Third, he is, but he is so stressed at the moment with the huge problems with his new servers. It'll be a while before I can talk to him about it. Fourthly, sounds interesting - what does it entail? --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to your talk page ;) - FrancisTyers 17:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New bans placed on Huaiwei and Instantnood

I have banned both Huaiwei and Instantnood from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway for the duration of their probation periods. They have continued sterile edit wars, despite all of the warnings and previous bans. Earlier up on this page I said I would unprotect Guangshen Railway and ban them if they restarted the edit war (ie, protection is a means to allow dispute resolution to take place, but here we can enforce an end to the dit war without it), and it has restarted, even after the latest ban yesterday (above). I find almost no productive edits, just continued alterations of wordings and format, back and forth, with snippy unproductive edit summaries, and little or no discussion of reverts on talk pages (since they already thoroughly know what the other will say). In fact, I'm sure there are other articles where they are doing the same thing, and I hope this will send some kind of a message. I urge admins to take a look at this situation and scrutinize their edit wars, as it's been going on entirely too long. This action is, of course, up for review. Dmcdevit·t 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And Another....

They don't seem to want to stop, I have now added Queensway to the growing list. It's sad really, it's a pretty innocuous disambig page but there had to be a Queensway in Hong Kong so of course the Huaiwei and Instant battle had to be carried there. --Wgfinley 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a log to record bans annd blocks in this case. Please add yours. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea, I have done so. I also did a 24 hr block on Instantnood for this edit [136] on Char siu, he "turned himself in" and apologized on my talk page, saying he didn't realize he was banned from that one [137] so I made the block for 24 hrs as opposed to the 48 for Huaiwei. I still thought it merited a block for him to consider reviewing the articles he's being banned from. --Wgfinley 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Still More

I added another this evening, List of cities in China is now also on the list. I was hopeful banning on a few articles and the blocks would send the message, I'm starting to grow concerned that it is not and more serious measures will be needed. --Wgfinley 10:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbecued pork with rice was added for Huaiwei, I protected and requested the parties to sort it out on talk. Huaiwei indicated he was more interested in what happened in other articles, this is de facto edit warring to me so I banned him from the page. --Wgfinley 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly protests this action on the part of Wgfinley. That was a discussion page, not the article page, and using my comments here as basis for a page ban is sending a message to everyone that perhaps all of us should stop using discussion pages least they be used as basis for administrative actions which are not fought over in the article itself? And I find it absolutely ridiculous for Wgfinley to say that I appear "much more interesting in bringing up other arguments and other articles without any reference to this one.", when the conversation he refers to was ignited by comments made by instantnood [138], which included the words "A similar debate is around the Singapore-centric set up of the bakkwa article (see talk:bakkwa)" That he considers this evidence of "edit warring" on my part alone is completely baseless. Impartiality on the part of Wgfinley is sorely missed here, and I am inclined to think he is also reacting based on discussions taking place in User talk:Huaiwei.--Huaiwei 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme court

These two are battling over the designation of Hong Kong in ths list. What is the procedure for stopping them editing specific articles? --TimPope 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that one was blatant and obvious, I have banned them both now from that article. Contact and admin to evaluate and see if they are violating their probation, that one is a no-brainer. --Wgfinley 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, one wonders where those two will go to next... --TimPope 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

Does Wikipedia have a clear stance with reference to Holocaust denial? I ask because of the conversation now going on at Talk:Budapest#Please delete Holocaust promotion from Budapest page. Frankly, it is straining my limits to stay within the bounds of civility there. It is possible that I am misreading the remarks by Bloblaw, but it reads to me as if, besides questioning the mention of the Holocaust in this particular article, he is saying that it is POV to make an unqualified assertion that the Holocaust occurred. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talkpage. As for the more general issue, I don't think any opinions should be verboten in Wikipedia. Someone can think that Santa Claus or Xenu is real, that the moon landing was a hoax, or that the holocaust is a fabrication. What they cannot do is force these opinions into articles over the objection of a consensus of editors citing reliable sources. But we don't need a special stance for holocaust denial. Babajobu 07:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a special stance, but we shouldn't let fringe groups influence content in a wide range of unrelated articles. For instance, WTC conspiracy theorists have tried to rewrite conservation of energy to express the belief that the release of energy during the building collapse "disproves" the laws of physics. I see this as similar to a holocaust denier attempting to influence the content of Budapest. It is fine to explain the beliefs of holocause deniers in Holocaust denial. Outside of that article, we can deal with widely accepted historical facts, without the need to make concessions to the holocaust deniers, who in truth are a tiny minority. NPOV doesn't require us to give their opinion every time we mention a holocaust-related statistic. This falls under the "undue weight" clause. Rhobite 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, but there isn't much harm if they keep it on the talk page (unless it gets really excessive).--Sean|Black 08:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. I was saying they were entitled to mention their position on the talkpage, but not to have it inserted into the article over the consensus of reliable sources that rubbishes their opinion. I don't think that sort of opinion has a place in the Budapest article at all, just as the belief that the moon landing was a hoax has no place in an article that mentions the landing only in passing. Babajobu 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On that note, one of the most popular vandalisms on my watchlist is adding "allegedly" to Neil Armstrong... Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

About User:Bloblaw specifically, this attack convinces me that he will probably never be a worthwhile editor: "You are very likely a Zionist shill paid to police the internet media by your ideologic handlers." [139] i.e. the Jewish media conspiracy. He also believes that all Muslims are holocaust deniers. Nothing wrong with blocking people like him after a few of these anti-semitic rants. Rhobite 08:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful here, Rhobite because Antizionism (article sorely missing) is rarely if at all Antisemitism. Especially Israel itself has become a hotbed of antizionism, which is no wonder because these people, being semites for the most part, suffer directly from Zionism. A growing number of antizionist Jews and Palestinians are more than just sick and tired of the murder and mayhem perpetrated by Zionism, both by Zionism and by retaliation against Zionism. Please keep this in mind, calling you a "Zionist shill paid to police the internet media for ideologic handlers" is albeit dumb, not antisemite. It's pretty much the same logic as most people abhor socialism and communism and still do not hate the German or Russian people who had these ideologies foisted upon them unwillingly. To Bloblaw should he or she be reading I have this to say: They don't have to PAY most people to police the "internet media" because their "ideologic handlers" (i.e. their school, university, television etc) have done such a fine job that people do it for free. (However I might add: reality is what you make of it and do try to question your conditioning, willya everybody :-) )

As far as Holocaust Denial is concerned, it is highly illegal to do publicy deny the Holocaust in Germany no matter how compelling the uncovered evidence one has against the official historic record. Just think about Mr. Zuendel of Zundelsite who was extradited to Germany to stand trial for it. In the same vein, people denying the Holocaust online (no matter where they live in the world and what their local laws may be on this), they fulfill the criteria for prosecution under the relevant articles of the German Penal Code and in theory may find themselves extradited to Germany. I'm saying in theory, because up to now they've only gone after high profile cases. 84.160.220.48 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went the gentler route and put the "welcomenpov" template on his talkpage. He hasn't edit warred, just argued and attacked on talk pages. If he keeps it up, though... Babajobu 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cypriot stud

This user has been waging a quixotic campaign to change the nationalities of second-generation Americans from "American" to "multiethnic American-born", and similar such gems [140]. He has so far been asked to stop by Arniep, Woohookitty, RandalSchwartz, Eurosong and Extraordinary Machine among others, but to no avail. This has been going on for several weeks, and is causing substantial disruption by clogging up the edit histories. I would be considering a block, but I think I'm too involved in the matter. Any help would be welcome. Mark¹ 14:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm digging through this. Give me a minute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Cypriot_Stud has a valid disagreement over the interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Even if he is asked to stop, it's not clear at this point that he's wrong. We need to establish consensus before we resort to blocking. (Of course if he clearly goes against consensus, that's another matter.) The debate is currently going on here. In the meantime, I'd advise that no one revert these changes either way until we know what consensus is, and I let Cypriot_Stud know this as well here. (By the way, Mark, you were right to bring this here instead of making the block yourself.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this not a legitimate disagreement as everyone disagrees with him including the manual of style. He seems to believe that somehow people are not really American but an amalgamation of whatever ethnicities that come from somewhere else and thus tries to add "American born" and of x, y and z descent at the top of every article that he finds. Arniep 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not "everyone" disagrees. Just because you find someone's arguments unconvincing, that doesn't make the disagreement invalid. The manual of style's declaration is ambiguous, as some believe "nationality" refers to ethnicity as well as citizenship, and some do not. Please let's wait and see what the consensus is, instead of reverting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Arniep here. I think the consensus is fairly clear. Even if it were not, editors who disagree are jsut as free to revert this as over any content or style dispute, although discussiuon is always better than revert warring. If a consensus on a particular page is clear, editing in opposition to it may become disruptive. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this hasn't even been discussed (except on cyp's talk page) for even 24 hours at this point, I wouldn't say that the consensus is clear yet. Give it some time. What's the rush? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken -- I was engaged in a discussion of this over a week ago. I don't recall the precise page, off hand, but I can find it, I'm sure. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, please see this series of edits, adn later ones in the same section of the same MoS talk page. That is 10 days ago. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But I still don't think consensus is yet clear, and I'd like to give it a little more time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for nearly a month now and we have discussed it endlessly on various pages including Talk:Jennifer Aniston. It is clear this user is going against everyone else's opinion as I don't see anyone else reverting his way so what he is doing has now become disruption. Arniep 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this has been going on since November so it is even more important to stop this disruption now. Arniep 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Arniep, and I don't believe the definition of Nationality is ambiguous at all. Even assuming it was ambiguous, consider the original intent of the Manual of Style - do you think it really wants editors to define every person's ethnicity in the first paragraph of their biography? I think User:Cypriot stud is missing the point and for some reason campaigning to fulfill every technicality of his interpretation of the MoS. The argument is just silly. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) does NOT intend nationality to mean ethnicity; the only reason we need consensus is to modify the policy to make it unquestionably clear that it doesn't. -- Renesis13 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that he did not get his own way in highlighting Aniston's greek ethnicity at the top of the article (the user is himself Greek Cypriot) so he set out to make a WP:POINT by trying to replace nationality with ethnicity on Michael Douglas, Kirk Douglas, Lauren Bacall among others. Arniep 00:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If another admin is convinced that he violated WP:POINT, I won't object to a 24-hour block - I'm just not convinced enough that it's warranted to do it myself. It seems he has stopped, though, at least temporarily, so it's probably moot. If you think it's clear what "nationality" means, go state your opinion. If you already have, in a couple days I'll deal with it by announcing consensus (if it's clear), and if anyone repeatedly reverts against consensus, they can be blocked for that. Quadell 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

it's pretty obvious that the consensus is against him already, just look at the messages on his talk page User_talk:Cypriot stud. Arniep 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wasn't involved in the dispute regarding nationalities, but I commented on his talk page in response to his edits to Katie Melua in which he changed the section headers against WP:MOS guidelines ("Early life" to "Early Life" etc., see [141] [142]), despite being asked not to before. However, I don't think that he's a deliberately disruptive editor, just unaware of the importance of the MOS (though as I said, I haven't been involved in the nationalities dispute). On a related note, are administrators allowed to use the rollback feature for MOS violations? I thought that it was only supposed to be used in response to vandalism or spam. I'm not an administrator, so I don't know much about this. Extraordinary Machine 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers/Biff Rose

I have blocked Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some associated IPs and usernames, for one week due to persistent disruption. The most recent incidents have been vandalism of a user's page. [143][144] The editor has been very disruptive to the project, including abuse of sock puppets and harassment of editors. -Will Beback 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

it is apparent that the vandalism Jonah Ayers points to by Sojambi Pinola is actual. this block may very well be unwarranted abuse by an administrator.Wallawe 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wallawe" is most likely another Jonah Ayers sock puppet. -Will Beback 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent that this was Wallawe's fourth edit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New socks, user:Kevin hopetter and user:216.244.3.79, blocked for the same duration. -Will Beback 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:LawAndOrder

LawAndOrder (talk · contribs) just spammed a bunch of pages b3gz0ring for votes from people who voted oppose on William M Connolly's RFA. Time to hang this sock out to dry, please. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I knew this was a bad idea. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's sockcheck it for SEWilco first. :) Phil Sandifer 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked LawAndOrder for 24 hours for this blatant violation of WP:POINT. Ambi 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's SEWilco. I think it's a combination of WP:POINT and the user's hatred of myself (why, I'm not exactly sure). Ral315 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is SEWilco either. SEWilco wasn't targeting "oppose" voters. Maybe someone should ask. (SEWilco 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

User:Maoririder

This guy is quite a problem, as anyone who has run across his edits will know. At the end of last year, after a series of bewildering edits, and a course of mentoring which didn't work at all, he was banned for a week. After the week was up, there was no sign of Maoririder... but up popped User:Jingofetts, with an identical style, and eventually he revealed himself to be Maoririder. Having lost his password, he had simply come back with a new user name. So far so good, except that his extremely distinctive editing style hadn't improved any, and in his first week back, he was blocked again. Now Jingofetts has fallen silent, and we have User:MaoJin. Exactly the same MO, and the user page says that the user "lost password".

Something needs to be done about this guy. It's fairly clear that his intentions are good, but it's a hell of a job mopping up after him - unintentional vandalism would be the best way to describe it. And since he keeps losing his password and coming back with a new name, it's never easy to know where he'll pop up next. Cleaning up his patent attempts at stub-templates alone takes long enough... he seems to have a fixation with using as many templates as possible (have a look at this for a fine example. So, what to do? Grutness...wha? 12:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

d'oh! should also have noticed the name: Maoririder/Jingofetts. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole, as with the B-Movie Bandit back in the day. We've spent enough time on this guy. Ambi 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

From my limited experience at the Reference Desk, I did note he often asked childish, though legitimate, questions. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, he became obsessed with the word "nigger" which caused a lot of problems. Rhobite 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He accused several users, including me, of calling him by that word, and became very disruptive about it. android79 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, the B-movie bandit. Those were the good days. Ilyanep 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

AAAH! Where'd my sig go? Ilyanep 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here, Grutness. Maoririder is currently under mentorship following an ArbCom case filed against him. I and several other users have been trying to help him. I'll try and deal with this, but if anyone notices that he's using any other accounts, please let me know or post here. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that MaoJin has been caught by the followign block: 13:22, 12 January 2006, Hall Monitor blocked 169.244.143.115 (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (severely high ratio of vandalism from this IP; please contact an administrator to have this block removed) DES ^(talk) 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised people think this user's intentions are good. He admits to trolling here: [145]. He has not only done a great deal of damage but did so with full intent. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a combination of assuming good faith and the fact that he seems (hm.. how to say this delicately...) not the sharpest needle in the box. Personally I suspect some form of mild intellectual/psychological problem, but I also feel it's wrong to speculate too much on that without evidence other than his bizarre edits. Grutness...wha? 08:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maoririder is currently under mentorship. This doesn't seem to be going particularly well considering he has yet to give any indication that he has read WP:YFA, as you have asked him (on many occasions). --TheParanoidOne 12:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at his contributions and his user page for that matter I first have to grope for a political correct way to express myself here. I have to agree, saying he is not the sharpest needle in the box is probably the nicest way of putting it - but this is by no means me passing a judgement of such magnitude out of hand over someone I have never met in person, but merely the impression I get reviewing his contributions. I would also like to note that I know personally a few people that are not considered particularily bright but in the end all that is "amiss" with them is that they take a bit longer to think things through. Interestingly enough, sometimes they come up with anwers and insights that elude most of us "smart" people. Now as far as Maoririder is concerned, the situation we are put in with him is not one of our or his making but a result of misguided, ill politics taken to the extreme that do much harm and little good to both sides of the equation. However it is not our place to try to convince this individual not to remain in this project do to his mental ineptitude and thus I recommend more mentoring and damage control where possible. The vandalism Maoririder engaged in recently, I would ask you to let that slide in this case. I think he vandalized that page more out of frustration than anything else. 84.160.220.48 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerald15

I have blocked Gerald15 (talk · contribs) for one week for repeatedly creating hoax articles and adding hoax information to existing articles. He has made up a city called Comerica City, which he claims, with no documentation, is the name of the city that the Peanuts characters live in, and has created multitudes of articles about each street in this made up city. He has been warned many times about the hoaxes, but now he has created The Five Peanuts Cities, which he inserted into the Peanuts article, and which I have speedy deleted, and have blocked him for it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Such vandalism is more heinous than simple vandalism, and a week is probably lenient. I'm still wincing over the User:RyanCahn insanity. --Golbez 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still see Ryan trying to edit on a weekly basis. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to resurrect Wikipedia career

Bishonen made an interesting comment subsequent to my three-day departure from Wikipedia. I had returned today to search for something and while I was here, decided to browse through some disputes that have grown old. Analyzing her talk page history, I came across that comment and decided to proceed to post a comment here. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that my Wikipedia career had been cut short due to a ridiculous situation. I had been blocked and subsequently banned from this website because various users assumed bad faith (I am tired of bringing that guideline up) and insisted that I had been conducting the accounts User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario and operating them as sock puppets. This was due to an IP check. However, without allowing me to go into much detail and plead my case, both of the accounts were blocked, and my account User:Hollow Wilerding was subsequently banned up to two weeks. This had been based purely on assumptions, bad faith, not allowing me to have a major case, and ignoring a compromise. I had suggested a compromise by creating the account User:Siblings CW, for my brother who previously operated the User:DrippingInk account. The User:Winnermario account was operated by a roommate of mine who abandoned it because she was temporarily blocked. I attempted to file an RfC against Bishonen because of her misuse of administrator abilities; this part is truly laughable, as it presents poor judgement from the Wikipedia community, instantly painting a bad name for the website. The "cookies" and "cupcakes" is basically speaking the following: personal attacks. No compromise was suggested at the RfC either. So what is the use of the request for comment option if the entire community is going to laugh about the situation and suppose that they're correct? They had never considered that they could be the ones who are wrong.

I would like a compromise and a chance to operate another account solely, without my brother or roommate accessing Wikipedia. (They're both... infuriated with the situation that occurred.) The only reason I came to Wikipedia was to make it more wholesome and widespread. If this is the way Wikipedians are going to treat others on the edge of slippery slopes, then we're far from ever completing the encyclopedia. As I am attempting to plead my case, please don't block this IP. It'd be appreciated. 64.231.179.104 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• snores* This is boring, Hollow.--Sean|Black 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. Why are you ignoring my case? Do you think I'm joking and am so incredibly bored that I decided to come and waste my time posting this? Why don't you give this thought? Why don't you say something productive and help enhance the Wikipedia community? Your attitude presents that you don't care if the encyclopedia had one less editor who has taken the time to improve a few articles. Please just listen to me. 64.231.179.104 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Come back on the 16th. If you're truly dedicated to the project, prove it by waiting. Blocking IP until then.--Tznkai 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How is proving dedication done by refraining from editing? I feel as though my editing skills have not been meaningful. 64.231.179.104 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked until 20:00 JAN 15 UTC. I hate time syntax, I don't get it. Block evasion is a no no. Take it up through proper channels.--Tznkai 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) ::Surely you could have found a more civil way to say you were not inclined to support HW's request, Sean. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only five days; why not take the time to collect thoughts/materials on what contributions you want to make when the block ends? Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I could have. But if she wants to come back, it's obvious that her old accounts won't get unblocked, and that if she keeps insisting that she never did anything wrong, we're not going to listen to her. Get a new account, don't say that you are the same person, and move on.--Sean|Black 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean all that after going through a two week block, don't you, Sean? So far, this user has not stopped editing at all, so the block counter keeps getting restarted. The two weeks begins, at this point, on Jan. 13 or 13 Jan. 2006. That's when it starts, because the user continues to edit as an IP during the block. Geogre 12:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody would question that you are devoted to the project.

Whether or not you're devoted to helping the project, on the other hand, seems manifestly up in the air. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Snowspinner — Phil Sandifer — has blocked the User:Hollow Wilerding account indefinitely, it's my earlier two-week block that's the operative one, since shortest block rules. My block will be released on January 15th or 16th — whatever your timezone says — together with any longer block. I won't reblock, personally; I've blocked HW—the main account—twice, and that's enough from me. It's indeed obvious, as you say, Sean, that all the other old accounts won't get unblocked: they've been used for block evasion, vote stacking, and other abuse,[146] I can't imagine them ever being unblocked.

Sean, I have to say, though, that I'm quite opposed to advising Hollow to get a new account and pretend (yet again) to be somebody else — hasn't there been enough of that? A truly new departure, IMO, would be to start the new career, if any, with acknowledgement of the past and the use of the original (more or less) account. If the HW account now appears, understandably, as an albatross, I advise an open change of username. Bishonen | talk 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right.--Sean|Black 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this user has been committed to block evasion. The user was blocked as Winnermario, then became Hollow Wiledering. When that was blocked, he immediate became Siblings WC. When that was blocked, he became Empty Wallow. When that was blocked, he continued to post as a series of dynamic IP's. Now, what's clear is that the user has not endured any block time and will not play by the rules that all other users have to abide by. For me, this is a far worse case than any given misbehavior (personal attacks, voting for himself three times, supporting his own motions, etc.). The misbehavior shows a dedication to lying, but the block evasion is an attempt to avoid the only method of discipline (not punishment) that Wikipedia has. That cannot be tolerated. When the user ceases to edit, from any IP, for two weeks, he will have simply caught up with past offenses. The offense of block evasion is a separate matter, with a separate penalty. In the Willy case, I believe we wanted a hard ban. I am not recommending that, but I wouldn't be too shocked if others wanted it. After all, the behavior while editing has been deception upon deception, although not article vandalism. How much should that count? However much it does, block evasion counts more. Geogre 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I can simply no longer refrain from participating in this conversation and therefore must post a comment. I would heavily appreciate it if User:Geogre, User:Bishonen or any user finally answered a question that has constantly been ignored (which I'm beginning to find peculiar): what is your evidence that I am one user and I operated all three accounts? Also, User:Siblings CW was not created after I was blocked but two days before. Please do not post a comment if you are unaware of the accurate information because it makes me look like a criminal. I believe that I deserve to post on Wikipedia just as anyone else does. After all, the motto is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" It is not "The free encyclopedia that anyone who is not a vandal, sock puppet, or user who has been accused of something that has not been proven can edit!" Besides, if it weren't for my contributions, Cool (song) and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask would not have become FAs. I find it very questionable why one would come to edit Wikipedia, make enhancements like these, and subsequently be called "a useless contributer". I would like to create a new account (unless User:Hollow Wilerding is unblocked). I would also like to know where a few users are getting the idea that User:Winnermario may be me, but User:DrippingInk is not. Please be as civil as possible when responding and do not block this IP. If I never have a chance to edit Wikipedia again, what will be one's reason for blocking my IP in the year 2020? Block evasion? Uh... 64.231.176.254 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your various lies by various sockpuppets all run into each other. Here's a good one: [147]. And please don't insult our intelligence by telling us that edit wasn't made from your account. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not type that. It was my brother in an attempt to settle the score but he made it worse. Yes, that contribution came from our computer, but was made by my brother. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil answer from an administrator who has no involvement in this whatsoever and no ties to any of the other administrators previously involved:

1. All the answers to your questions are right here on this page, as well as the demonstrations that many of your assertions are mistaken. I saw them and have no other source of knowledge about you.
2. For example, no one is keeping you from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to make a fresh start with another account. It is the previous persona, behavior, attitude, and bad faith that have been blocked and are unwelcome, and the paragraphs on this page provide direct or indirect evidence of all of them.
3. Please do not argue about this any more. We are all sick of it. Your next post is your choice to make. Either
   1. Start editing an article of interest in a different manner than before under a new name or even just an IP number, or
   2. Keep arguing here about how you don't understand or don't accept the community response to your previous behavior and it will tell us that what you really want is a public theater or courtroom to play out your victimization psychodrama; if you choose this course it will of course confirm everything you are denying.

Be a grown-up. Enjoy the chance to make a completely fresh start with people you have offended in a way that never happens in the real world. Join the community as a new account and be a different person. Your move. alteripse 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will therefore register a new account. User:DrippingInk, my brother, will not edit, and my roomate User:Winnermario will not edit either. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding/64.231.75.102 (talk · contribs) wrote on user talk:Everyking that she had originally joined Wikipedia under the Winnermario (talk · contribs) account [148], but above she says that it was operated by "a roommate of mine". Coupled with continued incivility (among other things), it's clear that Hollow Wilerding has not realised the error of her ways, and I'd recommend that the ban on her editing Wikipedia, whether anonymously or not, be maintained indefinitely. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That was also written by my brother in a foolish attempt to resurrect our lives on Wikipedia. It was posted from our computer, yet I was not the contributer. I am not User:Winnermario. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Smn? How did this notice get to the bottom? El_C 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

here El C. I thought about reverting it, but I decided not to. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Worked some magic. That's all. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new account, the one I came currently contributing from. I would appreciate it if no one blocked this account, and I will go around informing people of this. My name will not be displayed in my profile, but I will continue editing my usual articles including Gwen Stefani singles and other music-related categories. All hail Mariah Carey! Thank you for allowing me to return to Wikipedia. Solar Serenity 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm so confused; tempted to block on account of that alone. El_C 01:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Alteripse noted that I should create an account and just go on and edit. Why not? It was an opinion from another admin. I agree; I never meant to cause any harm, I'm just another editor here improving articles that I desire. User:El C, your concern appears to be stable, but let's have this entire façade end. I just want to help the articles that I feel require article enhancement. I'll see you all later. Please let me be from this point forward. If one has a concern, just talk to me on my talk page, and please don't block. Discussion should always be conducted first. Thanks! Solar Serenity 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Though User:Bishonen sure doesn't want me to edit. She plans on blocking me again. How about a discussion first? —Solar Serenity | Ytineres Ralos 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't plan to block you again; you're still blocked, and therefore the new account is yet another sock. I certainly will block it. Sorry, but I'm quite confounded by alteripse's statement that "no one is keeping you from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to make a fresh start with another account." Making a "fresh start with another account" while blocked is one of the things that have gotten the person — not any one of her accounts, or all of them — into all this trouble.I'm surprised at the need for saying this, but I'll say it: HW — the person, the user who operated the account User:Hollow Wilerding, is not welcome to edit under another account while blocked! No blocked user is welcome to create another account while blocked and edit from it, as I'm sure alteripse knows. Alteripse, I'm wondering if perhaps there's a date confusion: did you realize she is still blocked? My two-week block will run out in two days' time, and when that goes, so does Snowspinner's indefinite block. We have been talking, above, about letting her start editing again at that point. You haven't unblocked HW yourself, and nobody else has either. To Hollow: I've blocked the new account. I'm sorry if you were given the wrong impression, and I won't hold it against you that you created a new account at this time, since there seems to be some misunderstanding. But as you can see above, you are expected to sit out this two-week block. It's frankly little enough to ask, considering the circumstances. DO NOT try to edit until the two-week block runs out, unless a total change of consensus is indicated here, in this thread, before then. So far, nobody but alteripse has suggested that it's remotely appropriate for you to start editing before then. Please don't try. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who may not know, this isn't solely about creation of sockpuppet accounts, deception and disruption (though those infractions in and of themselves I would consider grounds for permanent banning). Winnermario was blocked for 24 hours for making homophobic personal attacks not too long ago, and also became one of the subjects of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues (there's more to be said, which I'll leave out for brevity's sake). I have an extremely difficult time believing that Hollow Wilerding's admittance that she had previously been Winnermario was "written by [her] brother", especially given the falsehoods that whoever this person is has been coming up with while rotating through new accounts and IP's. See also this edit to Sorry (Madonna song), in which user:Solar Serenity formatted a track listing in violation of normal English conventions or Wikipedia's manual of style, despite several previous warnings about this. Additionally, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked." To say that Hollow Wilerding/Winnermario/etc. has "exhausted the community's patience" would be extremely accurate in my opinion, and she should be blocked from editing articles at least until the two-week block expires in accordance with Wikipedia:Banning policy. Extraordinary Machine 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

I just checked my log to make sure I'm not crazy, but Hollow was blocked until the 16th. I reblocked Hollow's new IP until the 16th. The USER is blocked, and evidently Hollow, her siblings, her dog, and anyone else who has access to her name is also blocked as they all have showed spectacularly similar conduct. At the very least Hollow is blocked. This has not changed, and continued block evasion is just asking for a new block.

Anyone able to give me a good reason NOT to block the new user name and IP until the 16th if not later?--Tznkai 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Both IP and new account are blocked until 20:00 Jan 15 UTC, although I'm considering extending them.--Tznkai 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, please see my reply to alteripse above. I really think he may be unaware that she's still blocked. Anyway, I very much agree with you, and I've also blocked the new (sock) account. As I said, still higher up in this thread, I'm not planning on re-blocking HW after the two-week block runs out (unless there are more shenanigans). Please don't sanction her for creating the Solar Serenity account, as it looks like she was led by alteripse's post into thinking she had a right to do that. But honestly, if she now, after my clarification above, can't or won't sit out the remaining two days now, I'd be all for you re-blocking. Behaving herself for two whole days would be the very first gesture of good faith and cooperation she has made since this sorry business began. I don't think that's too much to ask, as a token of respect for the community and its policies. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Bishonen. The user has not been two weeks without editing. In fact, the user has evaded the block on every day but three during the two weeks. Re-blocking this one particular account name may be moot, as the user now has six accounts, but I would not be satisfied until the user goes fourteen days with no edits as an anonymous IP, as Siblings WC, as Empty Wallow, as Solar Serenity, or as Winnermario, or as Drippinglink, or as Cruz Along, or as any of the other accounts the user has set up to evade blocks. After those two weeks, let there be Arb Com or Mentoring. If no one but Everyking is available to be the user's mentor, then I'd suggest ArbCom and permanent blocking on sight. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the only method of discipline the project has is the block. Evading the blocks is vandalism, no matter the content of the edits. Geogre 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion about 70.27.215.204 (talk · contribs) as [149] and [150] are exactly the same edits that Hollow Wilerding has previously attempted while blocked (see [151] and [152], for example). IP's only edit prior to the last few hours was to the page Harajuku Lovers Tour 2005, about a Gwen Stefani concert tour (a substantial number of edits by Hollow Wilerding and his socks/IP's are to Stefani-related articles). Note the similarity between the summary in the edit to that page and those at Special:Contributions/Hollow Wilerding. In any case, I've left a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Extraordinary Machine 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanket Block

On the off chance Hollow is telling the truth, I'm going to issue a blanket block for all person's in that house because of their inability to clearly show a lack of sockpuppetering, individual identity, and civil behavior. In otherwards, they are all blocked for the same duration, for disrupting the Wiki, whether all is one or twenty. Objections?--Tznkai 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, the ArbCom already formally defines such households as one person. But, since this has been explained to HW several times and she seems to have trouble grasping it, I think the blanket block is a great idea: it may help her get her mind round the concept that she's responsible for anything, including any lies, that are posted from her computer with her password. Bishonen | talk 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me once more say very clearly, in words that the user can grasp: fulfill the two week block by not editing, under any guise, for two full weeks, and then you can have an RFC on your actions. At the very least, you would need someone trusted and dispassionate to be your mentor. I don't know why user:alterpise said what he did, but his view is not supported by any of the other administrators (except one) who has reviewed the case. You are not free to open yet another account and edit away. In fact, you are responsible for each of the edits made by the brother/lover/husband/roommate/self (and you've explained each each way). The lies pile upon each other to such a degree as to render each and every statement null. There is no information you can offer about yourself that can be believed. At this point, the single user case you remind me of most of all is Michael. He was blocked for over a year, and when he came back, it was only with a very patient mentor. Let ArbCom decide on what terms you can edit, if you wish to edit at all. Otherwise, you are going to be treated by many administrators as simply a vandal to be blocked on sight. Geogre 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine the problem and its source

I don't know alot about this case, but believe that we - as a whole - should look over the issue from the beginning, for if an unfair block was leavied against this - as I believe* - decent editor and contributor it would drive her to protest any way she could, which since her talk page has been shut down (one of the worst things that you can do to a blocked user IMHO) would include making new accounts. In one of them she plainly states who she is - doesn't sound too sneaky to me...

Also while I don't know the situations of her family I do believe that you are being hasty for unless you know 100% that she's the only one in the house you don't have a right to cite those edits as coming from her. A block pertains to a person not an account right, well does that block automatically trasfere to anyone using the same computer and their accounts? I believe over all we should step back and trace this conflict to its roots. Chooserr 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*Just looking at her contributions for a few seconds I find quite a few contributions, such as adding categories and exapanding the articles. Chooserr 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a Michael-like situation. Block 1 for personal attacks came to Winnermario. Instead of taking the block, the user created the account of Hollow Wildering. For several weeks, the user edited there, maintaining that the user was a 24 year old teacher in Toronto. The user also had two other accounts. These accounts were used to vote for articles created by HW on FAC. In one case, these false votes were the only ones cast, and the article got promoted. CheckUser showed that three accounts were, indeed, the same IP. The user lied on at least four occasions about that (one is brother/roomate/neighbor and another is neighbor/boyfriend/husband/roommate, depeding on which diff or day you check). That block was for two weeks. Again, the user immediately evaded the block by setting up yet another account (bringing the total to four). That was blocked, since the editor had not yet served a single day of the Winnermario block, much less the Hollow Wiledering block. The user then set up another account (now we're at five) to evade that block. When that was blocked, the user began editing as a series of dynamic IP's. The user has now set up a sixth account. Notice that the user has not served a single 24 hour period of block time. The user has evaded five blocks. The issue is not the edits, it's the mendacity and the complete unwillingness to abide by the rules of the project. (Or am I the only one reading this who remembers the Michael situation?) Geogre 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Michael situation, but I must say that you have to examine all sides of the situation, and the blocking of her talk page is extremely rude/wrong. I think at least we should unblock the talks and give her a chance to defend herself. Also it's quite plausible that she does have a brother, and a roommate that also contribute. Maybe look for differences in their writing styles or a large amount of similarities to see if indeed they are the same person. Chooserr 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the lengthy convo above, you will see that whether they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets is unimportant. And, for what its worth, User talk:Winnermario is not protected against editing. Jkelly 01:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Assistance for Chooserr and others in examining the problem and its source

Chooserr, you say frankly that you don't know much about the case. I hope this selection of relevant links will be useful for your research, I picked them with some care. If you click on them and read these pages you will become well informed and better able to discuss the issues. I hope they may also be convenient for others coming late to the party:

1. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl
2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding
3. WP:ANI: Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding
4. User talk:Hollow Wilerding
5. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen

Here is a summary I've written of the reasons Hollow Wilerding was blocked. I really don't think it can leave you still wondering "if an unfair block was levied against her". She has been blocked twice altogether, both times by me. (Of course the block-evading socks she created while blocked have been blocked also, by many different admins. Not blocking those would have been a) very weird, b) starkly against policy and practice.) The summary demonstrates that the Hollow Wilerding blocks I placed were conservative — were short — in relation to the gross violations committed. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

P.S. User talk:Hollow Wilerding has apparently been protected against editing for ten days. I didn't know that, and I don't see why it should be. I've unprotected it. Bishonen | talk 03:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked over your links and while I think that her continuous renomination of Hollaback Girl, or whatever the exact spelling is, was uncalled for what I see is that she and her brother both edit from a "family computer" and have tried to avoid controversy by making a joint account, which has been blocked. I do see that she has made excessive accounts (not including the two for her brother, and roommate) to circumvent blockes, but I have no problem believing she did this in a sort of defense. The "empty willow(?)" account clearly stated who she was, and the "solar" one was used here to discuss, neither was hiding anything. I'm not condoning what she's done, but I believe that there should be outside people contributing to this discussion that aren't biased. I suggest we 1) make her list all who contribute on the family computer 2) allow each a seperate account 3) get rid of the infite block prescribing instead I don't know a few weeks, but make it clear that this block is for the whole computer Chooserr 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points 1+2: I wish people wouldn't keep suggesting things that are based on the idea of Hollow Wilerding providing reliable information, because tht's pointless. I'd so much rather not keep repeating this, especially since I believe the user to be very young, but since you twist my arm, here goes: HW doesn't have any credibility on wikipedia. Even if you've studied my links thoroughly (and I hardly see how you would have had the time), those links only contain a fraction of the real list of her deceit, misleading statements, and circumstantial tall tales, always, as I've said before, with the words honesty and AGF in her mouth. I don't want her lists.

Point 3) I seem to be repeating myself since forever about this aspect too. :-( The infinite block will disappear automatically when my two-week block expires, which will be Real Soon Now. Please scroll up to where I explain this: "Although Snowspinner — Phil Sandifer — has blocked the User:Hollow Wilerding account indefinitely, it's my earlier two-week block that's the operative one, since shortest block rules. My block will be released on January 15th or 16th — whatever your timezone says — together with any longer block." [153] Geogre thinks the account should then be immediately re-blocked for another couple of weeks, since HW has so notoriously violated and disrespected the present block, and ought to have a block during which she behaves with some decorum (for a change) and demonstrates that shewill have some respect for community policies. I wouldn't object to that. Nor would you, by the sound of it. Bishonen | talk 05:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Briefly: The user must fulfill the two week block by actually not editing from any account or IP for that long. It is only after that that we can talk about how good or bad the editor's work is, whether any of the multiple versions of the family romance-family setting the editor has described should be believed or not. Until the penalty for personal attacks and then for vote stacking and then legal threats is served, we should hear no discussion of how good or bad the edits to Gwen Stefani articles are. Geogre 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now after 20:00 Jan 15 UTC. The block has expired. It is time that I make my case.

I am not going to fulfill a two-week block because, as stated by me numerous times before, the three of us had not intended to harm Wikipedia. It is Bishonen who turned the situation into an uproar when it could have easily been prevented. For example, User:Siblings CW was blocked before User:Hollow Wilerding and Siblings CW was tagged as a sock puppet account when I had confirmed that we attempted to compromise by creating an account for us to share. Out of nowhere, Bishonen "informs" us that public accounts are not allowed. There is no such policy or guideline on Wikipedia, and also, let us say that Hollow Wilerding had been operated by three different people from the start, nobody would have figured, making this "policy" completely useless to Wikipedia. The blocking of User:Siblings CW presents obvious facts that Bishonen did not want us to be capable of compromising and be blocked for "using sock puppet attacks". Furthermore, she has been attempting to continuously enforce my block because she did not like my response(s) at the nominations for Hollaback Girl. Had the two of us never met before, I'm sure this situation would have differed greatly, and an actual discussion would have commenced instead of a ridiculous argument where the admins can only guess at poke at the three of us with fun. Geogre's above comment is solely backing-up Bishonen's comment as they appear to be friends, so of course he would say such a thing. What would be the point of talking about family/friend(s) issues after a block when the family/friend(s) had not meant to cause harm? I should have just asked my brother and roommate to not vote, or have removed their votes from the FAC.

Sometimes people are sent to prison, and twenty years later, it is discovered that they did not commit the crime. That person is therefore capable of placing a legal lawsuit. The same situation sort of holds ground here as well, though I don't believe the lawsuit is necessary as that would just be silly. In other words, I do not accept the terms of a block without solid evidence. Once again, assuming is not enough evidence. I thank Chooserr for actually analyzing the positive side of things. You should be an honoured God on this site for such a thing. Bishonen's negative response full of assumptions is purely predictable. 64.231.119.224 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr, it may be of your interest that Bishonen and several other users were having a very biased, POV and bad faith conversation about why you came to my aid. Care to see the conversation? 64.231.119.224 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am awaiting the next step in the procedure. 64.231.162.68 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to say those things here, too, except that it didn't apply to AN/I. Now, whether you intend to comply with a block or not, you were, indeed, blocked. You see, it doesn't matter if you agree with it. Now, I suppose I will have to get involved for the first time and block your accounts. Obey the same rules everyone else does, and keep your misstatements to yourself, please. Geogre 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, it definitely applied to AN/I. You see, you will not be blocking me because you still have no evidence. I also see that User:Everyking was blocked because he was attempting to help me. Are you really that positive that I am operating three accounts? Are you so positive that you'll begin taking it out on the others who oppose you and don't believe it? God, this has become outrageously pathetic. I am not going to keep "mis"statements to myself because you have to learn that you still have no raw material, no raw evidence, no raw resources that we're one person. 64.231.162.68 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow, since you opened the RFC on me yourself, why don't you go read Kelly Martin's explanation there of the view the ArbCom takes of such "household editing" as yours? And now I ask you to please pay attention and click on the links, because I'm only going to tell you this once: I'm one of the wimpy admins. When CheckUser caught you using votestacking sockpuppets on FAC and supporting the deceit by posting fake dialogue with yourself on your own talkpage/s, as well as I-don't-understand-this-technical-talk protestations on your RFA, I blocked you very gently in relation to such chicanery — only one week [154]. I warned you immediately against creating sockpuppet accounts while blocked ("if you have any interest in continuing to edit this site, don't evade this block by creating any new accounts whatsoever during the block. If you have any more sock accounts already established, don't use them while you're blocked"),[155]. When you wrote to this noticeboard pretending to be a stranger supporting you[156] [157], I extended the one-week block very conservatively for such deceit — into two weeks all together. Oh, and of course I, and many other admins have also blocked your abusive sock accounts indefinitely. We always do that. These are my crimes against you, my immense grudge, my failure to AGF, my hounding. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

In fact, Bishonen's mistake was in not beginning an ArbCom action against the user immediately. Apparently, she believed that the editor would reform after a two week block. I have always felt otherwise, but I am more Draconian when it comes to process abuse. Geogre 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the last edit I am making until User:Hollow Wilerding's block runs out. This is a promise, and I am not editing this website because if I continue evading the "block", then I'm not going to be able to take this Arbitration as I plan to. The ArbCom is full of ****ing bull****. I don't even require proof, as I'm 100% positive that there are multiple editors who edit from the same household. So that thing can say what it wants, but it's full of it. Y'know Bishonen, let us pretend: if I filed a lawsuit against you, all Mariah, Cruz and I would have to do is show up at court and you would immediately lose. 64.231.78.228 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OMG, don't you have any capacity at all for learning from experience? Are you planning to take it to arbitration because you liked the result of the RFC so much? Look, you're probably just a kid, you're in a hole, you need to stop digging. Do you plan to keep going till you reach the center of the earth? Bishonen | talk 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-block of Hollow Wilerding

The IP campaigning (pretending first not to be the editor) for Hollow Wilerding then says, "I am not going to fulfill a two-week block because, as stated by me numerous times before, the three of us had not intended to harm Wikipedia." That is an admission both that the first statement (that the IP is not the user) is incorrect and offers an admission that, until the user agrees with the block, he or she will not abide by the block and will continue to create accounts. Therefore, I have blocked the account for one week, which is far too little. Please note the following:

1. No user on a block is allowed to create an account
2. Any account created by a user on a block is supposed to be blocked indefinitely
3. No one gets to pick and choose which policies apply to him or her
4. By editing any data at Wikipedia, one is agreeing to abide by its policies.

Therefore, this block of one week for admitted block evasion and for a promise to continue to evade blocks until the user feels like they are just is, admittedly, too brief. My goal in making it only a week is yet another vain hope that the user will suspend editing until the block expires, then return to the account, at which time his or her behavior can be properly assessed by the arbitration committee. Geogre 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are laughable. When the one-week is complete, I'll be filing an arbitration against both you and Bishonen. Two weeks of wasting my time with policies, fictional guidelines, assuming bad faith, constantly accusing me of being a child or a male, not allowing me to discuss the issues, and even wanting to go as far as calling my house. It has become obvious that you're desperate. 64.231.168.115 02:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that above, Hollow Wilerding says that Cool (song) would not have become a featured article if not for his contributions, but it was Winnermario who helped shepherd the article to featured status, and the Hollow Wilerding account was created more than a week following the article's FA promotion. I fail to comprehend Hollow Wilerding/Winnermario's increasingly confrontational attitude, when it's clear for everybody to see in the edit histories that he/she has violated (off the top of my head) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Banning policy, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:No legal threats. Whatever your name is, you've been notified several times about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but continue to ignore them. It's likely that an request for comment will be opened regarding your unacceptable behaviour. Extraordinary Machine 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an RFC, Extraordinary Machine. In the first place, we've got one, since the community in practice turned the RFC/Bishonen, which HW unwisely brought, into an RFC on her behavior; and secondly we're past RFCs in any case. If the shenanigans continue, either an RFAr or a permanent community ban is the obvious next step. And they are continuing: HW has already violated her solemn undertaking not to try to edit for the duration of Geogre's one-week block. The autoblocker just caught her a little while ago using the Solar Serenity IP: "20:44, 16 January 2006, Bishonen (Talk) blocked #82331 (expires 20:44, 17 January 2006) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Solar Serenity". The reason given for Solar Serenity's block is: "Sockpuppet of blocked User:Hollow Wilerding"." I'm sorry I can't get the search facility to produce a linkable hit for that. The timestamps are for my timezone, which is CET (=UTC plus 1) and the reason the autoblocker credits me instead of Geogre is that I reset his block earlier for technical reasons (=stupidity). Hollow, if you have a reply/explanation for this, post it on your talkpage, not here. It will be read. You're allowed to edit User talk:Hollow Wilerding. Nothing else. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

Note: Accounts set up by blocked users must be blocked indefinitely. That is why the Solar Serenity account is blocked. Further, while the HW user asked on Bishonen's page whether that account could be used for her brother Cruz while she sat out the week's block, the HW user says, above, that the brother Cruz has left and will never return and has no desire to ever edit Wikipedia again. Thus, there have been no allowances for a family having multiple accounts with a single IP, as, above, we were assured that there was no longer more than one person wishing to edit. Until the block on that IP has been fulfilled by a week, no one from that IP can be assumed to be a different person. If anyone wants to see why there is no "AGF," simply read above. Geogre 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, not to nitpick, but actually the user asked if her brother could use the SS account after the just-started week's block. She vowed that he would not edit during the block. Sigh. There is a response to my post above, and purportedly a final goodbye, by HW on her talkpage: [158], [159]. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Masssiveego

User:Masssiveego has gone through over a dozen Rfa's and made numerous votes in the arbcom elections, all with the vote "oppose" and no reasons given whatsoever for his vote. Editor has apparently been around since 9/2003 but has less than 700 edits total. Contributions: [160].--MONGO 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he not have suffrage? What am I missing here? --Aaron 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the contributions...every single one of his votes in the arbcom elections and on Rfa's has been an oppose and no reason given. Does that not seem trollish to you?--MONGO 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should consider this to be trolling to the same degree as someone who votes "Delete" on all articles up for deletion. In other words - no. The only issue should be whether they are suitably new. Why block someone for trying to state their case about which administrators they think should be promoted? It is supposed to be some kind of a vote after all. Zordrac 03:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does appear trollish, but he either has the right to vote or he doesn't. If he wants to vote against every single person that ever gets nominated, that's his right. --Aaron 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I think its laughable that people even criticise this. I got criticised for voting "keep" on a whopping 40% of articles nominated for deletion, and then criticised for voting "oppose" on about 40% of candidates on RFAs. So did Freestylerappe. Its laughable really. Unless we are supposed to automatically vote delete on every article that's nominated and support on every administrator, it just reeks of an attempt to try to de-individualise people. We are all individuals, and should be allowed to vote outside of the box. Its little wonder there is so much paranoia about sock puppetry. Zordrac 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is about User:Masssiveego... --W.marsh 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Really, it's not all that disruptive. I'd say wait and see if the behavior continues. BDAbramson T 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they first logged in in early 2003, and made almost 1,000 edits before first commenting in an RFA. I am pretty confident that there is no rule prohibiting someone from voting oppose on candidates for a period of time. Zordrac 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're joking of course...for three days, this user has voted oppose on every single nominee he has cast a vote on. Where do you see the 1,000 edits in total? I saw less than 700 in 27 months. Up until the voting a few days ago, nothing was eyebrow reaising, but my guess here is that we're dealing with a drug enduced trance at this point.--MONGO 04:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems harmless to me. There's often one or two people hanging around RfA and opposing a lot, just because they like to do that. User:Zordrac opposed my RfA, and I felt really good about it. If User:Masssiveego is carrying the torch for a while, so be it. They're not really affecting any but the most borderline decisions (not much harm done there), and if they make us think a little more often about the whole admin system, then good job. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A troll is still a troll. Bad faith votes like the ones I pointed out have nothing to do with keeping the good editors inspired to continue to produce quality work. By just saying, oh well, it's no big deal, all we do is condone such behavior.--MONGO 08:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

His voting habits have been (somewhat) explained on his talk page. It's not optimal to oppose without stating a reason within the vote, but it's also not unheard of. A single vote isn't going to topple the process, and skirmishing over it benefits no one.

I certainly agree that his voting habits could be seen as trolling, but it becomes Wikipedia to extend the benefit of the doubt in the absence of unambiguous evidence to the contrary. If someone feels that admin standards are too low, it's their right to vote their conscience.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever...look at his contributions history throughly...the evidence is quite obvious.--MONGO 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If we accept your contention that this user is trolling, then by recognizing his actions -- which, by themselves, are facially not disruptive -- we magnify any disruptive potential they might have had.

Their edit history -- the same edit history that you're looking at -- suggests to me a potentially valuable editor, with some positive contributions to Wikipedia.

It seems to me that you feel very strongly about this, and you're assuming bad faith. I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your stance, and hope you can help me with that :)

Cheers, Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

all with the vote "oppose"—not quite all. Very strange. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, when an RfA has a weak, obviously unqualified nominee, with 0/10(S/O) he will support. If the nominee is well qualified, and its like 25/0, he will oppose and say something that makes his support votes highly ironic and contradictory. He does this for every RfA. His arbcom votes have no net affect so he did it just to make a point (WP:POINT). Conclusion=trolling.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All, you responded with what I had to say on the matter. I was merely bringing the issue to discussion and I am entitled to my opinion and respect those with a differing view. Some of us are really interested in writing an encyclopedia and maintaining and perfecting the regulations that help make this a fruitful project. I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on those that have made so few major contributions and then act in a disruptive manner. Had I felt so strongly about the behavior, and Rfc would have commenced and or further actions as well. But as I said, this was merely brought to discussion and that is all.--MONGO 07:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, let him oppose everyone if he wants. It's only disruptive if people choose to be disrupted. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, "meh". In itself, voting against the tide doesn't hurt anyone. Ignoring it doesn't hurt anyone. As for "maintaining and perfecting the regulations that help make this a fruitful project," they don't help make it fruitful when they're enforced just for their own sake. I don't see how bugging User:Masssiveego about his RfA votes is going to get any more articles written and improved than leaving him alone would. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. As I stated on one the many rfa's he made a ridiculous vote on, his trolling will be ignored. I trust our Bcrats, and I'm absolutely positive that his borderline nonsensical "votes" will have no outcome on any of these rfas'. I am curious, however, as to why he votes the way he does and (argubably) disrupts the process, but like the two above: "meh". Besides, we don't m:Don't feed the trolls, anyway. -Zero^Talk 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Noted without comment" is how the Bcrats see trollish votes, you need not even flag them out. As Splash said, the crats have it covered :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

defamatory user

User Beckyhtchang is an obvious bad-faith newuser creation intended to defame some poor third-party, most likely the eponymous Becky, per the content of their userpage.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted, and I'll indef blocked if recreated.--Sean|Black 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Her talk page is a red link. Has no one talked to her? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have indefinitely blocked User:IAAL for making legal threats. See the bottom of Talk:Main Page. Should I remove the discussion from there?-gadfium 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but for those who cannot tell, IAAL stands for "I am a lawyer." Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was a legal threat, though. Bogus or legitimate, it was a notice. Quite different. It doesn't say "I'm going to sue you"; it says "this legal thing happened and you might have a problem". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like its related to Wikipedia Class Action, and how seriously you take it probably depends on how seriously you take the Class Action bit. I think that the links provided should be presented somewhere and answered by Wikipedians. Whether there is really a restraining order or not, I don't know. But does WP:NLT cover threats against Wikipedia as a whole? Or even bogus notices against Wikimedia? I am not convinced that it does. Even if it is bogus, I don't think its bannable. And, depending on the legitimacy of the links (I don't read German, sorry), I am not sure if they should be deleted either. Perhaps moved to the Village Pump or some other appropriate place though. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read his contributions, it looks like he's a lawyer who stumbled on Wikipedia, and then thought he'd alert us to a problem, rather than threatening us himself. If this is the case, I'll unblock him so he can discuss this here rather than on the main talk page.-gadfium 06:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

I read it and reread it. There was absolutely no threat there. He even says on his user page that he is a lawyer but does not work as an attorney. Are we going to start blocking everyone who mentions legal liability at Wikipedia? Unblock immediately and cool down. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. This deserves some browsing in the German media. Here's a discussion of it from a few days ago: [161]. There are some fascinating aspects regarding German law and defaming the dead! See [162] for some of that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's confirmed that he's involved in the case - he's supposed to be faxing documents to Jimbo. The matter is being discussed in German at [163]. I'm not sure if it is necessary to also discuss it here. I can't hang around; if anyone wants to unblock him, I won't object. I will move the original item from Talk:Main Page to here.-gadfium 06:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock. I am also discussing this with him too. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 06:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much to unblock me. Hello Gadfium. No, I am not insolved in this case. It is a case between the parents of Boris F. and Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales. My part here is only to inform or to warn Jimmy and you admins, simple to avoid big damages to Wikipedia. The decision was filed on 14. December 2005 and the Marshal is already on the way to Jimmy Wales, see also my complete report. Thank you very much. --

IAAL 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning: IAAL is a troll. He is not a lawyer, while he likes to make people to believe the opposite. On his use page in the german wikipedia he states "Here i am again as a jurist" but at two other places (in the discussions about the case) he admits that he is not a jurist or lawyer. It is commonly believed that a well known german troll (famous for legal hasslement, harassment and a lot of other ugly actions) is behind that nick, because the actions and posts reflect the normal behaviour of that troll. Before creating a user account under the name IAAL in the german wikipedia, this person trolled by abusing an open proxy in the US. -- Kju (de) 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ACK --ST ○ 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Main Page

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION (+++URGENT+++)

TO:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Mister Jimmy Wales 200 2nd Ave. South #358
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
United States of America

Tron, Boris F., Boris F(amilyname), Case-No. 209 C 1015/05 of 12/14/2005, AG Berlin: In the case between the parents of departed Boris F. and Wikimedia Foundation, the Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany) decided on December 14, 2005, that it is forbidden to publish the complete familyname of Boris F. anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG. This restraining order has to be respected by everybody. If this decision will be ignored, then the Court will be allowed to impose a fine up to 250,000 Euro or to place under restraint up to 6 months. It is unknown, if Wikimedia Foundation will file an appeal to the Municipal Court of Berlin. According to the german law, filing an appeal will provocate a hearing in Berlin. The next step would then be the mainhearing in front to the same Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany), next instance County Court of Berlin (Germany), next instance Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Germany). The last instance is the Federal Court of Justice of Karlsruhe (Germany), which is also known as the Highest Appelate Court in Germany for Civil and Criminal Cases. After it, there is also the right for both parties to let check the complete case by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. And then there is still the European Court of Law, because Germany is part of the European Union. I personally would suggest to lock this article about Boris F. especially his familyname, simple to avoid a disaster for wikipedia. Another nice idea would be to forward his familyname into a list of "bad words" to filter out this familyname within this software of wikipedia. This would then be a global solution and the Judge of Berlin will not be angry because of the danger to post a fine to Wikipedia. I know, it might be, that some wikipedians will not like this decision by the Court, but the current english version is also aviable in Germany and also to the german Judge in Berlin. -- IAAL 22:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. How do we know that this is a real case?
2. Wikipedia would have legal standing in this case just as Encyclopedia Britannica has the rights to publish Bill Gates' name
3. Germany cannot rule on the United States Wikimedia Foundation.
4. Why don't you actually send this to the board if it's that urgent and real?

&mdash; <span style="color:black;">Ilyanep</span> 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Two words: BS and Trolling.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• See also press
  • Telepolis: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21750/1.html 00:56, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,394374,00.html 17:08, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • http://www.symlink.ch/articles/06/01/10/1926208.shtml 10.1.2006
  • http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,kulm1/kultur/artikel/970/67903/ 12. Januar 2005, S. 13
  • Der Standard http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2302429
  • http://shortnews.stern.de/shownews.cfm?id=605027&u_id=330694
  • http://www.netzeitung.de/internet/377381.html
  • http://www.n24.de/wirtschaft/multimedia/index.php/n2006011318422600002
  • http://www.sat1.de/news/wirtschaft/2006/01/13/n2006011318422600002/index.php
  • ...
  • more http://news.google.com/news?q=wikipedia+tron&hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
• See also blogs:
  • fukami http://fukami.vakuum.net/archives/2006/01/10/tron-und-realnamen/ 02:13, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Hal Faber: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68103 08.01.2006
  • R-Archiv: http://www.r-archiv.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2219 20:44, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Blog „Sex, Drugs and Compiler Construction”: http://www.andreas.org/blog/?p=122 01:50, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • burks.de: http://www.burks.de/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28997 07:00, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Bloh The Lunatic Fringe http://tim.geekheim.de/2006/01/11/tron-der-ccc-und-wikipedia/ 10:25, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Berlin Blawg http://sewoma.de/berlinblawg/2006/01/11/sevriens/das-postmortale-persoenlichkeitsrecht/
  • Netbib http://log.netbib.de/archives/2006/01/10/wikipedia-kriegt-arger/
  • wortfeld http://www.wortfeld.de/2006/01/wiki_p_und_die_namen/ 10.1.2006
  • Winfuture http://www.winfuture.de/news,23722.html
  • Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,394833,00.html
• See also statement of CCC
  • http://www.ccc.de/updates/2006/wikipedia-vs-tron 13.1.2006

-- IAAL 05:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, google news returns nothing, all the sites are in german, and this doesn't have solid legal grounds (and I can see that even though IANAL) — Ilyanep | Ilyanep 05:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

how does all this rambling have anything to do with the main page? Go talk to the designated agent. Don't post this on that page's talk page, either, just use the information there to contact the proper person. Gentgeen 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked IAAL for making legal threats. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats-gadfium 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a legal threat but rather notice of an actual temporary restraining order made by a German court against Wikipedia, on the grounds of privacy. On the order itself, I don't see any problem with complying with this temporary order, which seems to be genuine. It may be that Wikipedia can comply by refusing to serve the page to German-allocated IP numbers. IAL should probably be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Some neutral facts:

• Mr. Attorney-at-law Friedrich Kurz ("Creative Law", cp. [164]) plead the parents' case. After the cryptic death of Boris F., who was find suspended on a tree in Berlin, the parents and family - with all the pains they have been in deep mourning because of loosing their child - the parents do not want the complete familyname being published anywhere at wikipedia.org. This wish can be respected.
• The Wikimedia Foundation, some german admins of wikipedia.org have ignored this wish of the parents. This is the reason why the German Municipal Court of Berlin was called.
• The Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany), cp. [165], filed the restraining order on December 14, 2005. The main negotiation can then be done in quiet hours while the hearing before there will exist a final decision. The restraining order itself is only a temporarily solution. Only the best lawyers are allowed to become a District Court Judge in Germany.

I collected some more links for you onto my User:IAAL. Thank you very much. -- IAAL 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More discussion

Zscout370 (talk · contribs) has deleted the page. Personally, I do not agree with this action. Comments? — Scm83x ^talk 07:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit looks genuine to me, so I complied with his wishes. The Germans already deleted their page and moved it to the same title I moved the new page to Tron (hacker). Honestly, I am surprised this page did not go to AFD, but if you think my actions are wrong, revert my changes. I will not change it back, nor I will call for others to change it back. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are under the misimpression that the german wikipedia changed the page title because of this legal threat. This is not true. We already had long discussions about the subject about half an year ago, and the change of the page title was only meant as a compromise (typical for german wikipedia) to get both sides satisfied. So the impression that german wikipedia is following the injunction is wrong. The opposite is true: The article still holds the full name (and thats what the injunction is about), and was locked by administrators to keep it that way (and prevent the edit war which occured when the article was not locked). And one more thing: Despite what IAAL is trying to make people belive, most german jurists who have commented on the case believe that the injuction is junk and won't stand a trial anyway. -- Kju (de) 13:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zach. This was an excellent job by you. Nickname is ok, short form Boris F. is also ok - and the complete familyname is locked. Perfect! :-) The other things in the other languages, that's still awful, because all the articles with his complete familyname (note: The Judge said "no familyname anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG") are still accessable to Germany especially to the German Court via the Internet. Is there a technical solution, to make an entry of "global bad words" into the Wikipedia-software, so, the complete familyname will not appear anywhere in any languages? If not, uh.... aren't there about 170 different languages at wikipedia, and so all articles (existing, non-existing) must be locked? -- IAAL 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how a German judge has power over the English Florida-based Wikipedia. Can someone explain precedent? I don't think there is one. Scm83x 07:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p16_internet.html says that even if the content is posted in the United States, as long as it is accessable to Germany, the German courts can rule to have such materials deleted or bocked. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they can certainly pass that law in Germany, but that doesn't mean people in completely different countries with completely different laws have to pay any attention to it. The worst they can do is try to impose fines on us that we won't have any legal obligation to pay. This is a gross overreach of their legal power, and, furthermore, an admin taking it upon himself to delete the page based upon the claims of a lawyer party to the action is a hugely bad precedent that will only lead to more and more censorship. I recommend restoring the page and keeping it there until US law recognizes German authority on this matter (i.e. likely never), or until an AfD or Jimbo says otherwise. Furthermore, why is IAAL still posting here? This is a clear case of a party to a threatened legal action talking here, that's against all policy. DreamGuy 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zach and Scm83x. You are very correct, this strategy by the german attorney-at-law is very intelligent, because in one side there exist the internationality of wikipedia and in the other side there exist also the internationality of the Internet. This is why you have all national laws of each nation within one pot. A chance to lump together all the laws and to provocate international conflicts especially to abuse it. In the other side, there has never been a reason to publish an article about Boris F., because he has never been a person of the contemporary history. Goethe, Einstein, Schiller, Mozart, no problem, but Boris F.? It is the free editing, that everybody is allowed to create an new article and now the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy have a problem. Onto my User:IAAL I collected the information of law-steps. HTH! :-) -- IAAL 07:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still a minor problem: the recreated page presumably uses content from the original page, but as that has been deleted the authors of the original are not credited as they must be under the licence, GFDL. This is not an urgent problem; if we take a few days to sort it out I'm sure no one will mind. We could decide to have no article at all on this person; we could rewrite the article entirely; or we may be able to do something clever with selective undeletion of the original so the exact earlier contents are not visible but the article history is. Cutting and pasting the original's history page (without the surname) to the talk page would be the simplest method of preserving the GFDL requirements.-gadfium 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gadfium. Wonderful. Thank for your info. I personally think, that Jimmy should be insolved into the right one technical solutions. -- IAAL 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to nuke the previous article and write it from scratch at the new location, so GFDL concerns will be met. But really, I do not see anything notable about this person at all, but with what has been going down in Germany, he might get an article. I will nuke my new entry and start it from scratch. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page for Boris F should probably be deleted as well. Although there is nothing linking to it, it is using his name on Wikipedia in a manner which would annoy the German judge. The article itself, which now just bears a protection against recreation notice, contains no material on Boris himself and so I would assume is okay.-gadfium 07:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New article nuked, and I started it from scratch again. All references to the hacker's name and gender (the gender part was my bit) are no longer in the article, so I hope this works. BTW, Scm83x, if you think I did something majorly wrong, please turn WP:RFC/Zscout370 into a blue link. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the discussion page, me and Scm83x had a small discussion about why this ruling, though we are a US based website, can still take effect from a German court. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, please check out these two links that Zach found concerning the law and its implications: [166] and [167]. — Scm83x ^talk 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I have no interest in an RfC. After reviewing the law, you did the right thing. It was a "just wondering" query. I was hoping that you weren't being reactionary and you weren't. This is definitely merited. Scm83x 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the family name is readily available elsewhere (e.g. http://www.legal-rights.org/NDSTHEFT/breakingthecodes.html), and WIkipedia can still inform its readers by linking to it and stlll comply with the judge's order until it is properly disposed of. Wikipedia (or, for that matter, the Internet) cannot afford to censor itself inorder to conform with Germany's idea of a "free" press.- Nunh-huh 08:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While it might be considered ideal if German law didn't apply to the US, the precedent of Dmitry Sklyarov, who broke no laws of his own country, and who broke no US law while in the US, yet was still arrested in the US, might give us all some concern.-gadfium 08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That case is not relevant to this article unless we wer eto travel to Germany. Scm83x 08:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't likely to come to this, but would you really not want to ever be able to travel to Germany? Even on a stopover to somewhere else? Since Germany is part of the EU, that restriction might even be wider. Anyway, this is getting rather off the topic.-gadfium 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, the point here is, whenever any large group (organization, business, etc.) has a legal threat come in, they don't just let some individual working on his own take it upon himself to do whatever the person making the threat says. That's why there are legal advisors. This action is hugely bad precedent, and the deletion should not be done by admins trying to interpret laws on their own. Furthermore, this is a clear question of censorship, and we can't anyone just come along and make a threat and get some naive but well intentioned person to do whatever they ask. This is nonsense. The article needs to be restored until Wikimedia lawyers, Jimbo, or some official decision is made through some other process. The German law is totally bogus. The same thing happened with the Canadian courts when they tried to gag people on details of various murder trials there, and we never followed their threats, and if Iran comes along and tells us to remove everything for our servers that they feel is objectionable, then China, etc., we won;t have anything left. Stop and think about this. DreamGuy 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The German law is totally bogus. Please don't judge the german law on grounds of a single injunction. Such injuctions are issued without much checking into the legal background of the case. If the argumentes brought before by the plaintiff sounds remotely reasonable, such a injuction is granted. It is up to a court to decide if the injunction will stand. Also the injuction was issued by a so called "Amtsrichter" which is the lowest grade of a judge in germany. More often than not such judges make wrong decisions (often even ignoring general decisions made by the german supreme court) and their decisions get invalidated by the next higher courts. Many german lawyers have commented (in germany) on this case, and most of them believe that, while the topic is fishy, the injuction does not stand on real legal background and is trash. -- Kju (de) 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If you can point to diffs and precedent for the Canadian thing, we should definitely undelete. Scm83x 08:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as is for the moment, and let Jimbo, the Board etc decide what to do. We've made a good effort to avoid damage, and it can all be reversed by more knowledgable people if need be.-gadfium 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, as they say "this is way over my pay-grade". Regardless of who makes the decision, if DreamGuy (talk · contribs) can provide links, etc. then that would help whoever does make the decision to make it. — Scm83x ^talk 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is perfectly unacceptable. You deleted a perfectly good article, replacing it with a stub referring to Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales instead of the actual case, without AfD, just because some user posted legal threats to Talk:Main?? I say, undelete at once, post the threats to the board, and do nothing until board members request deletion.

Friedrich Kurz, der von Trons Eltern beauftragte Anwalt, will zu dem Fall nichts sagen, redet aber vage von einer "Strategie", die man verfolge. [168]

Heise.de thinks the threat is void, and quotes Friedrich Kurz, the lawyer of the F., alluding to a "strategy" they have to get their way. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Kurz' strategy was to sign up under an ominous username, such as "IAAL", and try to confuse Wikipedia admins into obliging him. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello dab. I am not Mr. Kurz, the german attorney-at-law of the parents of Boris F. -- IAAL 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is another hint that you can't take IAAL serious because he does not know what he is talking about. Mr. Kurz is the attorney of Müller-Maguhn and the parents. He is not an attorney-at-law, and i belive there isn't even any attorney-at-law involved in this case, because its not about criminal matters (currently) but about a civil law case. Müller-Maguhn just got some lawyer who went to the court and got a injuction against wikipedia. There is no attorney-at-law involved in this, and it should also be noted that such injunctions are often granted without checking the legal background very deeply. So many such injuctions are just junk. Warning: I am not a lawyer. -- Kju (de) 13:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

However, you had identified yourself to gadfium (talk · contribs) as being involved in the case: "He's confirmed that he's involved in the case - he's supposed to be faxing documents to Jimbo.". Any involvement calls for immediate block until the case is resolved. — Scm83x ^talk 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's getting rough to type anything with all the edit conflicts (om 6 now), but Wikipedia:No legal threats specifically says to refrain from taking action until AFTER it is resolved. DreamGuy 08:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It might be, that some wikipedians will not like this decision by the Court (me, too), but the current english version is also accessible in Germany. There would be 1000 arguments with an endless discussion especially emotional arguments ("censorship", etc.). We are American. We are cool. We calm down by a very easy way because of this provocation from the German Court. Fact is, that there is just now - temporary(!), note: it is only temporary - the restraining order with the tenor of the German Judge "no complete familyname of Boris F. anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG, or a fine of 250,000,- Euro or up to 6 months jail". And the american admins made a perfect job to realize this as soon as possible as well as possible especially to avoid big damages for Wikipedia and Jimbo. Removing the familyname does not make anybody poor but ignoring. So the final things things must be regulated by the Wikimedia Foundation themselves and Jimmy Wales himself, who are responsible for this case. I am sure, they have phantastic attorney-at-laws, who will help them. I am also sure, they will bring the crazy case to the right one and correct end. It is just now unknown, if Wikimedia Foundation will file an appeal to the Municipal Court of Berlin in Germany or whatever. But after it, everybody here will know what's going on with the familyname of Boris F.. This is only my voluntary advice to the admins. If you will do another thing especially without asking Jimbo, then you will clearly have to stand for the consequences, f.e. regress, damagefees of regress, etc.. I hope, I could show you a little bit my goodwill to you. Thank you very much. -- IAAL 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning: IAAL is a known troll. See hints above. Thank you for consideration. -- Kju (de) 13:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are involved with this threat you should not be discussing the issue here, you should be discussing things direct with out legal counsel. Wikimedia doesn;t have to file an appeal in Germany, as it isn;t in Germany and doesn't have to pay attention to any of its laws, all it has to do is ignore the stupid overreaching and nonsensical ruling by a judge who doesn't respect other countries' rights to govern themselves. If they send a fine, it can be ignored. If they threaten to arrest someone if they ever go to Germany, well, fine, I love the beer and chocolate, but Australia is close enough. This whole thing is idiotic, and if you are involved with the court case you should already be banned. Goodwill has nothing to do with this, it's just scare tactics to trick people into doing what you want them to do. DreamGuy 09:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with above, undelete post haste pending a realistic legal consultation. This is absurd. And if they want someone to sue, have them bill me. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument of censorship runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Censorship is not merely an "emotional argument", it runs contrary to the entire spirit of Wikipedia. Where is the slippery slope? Of course, I'm not too sure what to think about this, and we should of course, err on the side of caution, but I hope you understand, that we will not take kindly to bullying. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Andy Müller-Maguhn, speaker of the Chaos Computer Club is among the people who stand behind this. It is a fact that people who used to fight themselves for free information and know the "spirit" of this project did not sue one of several german newspapers or publishers mentioning Tron's real name but Wikipedia. This is one of the main reasons for the irritation and it has caused several critical remarks in german media. Recently, the CCC has reacted and stated that it does not take sides in the case. [169] --Lightlike 09:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiegel speculates that Mueller-Maguhn wants publicity because he thinks Tron was murdered and wants to keep the issue vaguely live. It also says that a recent novel gave Tron's full name; the publisher received a restraining order but refused to endorse it. (Oh, and I don't know if it's been corrected yet, but the restraining order to Wikimedia was initially misaddressed to St Petersburg, Russia.)[170] Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It should also noted that Müller-Maguhn is losing his (rather small) supporter base even inside the Chaos Computer Club. Many people nowadays see this a a private business of Müller-Maguhn and the CCC has officially distanced the club from the incident in a recent press release (see url above). So don't see this as a case of CCC against Wikipedia but rather a case of some (probably misguided) people against Wikipedia. Most people in the CCC are of sane mind and do not believe in legal hasslement. (Disclaimer: I was a member of the CCC and left it for a couple of reasons. Some people believe that i'm working against the CCC because of this. This is not true, but you might want to consider that). -- Kju (de) 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia

There is a revert war going on this template, I have been trying to resotre tens of userpages getting broken due to this. Can someone please lock the template meanwhile? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, that goes straight to the Oxymoron of the Month award. Radiant_>|< 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we allowed to move the "locked" tag to the talk page? It looks really nasty on userpages. Mark¹ 11:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) Locked (by me) - but I don't have a clue what's going on, so if anyone does and disagrees with the protection, feel free to reverse. I think the 'protection' notice has been fixed (I screwd up). If not, then yes move it. --Doc ^ask? 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had a general guideline against metatemplates on grounds of server load? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That template really shouldn't be used. It would not be difficult in the slightest to make separate templates that don't cause outrageous server load. If people don't want broken userpages, they shouldn't use templates that put undue strain on the server. [[Sam Korn]] 12:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just creating the userbox in ones own userspace would eleviate any problems concerning people messing with the template. Why, may I ask is that so difficult..? Just make your own userboxes. This is getting out of hand. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. I have removed all the meta templates. {{User wikipedia}} now just says "this user is a member of Wikipedia". In contrast to Radiant!'s oxymoron, we now have a tautology by mere existance. [[Sam Korn]] 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me why are you breaking tens of useprages? If you want to edit templates please be responsible and fix every userpage it links to. While it is easy enough for me to fix my own useprage, it is imperative that such large scale removals be done carefully. Lots of userpages are broken which perhaps is none of anyones business as its not userpage. I fail to accept that level of apathy, sorry. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As Tony said, there's a general guideline against this sort of thing because of the servers. In this case, the onus is on the users of the template to update their userpages, and not the other way round. Johnleemk | Talk 12:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between 'avoid using meta-templates' and 'go out of your way to break things'. The reason that meta-templates are to be avoided is that when you have a template which calls many other templates that is used on many pages updates to the template can cause significant server load. That isn't the case here. The load from this template is insignificant. The thousands of un-subst'd 'welcome' messages on various talk pages are a bigger deal. The babel templates (yup, those are meta-templates too) are a bigger deal. There is no reason to remove every 'meta template' in Wikipedia. Even if there were... there would then still be no need to go about it in the most disruptive and uncivil manner possible. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I broke nothing. All the templates still worked. I'll agree there is no need to get rid of every meta template. On the other hand, there is no reason to use them when it is unnecessary. See [en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Sam_Korn&action=raw my userpage] for how to avoid unnecessary meta templates. I was not uncivil. I disrupted nothing. There are bots that subst welcome and test messages. Stop attacking me for following policy. [[Sam Korn]] 13:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<?> I wasn't even talking to you. Which should be obvious if you 'broke nothing'. The template got broken. Some people were saying 'this is a good thing'. It isn't. Yes, there are ways to fix it. Yes, we should look to not use meta-templates (or templates at all) when we don't need to. None of which changes the fact that breaking things and saying, 'Ok now it is your job to clean up the mess I just made' is equally "unnecessary". Most meta-templates can be seemlessly replaced without anyone noticing that something changed (see Template:Journal reference for example). For those which can't a plan to convert them should be announced and the changeover accomplished as quickly / cleanly as possible. We should never be talking about how it is 'good' to make a mess of things and then force people who don't know what is going on to sort it out. That is needlessly disruptive. Which also ought to be obvious. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I just removed the entire meta-template thing from the template, so I assumed I was being addressed. My mistake. [[Sam Korn]] 13:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no - the reason we don't use meta-templates is server load. The policy has been there for a while. And the only pages we are breaking are userpages. The right of userpages to have their pretty userboxes do not trump the server issues under ANY circumstances at all. Simply put, user pages just don't matter enough to keep meta-templates around. Phil Sandifer 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

....Especially considering the obvious fact that userboxes can (and should) be made independently of ones own userspace. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

First - "the reason we don't use meta-templates". False statement. We use meta-templates all the time. The Main page is chock full of meta-templates. Both of your userpages (Snowspinner & MegamanZero) contain meta-templates. The policy is "AVOID" using meta-templates, not "DON'T" use meta-templates.
Second - only templates which get called by many pages cause significant server load... and then only when they are updated. This template was seldom updated and appeared on less than four hundred pages. The 'server load' issue here is virtually non-existant. Updating the 'Test1' template would be a bigger deal... even though it is not a 'meta' template.
Third - even if the policy were to hunt down and destroy every meta-template no matter how insignificant its impact on server load... it would still be wrong to 'break first and sort it out later'. There is no need for it. Just plan ahead and transition the templates to new methods smoothly. Why would we ever advocate causing annoyance and disruption for no good cause? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The main page uses nested templates, not meta templates. That modifying Test1 would cause more harm is not a reason to cause harm this way. It's an argument to stop the harm Test1 does. [[Sam Korn]] 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, if you want to get technical then actually the Main page uses 'meta-templates' (templates "created and used to keep other templates in a standard format") and things like 'Qif' and 'Switch' are the 'nested templates' (templates which call other templates). Either way the root issue is the same (and applies equally to simple templates like Test1)... every page which calls a template (or which calls a template which calls that template, and so forth) must be updated when the template is. This creates server load. Because some of the 'if' and 'boolean' templates get called by MANY other templates, which are in turn called by MANY pages, these sorts of 'nested' templates (technically not meta-templates per the definition on the page) are amongst the most problematic. My point with Test1 and other examples is that we need to establish some degree of sanity here. This 'all meta-templates (widely re-defined as 'nested' templates) are bad' concept results in 'fixing' problems which don't exist while leaving significantly worse 'non-meta' templates in place. We should be seeking to remove templates used on thousands of pages... whether they are simple, nested, meta, or whatever is irrelevant. Once you get down below a thousand pages linked I'd question just how significant the server load is... but if we want to avoid even those minimal drains then people need to understand... we aren't talking about doing away with 'meta-templates'. We are talking about doing away with templates. In my opinion going after relatively harmless things like the main page, babel boxes (not the userboxes, but the actual babel meta-templates which call them), open tasks lists, picture of the day templates, et cetera would be silly. The 'server load' issues are insignificant for those and the hundreds of other nested templates in common use throughout Wikipedia. We should be looking at how many pages the template links to and how frequently it gets updated. Those are the determinants of 'server load'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is a misconception that templates only cause significant server load when updated. The main page templates and babel templates are among the most widely viewed, and are definitely candidates for demetafication. Radiant_>|< 19:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  Nested (or 'meta') templates take longer to render than straight text, but there was a recent discussion on WT:AUM about the fact that some 'simple' template implementations can take longer to render than the meta equivalents (e.g. evaluating 50 parameters vs calling one of 50 sub-templates). Longer rendering on frequently viewed pages can slow down response time... but in most cases this 'rendering' issue is fairly minor. Reading over WP:AUM shows that it is the added load when updating heavily linked templates which is the primary concern. If you want to make an issue out of rendering double transclusion templates like the Main page and Babel then we are back to getting rid of virtually all templates... which, again, also take longer to render than straight text, and indeed can even take longer than meta equivalents in some cases. For example, the main page templates and that 'pic of the day' meta-template on your user-page would either have to be updated daily as straight text OR require a large parameter switch which would take much longer to render than the current double-transclusion. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  So don't implement any fancy template design. You'll survive. Trust me. [[Sam Korn]] 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Zen-master apparently has problems with the term "conspiracy theory" in article titles. Rather than using WP:RM for this purpose, he has created a policy proposal (Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory) which was soundly rejected, and has now made basically the same proposal under a bowdlerized name (Wikipedia:Title Neutrality), and now insists that this must be voted upon despite the fact that many people (Cberlet and Uncle G, among others) already objected to it on the talk page, and Zen is apparently the sole supporter. Any suggestions on how to handle this persistent wikilawyering? Radiant_>|< 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant omits some pertinent facts. For starters a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in titles, I believe it was Adhib, just 2 days ago added and updated the keep as is counter argument here so other editors are actively working on it besides me. Secondly, a week or two ago there were half a dozen editors on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories that agreed "conspiracy theory" is pejorative for a proposed subsection split to a sub article (6 other editors or so disagreed so there was no consensus). Thirdly and fourthly, title neutrality is drastically different and updated compared to the original "conspiracy theory" proposal but even if it wasn't the original Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory vote closed over 6 months ago which is more than enough time to have elapsed before proposal resubmittal. Feel free to vote against it but please don't censor it. If you have a problem with the title of Wikipedia:Title Neutrality then voice your concerns on the discussion page, I am open to renaming version 2.0 of the proposal, but I am not open to letting you censor or misclassify it. zen master T 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting a page would be censorship. Flagging it with {{rejected}} (as I have done) is not. And policy or guidelines are not generally created by voting on them. There already is substantial criticism on the talk page, which you have entirely ignored. Radiant_>|< 19:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism and 3RR at Elevator levitation

Over the past few days, several anonymous IP addresses have been deleting the article at Elevator levitation and replacing with variously worded copyright infringement claims, alleging that the article violates copyright from a magic-information commercial site. The issue was posted at requests for immediate removal. The copyright claim is not valid: Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from another source (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation. Magic trick methods are not copyrightable, and although they can be patented, a patent only prevents an unlicensed party from performing the trick, not describing its methods. For more information, please see Intellectual rights to magic methods. The anon has only claimed that our article discloses the method, not his wording, so there is no violation. I cannot continue to revert his vandalism without violating 3RR (although he has already violated it himself when you count the many IPs in use), so I am not going to continue, but I would appreciate some help from other users and admins. Thanks! -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another round of deletions out of process

...this time by Voice of All (deletion log). He seems to have developed his own Speedy Deletion criteria, and yesterday speedied four articles with the comment "vanity". At least one of those articles clearly asserts notability, but with only 50 Google hits it didn't meet Voice of All's standards. When I asked him about it, he dismissed it with a "Lets try to keep BS off of Wikipedia" ([171]) and "Anyone can challenge at deletion review" ([172]).

This new admin seems to prefer the convenience of the one-click "delete" button he has over the trouble of an AfD: "I wish listing AFD could be done automatically with a click" ([173]), and isn't interested in process or policy.

I would appreciate a third party's help in dealing with this. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, out of context. "One click" was refering to the 3 stop listing process, as in LISTING it automatically, as in not having to add {{AFD}}, follow the link, list it on the WP page. I am not "new" either. "Vanity" has been used for years to delete nonsense, so mentioning the other deletions is just a red herring.

Also, the Google hits only mentioned the name and banjo. I went to the pages and he got less than a line of mentioning, such as noting him a player and moving on to the main topic. I found no articles on him, and nothing that said anything about him, other than being a banjo player who played with more notable people.

Oh and I am interested in Policy like the correct (WP:V) assertion of notability. I have argued for Semi-Protection policy, WP:NOR, WP:PP, WP:V and others to be enforced more. Please stop making false strawmen accusations, all of this drama is making my head spin.

Please try not to make a huge issue over one Speedy Deletion. You disagreed and restored, fine. I am not wheel warring over, disagreement keeps admins actions checked.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let's see...
  • Corrosive Bat is apparently a group of seven people founded in 2004 that have created several movies, most of which five minutes in length, or shorter. Nothing there claims they're more than a group of friends with a handycam.
  • Douglas Dunlop was a Scottish teacher and missionary in Egypt who advised the minister of education there. No evidence of significant deeds, awards, etc.
  • Kim Anderson is the lead singer for a band that hasn't released its first album yet and that claim to have created a new style.
  • Louis 'Lou' Black seems notable enough by the article.
• That would make two obviously right decisions, one that may be borderline (Dunlop), and one that is apparently wrong. Which is a far cry from the alleged "round of deletions out of process". I'd say he's doing fine. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. While I apologize for using the word "BS", and I probably should have listed that one article (if you have to do research or even think twice, then don't speedy) just to be sure, I dont see the need for all this drama, including the RfC threat on my talk page. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia from being a "big trash bin". I found that article while cliking random articles (just to see the ratio of good/total). As I said, I don't mind if admins look over and correct each other. It is better than listing every vanity page on AfD, which wastes time for everyone and leavs embarrasing material on Wikipedia. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Douglas Dunlop contains a clear assertion of notability a Scottish missionary and He was entrusted to modernize the Egyptian educational system - remember if it is a debatable assertion it is not a speedy. Whether the assertion makes him notable, is a matter for afd. I've restored this, with the intention of researching it. Unless I can establish notability, I will send it to afd myself. --Doc ^ask? 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've already researched it, but if you find something, then let me know. All I get are Wikipedia mirrors, 404 errors, and Dunlops technical systems.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunlop is clearly notable, he should never have been deleted - and certainly not speedied (Doc fears that he is turning into Tony_Sidaway) --Doc ^ask? 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • You can't just use google for this sort of thing. Secretlondon 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All, you'd do better to not use "vanity" as your description. It is not a CSD. An nn-bio, or an A7 is. An article not asserting notability is. But vanity is not, and has never been. It's kind of psychologically important too, since, if you are working on "vanity" as a CSD, that's an entirely more liberal version of "nn-bio" than is acceptable. -Splash^talk 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally when people say vanity, they mean nn-bio as well, otherwise they would just do a POV fix. Vanity usually is a non-notable bio, nn-bio is not necessarily vanity. I should have just tagged the damn thing, but whatever...let the pile-on continue (except for Radiant)! Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've accepted the speedy was a mistake - no big deal, we've all done it. Story over, further pile-on unneccessary. --Doc ^ask? 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having multiple comments to something, from several users, is not a pile on. Particularly when one of them says something not previously said. It's just people commenting. If one person only could comment, we'd be in a pretty poor state, imo. -Splash^talk 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a pile on at all. Don't be disheartened. I'm really inclusionist (within reason) especially on less covered topics. Band vanity we could all do without, however. There is a liberal<->nonliberal spread within the admins, and diversity is good. Whenever banning/blocking/deleting comes up, and it is controversial there will always be some people who go "whaaa!"Secretlondon 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out there's Speedy Review, where other admins check the deletion logs for speedies in error and ... restore them. Note that this does not involve harassing the newpages patroller - newpages patrol is fundamentally swimming through a sewer. This solves the problem in a way that results in less red tape, not more. If you're an admin worrying about speedies in error, go through the log and restore the ones you think were in error - David Gerard 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I think that the comment "Anyone can challenge at deletion review" was taken out of context, I would remind all admins that only 800 of the thousands of editors can see the content of a deleted article, so for most most of us, the speedy deletion of an article is final. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Puppeteer

There has also been some recent creations of users that have been calling themselves sockpuppets of each other and I feel that "The puppeteer is an inappropriate user name.

1. The_Puppeteer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. reeteppuPehT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. ATeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. BTeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the list of "Puppeteers". SWD316 ^{talk to me} 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just come across ATeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adding "speedy delete" tags to articles (including Wiktionary and Central Intelligence Agency); he/she adds it at the bottom of the article, enclosong it in "div" codes to make it invisible in the article (though the relevant category shows up). If it can be established that these are sockpuppets, could all but one of them be banned? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I alreay blocked ATeppup and added a comment on the fact over on WP:AN. The initial message from SWD316 was posted both here and at AN for some reason. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

IP 195.93.21.10

This IP just did a couple of blanks. I went to the talk page to post a warning, but it seems there are already several. It appears nothing has ever come from the many warnings. Perhaps someone should look into it. If this is not the right place to post this please let me know so I can get it right the next time.--◀Puck^talk▶ 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Once a user has been warned that they will be blocked if they continue to vandalize, and then they do so again, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to let us know. I've left a warning at User talk:195.93.21.10 about today's blanking. Thanks. Jkelly 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be a shared IP address. Secretlondon 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an AoL proxy server. The IP reverses to cache-los-aa10.proxy.aol.com. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that pretty much makes it an impossible situation to deal with, right? You guys have my sympathy.--◀Puck^talk▶ 19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

68.109.223.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps reverting my edit, in which I move the Bias section to its own article, saying that I'm destroying the article. I told him on his talk page to check the article talk page but he ignored me. I'd like to actually be able to do this without being bothered in such a trollish way. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute the IP violated 3RR so I have blocked for 24 hours. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back again and reverting...if he passes the 3RR I'll report him at AN/3RR , because I don't want to block when I'm involved. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a new request below regarding this user and the latest incident. --Aaron 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Edbon3000

Edbon3000 (talk · contribs) is contributing a vast amount of articles concerning the Filipino film directory. Of the articles I have checked, I can not find evidence for the existence of any of these people, or indeed even the films credited in filmography or the studios producing them. I'm not assuming bad faith, but unless Edbon is able to provide a published source of his information, it's not suitable for inclusion. Edbon has already been asked by other editors to cite his sources. // paroxysm (n) 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

An example of a (partially?) verifiable contribution: Lvn Pictures. // paroxysm (n) 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Filipino film may not come up very much in google. Secretlondon 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, I just came here to mention this user as well. Like Paroxysm said, there is an enormous amount of junk being added and modified by this user. He's also messing up categories, etc. I could spend all day adding {{cleanup}} to his articles and deleting his categories. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I don't know enough about his/her article subjects to say they aren't real - but almost every one of them needs a lot of cleanup from the first edit. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rate is around 20 articles per hour while s/he is on. That's a lot of cleanup for people that we have difficulty verifying in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But actual articles on Korean cinema is a good thing. We probably need loads of work on world cinema generally. I'd rather have them on cleanup then not have the info as English language google can't verify. Other Koreans will pick up if it's rubbish. Secretlondon 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He should at least comply to the requests on his talk page and provide a source. I'd be much more inclined to clean up all these articles if I knew they weren't going to be deleted at any time, but if he doesn't even provide a reference there's no basis for including them in Wikipedia.

Edbon also added this tagline to some of his articles, which I think's interesting:

Movie archieves by Edebro

And more recently his email address. // paroxysm (n) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he had his email addy in there from the beginning. I came accross and tagged some of his stuff on Newpagepatrol earlier today, and removed his addy. I was revisiting my tagging to follow up and was about to mention him here after talking to him like Wknight. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

They should be kept if verifiablity can be established, otherwise they shouldn't. It should be noted though that Google isn't the end all when it comes to internet knowledge and even though a huge amount of stuff is indexed by google it isn't everything that's on the internet by any means. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, this could be worse than we thought - going back many, many weeks, he has hundreds of additions of unsourced and otherwise unverifiable Filipino entertainers. Yes, google and IMDb aren't the only test, but we need to find a threshhold of inclusion, and soon, because there are a TON of these. And whatever is keepable (if anything) needs serious cleanup. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Projects sockpuppets

Can we get some permanent relief from this person? The info about the case is here: User:Dijxtra/Sock. This user is either actually demented or a very sophisticated troll. This has gone on for weeks and weeks, one article is really bollixed up, this could go on forEVER, it take's people's time every day, and there is nothing more to be done but block the entire range for a while, please. Just read User:Dijxtra/Sock, I request a 1 or 2 week block on the entire IP range and all the puppets. Herostratus 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master (talk · contribs) 3RR and probation violations

Zen-master has reverted the addition of the "rejected" tag on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality (created by him) five times in 16 hours. Three different editors have reverted him. The 3RR violation has been listed here at WP:AN/3RR, but hasn't yet received comment from an admin. In addition to blocking him for the 3RR violation, I also ask that an admin ban him from editing this page for at least two weeks, per the terms of his probation. Carbonite | Talk 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Izehar has blocked him for 24 hours. I'm agree with Carbonite that Zen-master should be banned from editing the article. What do other administrators think? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he should be banned (yet). The talk page of that page has never been used. If he was revert warring with three other users, they should have discussed the reversions on the talk page. The way I see it, they have been just as disruptive (of course I do not know whether what he has been doing has any merit). IMO when the block expires, if the trolling resumes, then ban him. If he takes the hint and walks away, then there is no need to. Izehar 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair to me I guess. I don't think the other users are being disruptive though, the proposal has the support of only Zen-master and one other person. Hopefully he does lay off of the reverts. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of banning him from that (and related) policy or proposal pages. "Title Neutrality" is an intentionally misleading name. What it actually is, is a proposal to rename articles to not contain the term "conspiracy theory", which Zen finds offensive. If you read the proposal, it refers only to those kinds of "neutral" titles. This has previously been proposed on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, and was soundly rejected. Zen has been requested to use WP:RM to discuss page moves, but prefers to create a policy page to "back" his opinion. He's already using this page in discussion as if it were policy. The guy seriously needs to stop wikilawyering. Radiant_>|< 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He broke the terms of his probation -- there should be some consequences for it. That other people were edit warring with him is unfortunate but immaterial -- he was placed on probation for a very good reason. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master has requested to be unblocked - User talk:Zen-master#Unblock request. Just thought you all should know. Izehar 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Can he edit the talk page while blocked? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a blocked user can edit his/her talk page. Izehar 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the talk page Wikipedia talk:Title Neutrality. If he can at least take part in the discussion there I would say leave him blocked. If he cannot, I could support unblocking him if he agrees not to edit other than on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From past interaction, Zen-master has demonstrated that he has an extremely broad definition of "vandalism", expanding to include basically any edits he disputes. He's well aware of what it actually says at Wikipedia:Vandalism, but still continues to label edits he disagrees with as vandalism. I see no reason to unblock him early and rather strong justification to temporarily ban him from editing Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. Carbonite | Talk 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • There's really no point in unblocking him to allow him to edit those talk pages. In my experience, he simply repeats the same arguments over and over again, not listening to anybody else (and calling them vandals, cabalists, etc). Not just on this page but on others too, e.g. check the history of Wikipedia:User prerogatives. Zenny is unable or unwilling to understand, even after repeated explanation, such concepts as consensus, or the fact that policy isn't created by voting on it. Radiant_>|< 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to put a request in the clarification section of RfAr to see if he can be blocked. There is precedent for users just being put on probation and then after multiple violations, a blocking occuring. I think it's time. Just since early December, he has been blocked from I believe 3-4 articles and he's been banned for 24 hours for 3RR violations another 3-4 times. Probation is failing. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chime in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Zen-master. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

New Chapter on Gibraltarian

The Gibraltarian vs. Ecemaml edit war has spilled onto Gibraltarian's evidence page. Here's how I see this situation: Gibraltarian comments on this page. Ecemaml replys. Gibraltarian removes Ecemaml's reply. Ecemaml restores them. Edit warring ensues. Gibraltarian claims that Ecemaml "has had his chance" and that this page "is all [his] now" - which, if I'm not mistaken, is a violation of WP:OWN. It's about time to act on this situation - to be honest, my mood sinks everytime I witness Gibraltarian's hate-filled comments. --TML1988 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The instructions clearly say that each involved party is to present their evidence in their own section. "Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user," and "This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page." --bainer (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is a banned user. The proposed decision page is already SP. I think the evidence page should be as well since it's not as if he's even attempting to follow the rules. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes.....I'm a banned user.....but WHY??? Only because YOU woohookitty took it upon yourself to ban me with no justification! To TML, MY comments are not hate filled...it is Ecemaml who has the anti-Gibraltar agenda, and is proving himself to be the obsessed bigoted racist I always said he was. He has created this dispute purposely, with the sole intention of getting me banned.....now if that doesn't come under the definition of troll I don't know what will. He posted his "evidence". To be frank I felt he should be ignored.....treated with the contempt that he deserves. However I replied. I have a right not to have my reply tampered with. There is no possible justification for banning me.....and anyone actually looking into the whole history of this case will see that. Ecemaml has created this entire dispute purposely with the sole intention of getting me banned.

How can it be that when I revert him it's "vandalism", but him reverting me isn't. How can it be that him openely calling me a liar (which I'm not) is not considered a personal attack, but me calling him an obsessed troll (which he is) is. How can it be that he can post anything he likes, whether true or not, whether NPOV or not........but whenever I factual and NPOV posts, he follows me around WP, reverting almost everything I do....yet does so with impunity.

It is simply NOT acceptable to SP an evidence page, as I have a RIGHT to post matters in my defence (not that I have done anything requiring defending). Woohookitty, you have already proved yourself to be a beacon of unfairness, so perhaps you should leave matters of fairness to others.

Ecemaml must learn to deal with his massive chip on his shoulder over Gibraltar, and also that WP is NOT the place for him to spread his fascist inspired propaganda, nor revisionist history. His sole intent on editing the Gibraltar articles has been this.........it is clear for all to see. I am sure this is not what WP is meant for. Gibraltarian

User:International space agency

This user keeps posting legal threats on his talk page and talk pages of others despite repeated requests to cease and pointing to WP:NLT can someone review please. I haven't blocked yet. --pgk^(talk) 14:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. It's not just the legal threats mind you; there's the constant spamming and disruption. The user was politely warned and responded with a tirade of legal threats laced with racist inneuendo. We don't need that, especially not when I haven't had my morning cup of coffee yet. But seriously, we don't have to take legal threats from a spammer. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

He does make a lot of valid (and valuable) contributions. I propose we amend the block so we may reform this editor. A possibly valuable Wikipedian that needs mentorship, perhaps. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)]

This person hit Usenet a while back; mention of an "international space agency" as a general concept was met with a screed to "correct misinformation" about posts dating back to 1990(!) which had "nothing to do with "the International Space Agency (ISA) Organization, Trademarked & Copyrighted (1986-2005) Name & Public Identity". (See, for example, this thread) The organisation appears to exist, according to my research at the time, but the legal noises are fundamentally baseless. They're legit, but it seems to be a personal-vanity thing by a guy in Nebraska.

Lots of googlebombing involved behind the scenes, too - I suspect the International Space Agency page is just another part of this. I'll dig through their contributions now. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the current block on this user since he/she has repeatedly made ongoing legal threats despite being warned. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All of their stuff seems to have been reverted, bar some meaningless junk on talk pages of redirected pages. I've deleted Talk:International Space Agency as it seemed to be entirely their linkspam, to prevent confusing future users. Shimgray | talk | 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This editor has only been around since three this morning, and got off to a roaring start with this edit here: [174], which I'm going to go and revert. He's a corporate spammer by the looks of it, and litigious to boot. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In [175] he writes "It is very clear from your speedy and focused actions, that you are indeed a "Skull & Bones" CIA/NSA plant here at Wikipedia" I wonder which business school he went to :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And, as expected, I've got an email in my inbox which calls me a "brownshirt" and informs me that a "legal letter" has been sent to Jimbo. That's quick work on their part; although I do hope that their corporate attorney has a better command of the English language...Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just a coincidence that Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Today#International Space Agency, I.S.A. showed up on Articles for Creation today? --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Immidiate attention needed: User:Freestylefrappe and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

Can another admin please take a look at the actions of myself (Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EurekaLott, my talk page, and FSFs. It began with FSF taking umbrage with me pointing out a voting pattern. FSF then accused me of "harassment." After a brief exchange, FSF then voted oppose on Eureka (and another) for my and BDAbramson's (percieved) actions. After I (twice) changed the header of FSF's message on my talk page, FSF blocked me, and then for some entirely perplexing reason, let me know on the RfA first (which is hideously innapropriate, not just for the RfA, and especially the nominee, but the community at large who have to be subjected two admins' argument). As you can see, I have unblocked myself because the block (IMHO) is unwarrented (I only changed the header, not the content or substance of her diatribe), and FSFs actions are genuine trolling at this point. Nevertheless, this needs some outside help, and fast. I feel FSF is trolling, FSF feels I changed her comments. I have no wish to wheel war on this, so I submit to the will of the admin group at large. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RFA for EurekaLott has sparked a wheel war. Freestylefrappe complained that Jeffrey O. Gustafson (who had originally nominated EurekaLott) was harassing an oppose voter [176]. After a brief exchange, Freestylefrappe decided to block Jeffrey O. Gustafson [177] for changing others' comments (although I cannot find an edit where he does so, other than repairing a format). The block was then applied [178]. Following this, Jeffrey unblocked himself [179]. I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. David | Talk 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to unblock yourself, Jeffrey. Having said that, I think the initial block was patently unjustified. Modifying a user's header on your own talk page is not modification of another user's comments -- IIRC this policy exists only to prevent misattribution of one's comments. I don't think anyone could have confused the headers for being something written by the original commenter. I also think it's bad form to block in a dispute where you may be biased -- it should have been requested that another admin block Jeffrey. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself is grounds for deadminship. There is no circumstance under which an admin may clear a personal block (not IP block, which could just be collateral damage) of him or herself. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(lost in edit conflict) The "changes" in question appear to be these:[180] [181], in which Jeffrey changed the headings of items on his talk page. That's far from being a blockable offense—indeed, it's common practice for purposes of organization and categorization. I'm concerned that any admin would block someone for such a slight action. Regarding harrassment, Jeffrey's comment might have been somewhat abrupt but I see no pattern of abuse here. I'm not a bureaucrat, but I know that users who oppose all adminship nominations on principle generally do not carry much weight, especially when they do so without articulating the principle. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, and I do not like the principle of a blocked admin unblocking themselves - even when a block has been applied which is not in accordance with Blocking policy. I would also question Freestylefrappe's decision to cast an oppose vote for the candidate and citing only his dispute with the nominator as the reason. David | Talk 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, it is not acceptable to unblock yourself. Whether or not the block was acceptable, Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions were an abuse of his sysop powers. Arbitration cases have been started for less. [[Sam Korn]] 15:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down there Sam. I agree Jeffrey should not have unblocked himself, but you also aren't supposed to block someone you're in a dispute with! I think an RfC is called for, certainly, but I'd view Freestylefrapp's actions with far greater skepticism. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added one incident from the block log, where an Admin inadvertently blocked themselves rather than the vandal, and then swiftly unblocked, to BJAODN. I've seen a second one there as well. So I wouldn't make an absolute rule that no admin may unblock themselves. David | Talk 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, with the exception for where the block was by themselves. [[Sam Korn]] 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not about to start one. Nevertheless, wheel warring is super evil, and must not happen. Neither the blocks nor the unblocks should have happened. Both have behaved in a manner unbecoming to admins. [[Sam Korn]] 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord. Everyone needs to take a step back and chill... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to finally be notified of this discussion, which Gustafson should have done, but obviously did not want me seeing this. Why dont all of you actually look at the original header, which was a gentle warning, and his change. Until then, I see no reason to "explain my version of the events". It's all pretty straight forward. It's also already being discussed on the RFA talkpage. If you harass other users, you face the consequences, just that simple. freestylefrappe 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you could point us in the direct of an actual justification for blocking another administrator when you're involved in the dispute I'd be most grateful. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed the crux of this dispute. [[Sam Korn]] 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One instance of abruptness does not a series of personal attacks make. We can only block if a user refuses to stop making personal attacks, and I don't think anything Jeffrey has done yet constitutes a series of personal attacks. In addition, please see my comment regarding his ostensible "modification of comments". You are gaming the policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked Jeremy. Do not block him again unless he actually violates policy. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget it then. Let him harass everyone. That's essentially what you're saying. Anyone who votes oppose is a subversive. freestylefrappe 15:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Alex, (and good news for Jeremy, too <grin>). I was actually in the process of apologizing for unblocking myself when I got blocked again. I should have used a normal, accepted avenue of recourse rather than taking the course of action I took. I was wrong, period, regardless of how the block came to be. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think in the light of circumstances here, Jeffrey's unblock of himself is a technical abuse of admin privileges which there is no need to take further. David | Talk 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey's apology is good. I hope his interaction with the rest of the community begins to show some more respect. If you want the privilege of being an admin, you should respond with respect even when being shown none yourself. [[Sam Korn]] 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Im a bit concerned by Freestyle's last few edits: [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]

I'm particularly worried about number 226 and 230. FSF already has an RFC/RFAr filed against him from his past conflicts. I think more has to be done to control FSF anger problem. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry my children (Or else...) Freestyle has been placed in a reeducation camp! He will blindly vote in support for all future candidates (Or else...). His anger over the subjugation of his fellow subversives shall be morphed into a gentle, but fierce love for the motherland (Or else...)! If anyone has any concerns regarding other troublemakers, report them to the Wikipedia:Cabal noticeboard immediately. Long live the Cabal! Long live the Cabal! The Cabal 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking note of the above edit, I think it best if Freestylefrappe was left alone for a while so long as he does not start becoming disruptive. It does not help users to become productive if they are provoked, and we seem to be over the immediate cause of the problem. David | Talk 16:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe makes a good point (although the way he expresses it is not so great). It is common in RFA's for every Oppose vote to be questioned repeatedly, often by the nominator. If the opposer gives no reason, a reason is demanded. If the opposer gives a reason, it is belittled. Support votes receive far less scrutiny. This practice does not respect the right of those who choose to oppose candidates. When you nominate someone in an RFA, you are asking for the opinions of the community. Nominators and others who challenge each oppose vote appear petty and lose my respect. Nominators, especially, need to chill out and not take it personally when someone has a different opinion about the nominee. In the case of frequent opposers like Masssiveego and Boothy, I believe that the way people react to their votes is far more disruptive than the actual Oppose votes are. This contentious atmosphere discourages people from participating in RFA, and it winds up representing the opinion of the admin-inclusionists instead of the community. Yours in gentle but fierce love for the motherproject, FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what you say, Freplay, I think you're losing sight of the particular case we're dealing with here. The user in question, Masssiveego, was pointed out for opposing not just one, but all candidates running for ArbCom and RfAs within a time span of merely hours (with the exception of merely two - strangely enough, one of the users he supported had a total of 117 edits, a flagrant contradiction with his stated high standards), only providing an explanation in two cases. This being said, I think it's natural that at least a request for an ellaboration of the voting conduct is professed by the community. It is in this ugly context that FSF jumped in, and let's just say that his way to express things didn't quite help with the already agitated mood. My question: was it really harassment to question a (seemingly) disruptive conduct? Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was deliberately addressing the larger question. I agree Masssiveego's voting behavior is odd. So do the b'crats, and it's not necessary to create a big fuss to bring it to their attention. Community requests for elaboration are fine too, but some of the ways they have been expressed in this situation are not. FreplySpang (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to contribute here, but I'm just amused by the fact that someone who defends trolls and banned users all the time, not to mention voting for them in the Arbitration elections to and I quote "destroy the committee", then pops up on ANI crying because they had their own run-in with one of the people they usually defend. It's not quite so fun when the boottee is on the other footee, eh? Ambi 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exercise Wikiquette please. Intimating that someone is a baby is hardly becoming. Behave above those we disagree with. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ambi. I can be a bit (very) paranoid, but I think that comment may be directed at me. While I did vote support a particular candidate with the comment "Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed", it is because the arbcom is such a disaster. And "someone who defends trolls and banned users all the time" is a bit weird, as I've never defended a banned user. Um, ever. Not wishing to start anything, just setting the record strait. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the arb com election not publicised at the top of every page?

Last year's election had a notice that appeared automatically at the top of every page (in the same way as Jimbo's personal appeal) telling people about its existance.

How many users are there in wikipedia? Its certainly something in the thousands

200 isn't remotely near a quorate, its a small minority of the community. Specifically, the members of the community that always hang about the arb com pages, or know the people in the election. A clique, cabal, call it what you will, it does not represent the community; most editors do not hang around these pages.

Not telling the masses about an election is a very good way of stitching up the result. It's gerrymandering. It isn't right, and it looks very much like an attempt to rig the election by choosing the electorate.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Announcements are on your watchlist and the Community Portal, and it's been announced frequently in the Signpost. The arbitration committee is a community thing, not an encyclopediac thing, so I disagree that it should be announced on every page like Jimbo's notice is. If you have any other recommended pages (not in article space) where it should be announced please be bold and add an announcement there. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias and Closure

When closing an AFD, the closing admin should neutrally consider the outcome, right, not skew it towards their own desire?

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5, Splash declared no consensus. The results were

• Delete 19
• Merge or Delete 5
• Merge 6
• Keep 14

The total voting for delete or merge/delete was 24. This compares to the 14 keep and 6 pure merge votes. As splash pointed out, this makes the delete position the majority. There was 1 abstention. I think this should have been closed as an obvious delete - 24:14 is a clear majority.

Splash also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 4:14 as no consensus. The results were

• Delete 15
• Merge or Delete 4
• Merge 1
• Keep 13

This is slightly less obvious an outcome, but the total voting for delete or merge/delete was 19, compared to 13 to keep, and 1 purely to merge.

Splash also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:19 as a delete. This was owing to the unavoidable obviousness of the result

• Delete 18
• Merge or Delete 4
• Merge 1
• Keep 6

The total for delete or merge/delete here was 22, compared with 6 for keep, and 1 purely to merge. 3 of the delete votes also expressed a desire that the article be allowed to be recreated if it was done more substantively. Splash insisted that these 3 were more important than the other 19, and refused to delete anything other than the article, i.e. explicitely refused to orphan it.

Additionally Ichiro closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 2:21 as no consensus. The results being

• Delete 22
• Merge or Delete 3
• Merge 2
• Keep 15

The total for delete or merge/delete here was 25, compared with 15 for keep, and 2 purely to merge. I think this is an obvious delete, 25:15 is a clear majority.

I think the closing admins' own religious prejudices had a say here, particularly in the case of Splash as Splash's closing comments indicate that Splash clearly didn't want to delete John 20:19, but had no choice as the outcome was stunningly clear. And I also think that these articles should clearly be deleted as per AFD consensus, and orphaned.

Anyone disagree/agree? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should notify Splash as a courtesy of this discussion and invite him to explain why he closed the AFD votes as he did. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note that a delete consensus is usually regarded as a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. Dragons flight 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but many admins (me included) do not like combining merge and delete. They are not the same thing. The problem with combining them is that if you combine them and say that delete/merge is the majority, then you need to pick between delete and merge. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to note that a merge counts as a keep, not as a delete. --cesarb 19:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to point out that a merge or delete counts as a merge and as a delete, depending on which has the greater number. And that a merge does not count as a keep but as a merge. I.e. as a "get rid of this article, but keep the content and put it inside another article" not a "keep the article". --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure precident is that articles about bible verses are to be kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses), so long as they can provide referenced commentary. No such article should be deleted whatever the "vote". Shouldn't this go to WP:DRV though? --W.marsh 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As to precedent for Bible verses, see Wikipedia:Bible verses and Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, each adminstrator is empowered to use their discretion in understanding what "consensus" is. There may infact be a consensus as to what consesnsus is but ehhh.... Anyway, if you think he has a bias I'd discuss it with him privatly first. This is the sort of thing that RFC can be used for with some sort of chance it doesn't explode into a massive choatic mess, as long as we all handle it with the civility displayed thus far. If you do think there is a clear bias you should chek against Splashes' non bible verse closures.--Tznkai 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing administrators are given wide leeway to judge the validity and sanity of arguments instead of counting numbers. Overwhelming support for a position (Something that these articles don't have one way or another anyway) is only one of many criteria taken into account. Phil Sandifer 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Splash was right, even by a legalistic reading like "delete at 2/3." My understanding, subject to correction, is if a vote isn't 'delete,' it's keep. If he wanted to, he could probably have justified keeping John 20:19 as 18/29 is less than 2/3. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, deletion is almost NEVER a vote to salt the earth and forbid all future creation of an article. I do not think that anybody would seriously argue that there are not very, very important bible verses that detailed articles could be written on. Leviticus 18:22 strikes me as a verse that could easily generate a featured article. It is well outside the jurisdiction of AfD to make long-term claims about which verses are which - they ought merely judge whether or not this particular article on this particular verse is an encyclopedia article or not. Phil Sandifer 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you'd be wrong. Leviticus 18:22 is repeated somewhere in Leviticus 20 or 21 (I forget the precise location), so the article discussing the content issue would have to deal with both verses, not 18:22 on its own. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The complainant actually has a link in his signature to a page meant for vote stacking to delete bible articles. And calls his opponents fascist, also in his signature. Surely we're not taking his accusations of bias seriously? Radiant_>|< 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • • "Fascist" refers explicitely, and only, to comments about my prior signature - thus "victim of signature fascism". As for vote stacking, please remember that everyone can read my signature, not just deletionists, so it doesn't stack it to one side any more than the other. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At least as seriously as we'd take them on WP:DRV. --cesarb 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been moving house today, hence my tardiness in appearing here (W. marsh was good enough to point this out to me some hours ago). I do not have a great deal to add beyond my closure comments in the AfDs linked above. -Ril- observes a reluctance to delete the one I did: this is because I was aware it was below the quasi-thresholdy-thing of two-thirds that is the lowest numerical level that has any kind of community acceptance at all and yet I still saw the debate as a delete, without prejudice against recreation. -Splash^talk 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User RK

RK is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He has violated these restrictions and has had his 12 month period reset see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#User_RK

Now he has once again violated his one revert restriction See the following diffs

Section of old reversion he is reverting to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&oldid=31907906

• 1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35308029
• 2cd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35308397

Addtionaly he has resorted to personal attacks by saying that I am trying to promote Messianic Judaism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35307759 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to count this as two reverts because of the time difference involved (about three weeks between the version he is "reverting" to and the first diff) but I will block for the personal attack. It took me a second to realize why it was an attack; Eliezer is an Orthodox Jew, and accusing him of promoting Messianic Judiasm (i.e., a belief in Jesus) is highly offensive. I am not convinced by RK's subsequent post to Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch that he did not intent his comments to be an attack; he should know better, particularly given that he is on probation, and that his probation is a reduction from his original ban. I'm issuing a block, and since the last one was 48 hours, I'm issuing double, or 96 hours/four days. Also, the 12 month PA parole is reset. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- (talk · contribs)

Apparently this user is upset by bible articles on Wikipedia. He has created three simultaneous "centralized discussions" on the subject (See {{cent}}) which kind of defies the point of being "centralized", and has spammed nearly a hundred talk pages on the subject. Also, he has a userpage intended for vote stacking to delete bible articles, and links to it from his signature. Could someone enlighten me as to the differences between this behavior and disruptive trolling? Radiant_>|< 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This behavior doesn't have userboxes associated with it? Phil Sandifer 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could create some and then liberally sprinkle them throughout the encyclopedia. Or perhaps ceremonial userboxes (I survived the Great Bible War of '06)? --Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That would help a lot, I suspect. :) Phil Sandifer 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In seriousness, yes, this is a pretty clear problem, especially since the AfD results are pretty clear here, and it's pretty self-evident that at least some bible verses can reasonably have articles. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course some of them can. John 3:16 clearly deserves its own article, but does Ezekiel 23:20? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Write one and we'll see what there is to say about it. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that he is sending invitations to join the centralized discussions only to those who voted delete or merge on the latest round of AfDs for Bible verses Dsmdgold 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing new. It has been about 6 months since the last round of discussions on this issue were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses, and Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. It is unusual however that only persons who have displayed a desire to delete bible verse articles ever seem to be notified when the next discussion is started. --Allen3 ^talk 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I received one of Ril's messages, presumably since I have in the past voted to merge on individual Bible verses. I think it's reasonable to wonder whether we want (potentially) well over 30,000 articles on individual verses, especially since the verse construction is artificial to begin with. (And that's without getting into whether this would set a precedent for the Qur'an, Atlas Shrugged, etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to group by topic or maybe chapter, and have the individual verses as redirects? Ril makes some sensible points here. Regardless of your view on this - and I know there are reasonable arguments on both sides - I don't see how any of this amounts to "disruptive trolling". It looks to me like a good faith discussion on a policy issue. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the AFD's are fairly clear - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5 had the results Delete 19, Merge or Delete 5, Merge 6, Keep 14. Total Deletes, including Merge/Delete is 24 compared to 14 to keep. So that's a delete outcome, not a keep.

The question is whether every single one of the first 200 verses of Matthew notable in its own right? Or in other words do we really need all of the following articles?

Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34

Or should we merge/delete some of them? --Victim of signature fascism 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I looked at five of the above at random and they were all very well written... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Matthew 2:21 and Matthew 2:20. Not only are the verses near identical, the article even says it is. The only content of the article is a summary of the previous 20 verses, two translations of the verse, and a comment that it's identical to the previous one. Please don't be tricked by fluff. There is no encyclopedic content in many of the articles whatsoever that merits an individual article. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If both articles are about the same thing, create a merged article with the content from both, and redirect both to it. --cesarb 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh I think you haven't read the thread you started earlier. A simple 51% majority in AfD does not mean an article must be deleted with impunity... not even close. Many informative comments were made and links provided that you might want to take a look at. --W.marsh 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

24 to 14 is slightly more than a 51% majority. So could you please address the actual question at hand - do we need articles for every single one of those 200 articles or somewhat less than that? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge votes simply do not count as delete votes... and even still, 24 of 38 is 63%, 66% is the bare minimum needed to delete in most circumstances. As for your other argument, this is not WP:AFD or WP:DRV, which is where that argument belongs. --W.marsh 23:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If a closing admin notes keep on an AfD, that doesn't preclude anyone from merging the article, particularly if there's consensus to do that. Closing admins won't necessarily merge articles for you. --Interiot 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again! Despite -Ril-'s long campaign, AfD has demonstrated over many months that there is no consensus to delete good Bible verse articles. When his AfDs failed last time he tried to 'manage' his own poll at Wikipedia:Bible verses - which evidently didn't give him the result he wanted. Now, since returning from his arbcom suspension for trolling, he's back at it. Whatever your view of Bible verses, this is just troublemaking. He is, of course, free to keep nominating them - and he will keep getting 'no consensus' = default keep. This is a boring as schools debates. --Doc ^ask? 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such a contentious issue. I personally do not see the study of Bible verses as much different from the study of varieties of insects or Songhai monarchs. All are obscure subjects of interest to only a small group. Perhaps this is because I personally am quite areligious and do not see them of more them of much more than academic interest. It also might be because I am not American, and failed to understand that for some that any interest in religion is an ultra political demarcation of one's position in a "culture war." - SimonP 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, let him carry on. If they're deemed not worthy of keeping then they can be deleted. If they aren't then all he has done is draw attention to the fact that we have them and encourage other people to possibly improve them. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

• Rather than deletion, I think the two issues should be 1.merging some of the stubbier bible-related articles, and 2.discuss whether bible articles should cite their entire source text. Both can be taken care of through regular editing and possibly RFC. There's no need to involve deletion. Radiant_>|< 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - as some of the comments above suggest, going through AfD sets up a false delete/don't delete dichotomy, with a strong (two-thirds) presumption in favour of keep. But take the articles on Matthew 1:1-5 - this is for me, unarguably Biblecruft. Wikipedia is not a biblical commentary. There should be articles on topics, and on the odd really notable verse. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never been against merging - but as -Ril-'s own Wikipedia:Bible verses has shown, as with schools, there is no consensus to create any macro-policy here. Further, why the hell are we discusising content on ANI - take it elsewhere. The only valid question for ANI is whether Ril is entitle to behave as he is. And due to my past inteactions with -Ril-, I recuse myself on that question. --Doc ^ask? 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Of "Fretwide" and "Run" genre of music

Do Not Delete "Fretwide" or "Run". "Fretwide" is active and has branded it's style of music "Run". www.Wikipedia.org is serving as the online reference for this information to be viewed by the public.

Sincerely, 68.1.33.236 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) www.Fretwide.com 68.1.33.236 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Run this by me again? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fretwide. Radiant_>|< 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a block for personal attack parole violation

I would like to complain about the behaviour of Theathenae (talk · contribs). He is on a personal attack parole which should be enforced by bans [188] and he just made a personal attack. He called my, an anon's (84.20.68.26) and user:Pjetër Bogdani's edits Albanian chauvinism. Look at the edit summary [189]. I think he should be blocked for that. I am not an Albanian chauvinist. Rex 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the nicest thing in the world to say, but I don't really see that it's much of a personal attack. Friday (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be. If you look at the kind of attacks mentioned in the ArbCom case, it's very similar. Izehar 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Could easily be. I'm just saying I wouldn't personally block for it, regardless of parole. It sounds to me like he was referring to the content being chauvenism, not talking personally about a particular editor. Friday (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Not a PA. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request review and possible block inre: WP:NLT

A relatively new user, User:Oldwindybear, believes that a comment I made on his talk page here (referring to meatpuppets I'd believed he had engaged), could be libelous. Though he has said he has no serious intentions on this score, he continues to reference our past interactions as "libelous." Despite cautions from myself and Dmcdevit about why even not completely serious legal threats are not okay [190], he has continued to post comments mentioning libel on numerous talk pages his talk page, T:Bonnie and Clyde, T:Bonnie and Clyde. I'd hoped that Dmcdevit and my requests for him to just move on and work on content would take hold, but apparently that isn't the case. Today he left this at T:Bonnie and Clyde. Now today Mac1953 (who has said he is Oldwindybear's brother) has left a message at WP:RFC on the issue here, as I had suggested he do (rather than banging on and on about it on article talk pages), again stating that I have "personally libeled" him. It's incorrectly formatted, but that's easily enough fixed. It's not that I mind the RFC, in fact I'll help format it properly; but I am afraid that at this point something more needs to be done than just asking him to stop bandying "libel" around the way he has been. I'd consider taking action myself, but we've been involved in some content disagreements. Thanks. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Even more worrying, he has now posted to my talk page [191] here referencing courts and "a libel case." Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Oldwindybear indefinately for legal threats. I have indicated, as with other users who have been blocked for NLT violations in the past, that he may request an unblock if he is willing to cease making legal threats. I invite any admin who observes such an agreement to remove the block without delay. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, the guy has issues and an NLT block is appropriate, but don't you think that your final message [192] was a bit over top? He obviously feels harrased and that kind of tone seems likely to make it worse, perhaps inspiring him to come back and offend again in new and obnoxious ways. Dragons flight 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragons flight: One step ahead of you; he and I have had a very productive email conversation, we've both apologized for acting before thinking, and I've unblocked. Kate & I will be doing all we can to help him make the best of his time on Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing the issue up though; we all need to be whacked with the cluestick from time to time. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Zordrac and related issues relating to personal attacks by User:Ambi

I just got blocked indefinitely, apparently because of supporting User:Mistress Selina Kyle. I have suffered extraordinary abuses by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and especially User:Antaeus Feldspar and more recently by User:Ambi, none of whom have been blocked because of it. Just now I got blocked, apparently an indefinite block. There is no evidence here, no post or anything for me to refer to. Just a warning that was absurdly ridiculous, by User:Ambi about editing User:Sean Black's user page, something which he himself requested. What the hell is this all about? And why can Ambi go around abusing people and get away with it? I haven't done anything against anyone here. I quit it because of the 2 people stalking me, and because not a single administrator would do anything about it (although User:El C subsequently apparently talked to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about it, and thanks to him for doing that). Its just absurd, and that still I am being harassed and stalked by this horrendously abusive editor, Antaeus Feldspar, apparently because I dared to suggest that Daniel Brandt was written badly. I was considering coming back here, but such a ban is abhorrent. What was it for? For daring to support users who were abused? Or what? I am confident that the vast majority of my edits have been on articles (I believe in the order of 80%) and that the vast majority of them have been accepted as being very positive. Why am I being treated this badly? What justification is there for this kind of approach? Zordrac

If you quit, as you say, what is the problem? --W.marsh 03:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Block log gives real reason for block. No user mentioned above is actually involved. Jkelly 03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can just note that he put this on my userpage, which I think anyone would have reverted.--Sean|Black 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just found this: "14:31, 15 January 2006 Kelly Martin blocked "User:Zordrac" with an expiry time of 1 year (Sockpuppet of Internodeuser, who is serving a hard ban by order of the Arbitration Committee)." This year block will over-ride the indef. block that was set earlier. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how the identification was arrived at, Internodeuser used a common Australiann ISP with a IP assignment within a certain range, and was a conspiracy theory editor that made legal threats and viscious personal attacks. These things don't seem to be a hallmark of Zordrac's activities.--nixie 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the connection was not established through CheckUser evidence. I don't know what the evidence is, but I assume (and hope) that we will be made aware soon enough.--Sean|Black 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Kelly Martin tells me that the ArbCom has the evidence for this block. If a current Arbitrator could let us know, that would be helpful (obviously).--Sean|Black 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Beside the point - Kelly's stepping down from arbcom did not affect her checkuser access - she is still cleared to do that. Phil Sandifer 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the particulars of Internodeuser's situation or activities, and (my feelings about arbcom aside) do not doubt the veracity of their evidence, but I know for certain that I had encountered Zordrac before Zordrac was Zordrac. I had AfD'd some chat room articles he'd written anonymously, and further interaction with him led to the creation of his account (unfortunately, I guess, now). My early (and rather frustrating) interactions with him did not give the air of one who knew the system, and his earlier contributions as Zordrac were not in conspiracy theory areas, but in areas regarding his chat room articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as IP information goes, they were using the same ISP in the same city. That on its own wouldn't be nearly enough, but there was also a great deal of very convincing circumstantial evidence quite conclusively tying the two together. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word (or that of any other present or past arbitrators who drop by) on it, as I don't think it's going to be disclosed, so as not to aid the next Internodeuser in better hiding their sockpuppets. I must admit that I was one of those taken in - I'd assumed Zordrac was a good-faith (if misguided and very irritating) user, and was quite surprised when I woke up this morning to find that he'd been found to be Internodeuser. In hindsight, however, and having seen the evidence, it certainly does explain a lot of things. Ambi 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, please don't take this question as anything other than me trying to understand the system better - these conversations appear to be rather heated, and I'd like to be clear upfront that I don't have a "dog in this fight", just a desire to learn more about how processes operate.

You say above that you have "seen the evidence" in this case. I realize that you may have been on the ArbCom during the Internodeuser days, but it was my understanding that you had left the ArbCom in June of last year. If you, as a non-arbiter and someone who does not have Checkuser priviledges, can see the evidence in this case, why can't others? I realize that privacy policy normally prevents it, but if Zordrac has waived that privacy, specifically allowing his IP information to be posted... and if other non-Checkuser editors such as yourself have seen this evidence, wouldn't it be better for everyone's peace of mind to simply reveal what evidence there is? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, and will look silly when it's explained. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Internode users registered edits were to articles on conspiracy theories about Australian murders, the users was not familiar with Wikipedia policy at all. Before banned though the user particiapted in a heap of random afds, the after being banned made a brief come back as an IP harassing the user that had taken them to arbitration and posting legal threats on Jimbos page. As I said above, I don't see a lot of similarites, and IP evidence would be inconculsive given Internodeusers IP.--nixie 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Both seem to have documented interest in similar topics, such as Martin Bryant, Port Arthur massacre, Backpacker murders and Peter Falconio... that's evident with just a cursory glance. Although such comparisons could never establish more than a purely circumstancial case, of course. He also says "Zordrac has been using wikipedia since 2002" [193]. I too await the grand unveiling of evidence that actually proves anything though. --W.marsh 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit more than that, but I'm afraid you're going to have to trust the people who you elected on this one, as the precise details aren't going to be disclosed, so as not to assist future sockpuppeteers in better hiding their work. Ambi 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if User:Zordrac is a sockpuppet of Internodeuser - which I see no clear reason to believe - does it really matter? If a user gives no indication that he is the same as a banned user, and if he follows our policies, what difference does it make, really? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac does not follow our policies, because we have policies which prohibit telling malicious lies which damage other users' reputations. Zordrac has done this repeatedly, and the evidence collected at User:Antaeus Feldspar/Zordrac is just a very small sample. I have no idea who Internodeuser (talk · contribs) is, or if Zordrac is him, but Zordrac deserves a hard ban for just those edits he has racked up under that username, no matter what others he may or may not have used. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user who originally took Internodeuser to ArbCom so I guess I know the habits of the former quite well. I've worked alongside Zordrac at the Peter Falconio article without issue, even being pleased with most (if not all) of his edits there. Initially I thought editing patterns between Zordrac and Internodeuser were similar, however I've had no reason to take anything further. I'm not convinced without supporting evidence that Internodeuser and Zordrac are one and the same. It's possible, but I don't like making assumptions without some facts first. The Arbcom has my full trust, but why hide the evidence? The biggest threat he can pose to us is to be a pain in the arse, and that's nothing new around here. We cope, don't we? -- Longhair 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is suppressed for very important privacy reasons - the arbcom tells us the result of the evidence, not the evidence. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't need Checkuser to confirm that he used the same ISP. That much is evident from the IP contributions Zordrac attributed to himself. However, I'm not convinced that using the same ISP happens to mean anything. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And that is why Kelly has checkuser access and you don't - she's better at it than you. Phil Sandifer 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the reason I don't is because I have not requested access, nor do I want it anyway. Thanks for your lack of civility anyway. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary of just taking the ArbCom's word for it that Zordrac is a sockpuppet. Does anyone remember the Agriculture and TheChief incident? Clearly Zordrac's contributions have been pointed at times, but not trollish. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You can be wary all you want, but our policy is to take the arbcom's word on these things. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Phil on this - this isn't a jury trial. But perhaps an assurance that three or four disinterested arbs have seen the evidence and are in unanimous agreeement, would reassure the doubters. --Doc ^ask? 09:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I second that. I would prefer that some neutral parties affirmed they agree with this. Otherwise it might indeed be an wrongful assumption of bad faith, as happened to TheChief earlier. Radiant_>|< 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I well remember the Agriculture and TheChief situation....but looked over the probablitities and my suspicion is that they were one and the same, although I felt very differently at that time. I would also like to have some further assurance that Zordrac is the same person as Internodeuser--MONGO 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I too would like some assurance from the Arbcom, especially since Kelly Martin left the Arbcom four days ago, well in advance of Zordrac's sockpuppetry block which she changed from indefinite to 1 year yesterday. AvB ÷ talk 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was due to my not knowing that The Epopt had already blocked him. Feel free to reblock him indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel you have really gotten out of hand with this. Have we gathered suffucent edvidence to warrent this indifinte block..? I feel some discrestion should be implemented regarding this issue, as there seems to be an assumption of bad faith on this situation. And lest we forget, this is not the first time you have jumped to conclusions so quickly... I think we should think this through more carefully. -Zero^Talk 12:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly left the arbcom - she did not leave being trusted with checkuser access, nor did she get some parole on her check user access whereby she has to scurry off and check it with the arbcom every time she uses it. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This was sufficient assurance for me. AvB ÷ talk 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the block, as I pointed out here, there is no grounds for a block whatsoever given what's been stated here so far:

1. "They share the same ISP." - This has been stated to be a very large Internet Service Provider in Australia. As such this proves nothing other than that both the users are Australian. Are you going to ban other people in Australia based that they use the same ISP? It's a bit ridiculous.
2. "They are in the same city" - This is not true. Just because the WHOIS for the ISP shows the same city does not mean that they are in the same city, this is simply where the ISP's hubs and stuff are, not the actual location of where the person lives.
3. "Information on checkuser can't be released on privacy reasons" - Zordrac has had a message on his talk page, User talk:Zordrac for a while now stating that he gives full permission for all CheckUser evidence to be released
4. "They edited the same article once" - Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Hecould've heard about that massacre anywhere, after all he is another Australian.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading through that forum linked directly above, I'm somewhat more convinced Zordrac = Internodeser than I was when I posted earlier. I'm named (by username) a lot in that thread. Why? I'm nobody special, in fact, I'm nobody at all, especially on the internet where I keep my opinions to myself and choose to get serious work done as I can. The only person interested enough in myself to come up with enough crackpot theories on what I spend my time doing online is or was Internodeuser. The self-obsessed ranting, the false accusations, the overuse of lol's; all I need is the hard evidence and I'm sold it's the same PITA we've banned before. -- Longhair 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something a bit:

The person in the above forum you're referring to (bliss2yu2) is Internodeuser and I was not implying otherwise, and he has said himself that he is prior to this whole "Zordrac is internodeuser" garbage:

Zordrac however, doesn't post there (although he may be one of the many anonymous readers, I've been told a lot of admins regularly read it too), and the person you're referring to is not Zordrac and doesn't claim to be him either. } --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood. It's late here, excuse my sleepy eyes. Thanks for clearing that up :) I'm choosing not to get overly involved in this issue this time around, and quickly skimmed over the posts. One thing I'm not sure about however is, why the hell does Internodeuser care about Zordrac at all? Whilst I'm here, I might as well add my piece that most, if not all accusations aimed at myself on that forum are just more of the same Internoderuser style bullshit he was banned for in the first place. -- Longhair 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To have another voice here, I've just seen the evidence myself. I don't remember Internodeuser, really, but if he and Zordrac are not the same, I would like to see one very good explanation for the evidence. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Innocent until proven guilty/Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Seriously, is the evidence more than those I quoted above (having been said already here: "they use the same ISP", etc)?

Because if there isn't more than I mentioned above (with the reasons why), there really is no grounds or proof for a "sockpuppet" accusation and so a block at all.

Also, as for the evicence itself, Zordrac has already said that he wants the CheckerUser evidence made public and has given up the right to remain private and so there should be no issues with posting what the actual "proof" is here, which seems far from definitive. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, arbcom members have stated that they have convincing evidence that they are not going to disclose so as not to aid further attempts. We assume good faith that they know what they are doing and don't constantly second guess them. We have an encyclopedia to write, so why not contribute to that effort? - Taxman ^Talk 17:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman has it. Anyhow, I'm not entirely convinced, but I would still like to hear a good explanation from Zordrac, and I believe the block was made with a reasonable suspicion. (If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might be something else, but is anyone too surprised when it gets shot at?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I was going to second Taxman but Mindspillage beat me to it. Arbcom members have stated that they have convincing evidence which is NOT limited to CheckUser. They have said that they will not release the details, not because of Zordrac's privacy, but because the info would help future sockpuppeteers refine their approach. Zordrac's permission is beside the point. FreplySpang (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New information has been brought to my attention that leads me to have some doubt about the original conclusion made (not by me, by the way) that these two users are the same editor. However, Zordrac is, without a doubt, a vexatious user whose main purpose for editing is to disrupt Wikipedia (he has said as much in several places), so a complete unblock is inappropriate. Therefore, I've shortened the block to three days. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've re-considered Ms. Martin; I was under the impression that this assumptive situation was going too far.. -Zero^Talk 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can say something: I fully trust the ArbCom, and Kelly, that this decision was correct. The only reason I even brought up the lack of public evidence was because some people won't trust them. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that Zordrac has a edited from other accounts as well, but I'll keep that to myself. That's all.--Sean|Black 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that while my doubt may not have been unfounded, it turns out that it was inappropriate. We have pretty conclusive proof now that Zordrac is Blissy is Internodeuser. Thanks to all who helped in the investigation. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Publish the evidence, Kelly. It's entirely compelling. Grace Note 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see some more evidence further down on this page. Thanks, I'm satisfied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now convinced also. Thank you David for providing that link. So, this resets the ban for a further year from today? -- Longhair 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antispammer

From User:Antispammer's contributions I think it is fair to say he deserves at least some kind of pubishment by the Admins. In Talk:Operation Northwoods page he uses the entire page to attack other posters and as you can see he has done the same in other user's talk pages. He has also tried to insert alot of POV statements in the State terrorism article. I ask something be done about this. Thank you.-User:Jersey Devil 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia administrators, nor anyone else here, have the authority to punish anyone. This is a cooperative project, not a hierarchical one; administrators are janitors, not judges. Administrative tools (such as blocking) are for use only to protect the encyclopedia project from specific problems, as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators and elsewhere. Nobody is authorized to use those tools as weapons of "punishment" or other forms of assault. Please do not ask for administrators to abuse their tools. --FOo 03:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From the description (I haven't had time to cheack the contribs) It sounds like a case for RFC.Geni 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrator's regularly block for personal attacks, what's with this "administrators aren't judges" thing? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for personaly attacks doesn't happen very often. I think I've done it once when the personal attacks had risen to the level where they were dissrupting wikipedia.Geni 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress... Calm down.. :) -Zero^Talk 13:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am calm, I'm just asking a question o_O honestly, I'm not angry all the time.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is though:

"Neither Wikipedia administrators, nor anyone else here, have the authority to punish anyone. This is a cooperative project, not a hierarchical one; administrators are janitors, not judges. Administrative tools (such as blocking) are for use only to protect the encyclopedia project from specific problems, as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators and elsewhere."

Either the policy needs to be changed to reflect new usage of the policies by current admins, in that people ~are~ blocked for "personal attacks", or administrator's maybe don't understand the policies themselves. o_O --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for personal attacks is permissible under the disruption clause of the current blocking policy; no revision to policy is required. Egregious personal attacks or continued mild harrassment/incivility both serve to create a hostile environment on Wikipedia and drive away or disrupt the work of positive, useful contributors—hence, such behaviour is blockable. Except in the most severe cases, I support warning the editors in question before blocking, but it is sometimes necessary to use blocks to convey the seriousness of their behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful for some help dealing with persistent personal attack

As a result of an answer at the Reference Desk [194] to which he took exception, a new user (user:bethefawn) has decided I must be publicly chastized as a "homophobe" on his Talk page (User talk:Bethefawn). I have twice removed it [195], [196] and explained with civility our no personal attack policy. He has twice replaced it [197] [198] and made it more inflammatory. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me but I have not had to deal with this sort of thing before. I would be grateful if someone else would take the next steps and get it through his head that this is unacceptable behavior. Thank you. alteripse 13:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a wimpy wienie policy clarification[199] on the newbie's page, hoping that they'll be amenable to that. If not, I'll shift to sonorous admin mode. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The creature snatched off the "newbie" mask with a demented cackle and burst in the sun, [200], [201]. Move along, nothing to see, don't feed. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

In the future, we really should remove all questions concerning "can homosexuals be cured?", because those questions tend to be just plain trolling. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

MARMOT

I have blocked this account for a period of one month as a temporary measure based on the information at User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report. I have taken this action as a temporary measure in order to permit time for a consideration of whether the previous ban on MARMOT should be reinstated. I am unsure of whether this should be a matter for Jimbo, the ArbCom, or the Wikipedia Community at large. Given the accusations of exploiting vulnerabilities in the Mediawiki software to spoof the IP of another contributor, thereby getting that user blocked, and the level of planning involved, as brion sets out on the incident report, I am inclined to refer the matter directly to Jimbo. Taking into account the recent problems with "vandalism bot tests" by MARMOT, I am inclined to believe the matter is similar to users like Wik, who were banned by Jimbo directly.

I have discussed the matter with brion (I was in #wikimedia when he was asked to perform the tests, and was present and participated in the conversation of the results) as well as with Kelly Martin, who performed the checkuser. In boiled down terms (for those like myself who do not always follow the technical details involved) the evidence set out by brion, as confirmed by Kelly Martin's checkuser, is very, very strong evidence that the spoofing was performed by MARMOT, and that he has continued to engage in the same conduct for which he was banned during the terms of his "probation."

I am reporting my actions here to begin the process of considering the appropriate remedy; I will also raise the matter with Jimbo directly, and with the Arbitration Committee if he determines that they should make the decision. I encourage those who have comments either way to make them here, as I will point Jimbo and/or the AC to this thread. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the above evidence, I agree that this is probably the best thing to do. I was greatly willing to allow his prior actions to fly, but spoofing Cool_Cat shows that he hasn't changed. Ral315 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I warmly welcome this desicion. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That ... fucker. - David Gerard 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*... well, you win some, and you lose some. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like none of you have a clue whats going on:

Looking at this from an animal - enviroment standpoint, its obvious MARMOT is getting revenge on Cool Cat for several reasons stated in my thesis below:

• Cool Cat is a cat, which are predatory by nature. MARMOT, is of course defined in the rodent category, and this makes the two mortal predator and prey (ie. enemies)

• Seeing the decendents of one of his predatory enemies, MARMOT quickly decided to take action - by continually harassing Cool Cat. That would show him to hunt his species.

It was really quite simple, and none of you noticed it. Its simple, Cats and rodents will aways be enemies no matter what the enviroment or habbitat. -Zero^Talk 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that MARMOT was taken to ArbCom before the initial ban, and the case was rejected[202], because any sysop could have just blocked him. And it was so. So, I don't really see it as any different now. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, because when we issue a simple block, it is subject to a simple unblock. The probation, while a good idea and a worthwhile effort, (and I commend those who tried for having the patience and good heart to AGF) has not worked, and hardbanning will prevent similar problems in the future. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be one of those occasions where it is clear enough for a permanent block by the community - no Jimbo or Arbitration required. This is ridiculously bad behaviour, the evidence is crystal clear (thanks Brion and Kelly), and I see no reason to put up with this for a moment. -- sannse (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, we should find User:BrowardDawg (first dog that came to mind) and send him around to join the fray. Radiant_>|< 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2 questionable users

1. User:Alphabetagamnma: Check their contributions. They seem to be putting up a lot of images of nude or nearly nude men (especially movie stars) and then tagging them as being copyrighted but free to use. Also check their additions to the Dong article. They seem to be confused at least, a vandal at best.
2. User:OleMaster: Their edit summaries and talk page entries are juvenile and combative to say the least. They have continually changed working links to non-working links but at the same time they'll add some good edits. This makes the next editor have to pick and choose which edits need to be reverted.

So, can someone take a look at these users and maybe step in? They've both been warned about their actions in the past. Dismas|^(talk) 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going through ABG's images, and I already deleted one for being a copyvio/non-commercial image. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC) nearly all images they uploaded, except for two, since they were all copyvios or were "copyright with permission," but he was not the host of those websites, so I treated them like copyvios. He was warned about the copyvios, but if he deviates, he will be blocked. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair blanking his talk page

Copperchair (talk · contribs) has blanked his talk page tens of times over the past month or so. Wouldn't that constitute a need for protection? --TML1988 15:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What a conisidence... I was just coming over here to discuss this very issue. Copperchair may have stopped the edit-warring and breaching of policy he has shown in the past, but now he has stooped to balnking his talkpage to annoy editors 'round the clock. Several administrators and users have inquired him to discuss this issue and/or simply archive his page, but to no avail (I even offered to do it for him). He is simply not to doing it in good faith, (see his rfar and rfc) and some action must be taken. Coutless users have been more patient than they should have. -Zero^Talk 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no rule against blanking you talk page. I certainly don't like the practice, but it's none of our business what users do in their userspace (within reasonable limitations of course). I know many users who blank their talk pages - should they all be protected? I don't think making it a rule would make practical sense anyway. It would be impossible to enforce. Izehar 15:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So you want his page full protected so he cant blank it? How could anyone else then add anything to his talk page? Mike 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Real simple: They don't. There's nothing to discuss, there's nothing to chat about. Copperchair was just relesed froma month long ban, and looking through his contributions, its saturated with edit wars, vandalism, and actions requiring blocks and rfars. Also take into account the fact he isn;t making any useful contributions as well. -Zero^Talk 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Izehar. Although it's infuriating when people blank their talk pages to hide evidence of wars, unless they blank the history, it's kind of their business. Now, if they are in the process of arbitration or in the process being warning for vandalism, then we will sometimes step in to lock the page. Generally, being a jerk isn't enough, as you can link to the diffs when presenting evidence. Geogre 16:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - he is in the process of arbiration, and furthurmore, there are warnings and constant comments regarding his behavior on the page. Blanking his page is clear violation of these warnings and comments made from adminstrators, and it is considered vandalism to remove them. -Zero^Talk 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are annoyed and offended by someone blanking their talk page, your best course of action is probably to be less sensitive. If the talk page blanking is the sole issue, there is no issue. Now if he's also ignoring the warnings and messages and continuing with bad behavior, that's actionable, but that's actionable whether he blanks his talk page or not. Either way, this isn't actually a real issue. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Phil on this one. While most people archive their talk pages, it isn't required, and I can think of at least one prominent admin (RickK) who pointedly did not do so. This is a non-issue. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can think of another - Jimbo -- sannse (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with sensitivity. It has to do with removing warnings and comments left by admins regarding his behavior. Its not that hard to archive a page. -Zero^Talk 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not against Wikipedia policy to blank your talk page, but IMHO it should be considered evidence of bad faith the next time the user ends up in any controversy even tangentially related to anything the user blanked. --Aaron 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure - but it's kinda lousy evidence. Or, at least, tangental and not necessary to show the case. And thus consuming the arbcom's time unnecessarily. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I should have said circumstantial evidence. Not worth much in and of itself, but if it helps prove a pattern... --Aaron 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:OnwardsCS

User:OnwardsCS has just recreated the previously deleted {{Pro-life-stub}}, as well as changing the redirects at Stem Cell Research and Fetal Tissue Experimentation into articles thickly laden with anti-abortion POV. I've reverted the edits and deleted the template. Probably best to keep an eye on this user. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• All three are protected now. Radiant_>|< 17:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:68.109.223.137 Redux

68.109.223.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was just blocked a couple of days ago (see above for original incident) is back making major disruptive edits to Fox News Channel, the same page he was 3RRing before. Request an admin take a look. Thanks, --Aaron 18:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding a comment: There's a chance this might be a sockpuppet of User:Amibidhrohi, who has been blocked twice recently for 3RR violations on the Fox News Channel page and is currently serving a 48-hour block for excessive personal attacks and harassment against User:Celestianpower. How does one go about checking that? --Aaron 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: It might also be a sock of User:Luis Hamburgh who just commented on the talk page after I kept asking the IP to talk and the last IP's edit's summary was Sure, let's talk - but instigator of talk doesn't get to also have article reflect his motive for instigating the talk. You wanna talk? Let's talk. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideas on Gibraltarian?

Every day, we keep blocking more and more socks of Gibraltarian. This is the list of socks he has used. He's now hitting the 2 Gibraltar articles and RfP and SP policy. The 2 Gibraltar articles (History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar are basically in perma protect until G gives up, which isn't going to happen. He emails me and other blocking admins with lines like "UNBLOCK ME NOW!" and "I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!". I tried a range block as everyone knows but that didn't work out. So instead we're doing whack a mole. It's not a long term solution. Anyone have *any* ideas? Anything would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have one idea. I know we have a template for AOL users that we put on talk pages to explain that they use dynamic IPs and such and that warnings might not be seen by the right user, etc. Could we put a notice up for the IPs that G uses? It could prevent what happened with 212.120.225.219 today where he was warned multiple times before blocking, so Gibraltarian had free reign for half an hour. The notice wouldn't say that we block immediately, but G doesn't exactly hide himself. We'll know when it's him. Thoughts? 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255 is the only IP he's ever used as far as I know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic

Following this rv, please proceed as per [Admin_enforcement_requested#Netoholic]. -- User:Docu

A1sdf Sockpuppet (talk • contribs)

...was blocked, and it was implied that it was my sockpuppet!? Trust me, If I make a sockpuppet, you'll know about it(like now for instance)--I (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) really should check in on this place more often 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bumpusmills1 - harassment

The user Bumpusmills1 has been threatened with severe consequences, as seen on [203]. The user is apparently using Tor, making him untracable, but even so, the diff before my reversion should not be deleted until I have received a response from the abuse email. Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tor outproxies are considered open proxies and should be blocked on sight. The full list is at http://moria.seul.org:9031/; didn't someone have a bot to block them all? --cesarb 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff [204]. Sceptre has also blocked the IP indef, FWIW. --Doc ^ask? 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this be reported to an appropriate law enforment organization? I would think that would be the proepr response to such harrasing and threatening posts -- the info would then be on record in case any person follows through on these threats -- particualrly as I gather that this user has been the victim of off-line harrasment in the past. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What are the appropriate authorities? And who does the reporting? --Doc ^ask? 21:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviouly User:Bumpusmills1 could report this himself, but so IMO could any intersted user, particuarly an admin. FBI might be relevant (assuming that Bumpusmills lives in the US) or the police of the jurisdiction where he lives. Someone reporting this would need his ID info (name address, etc), which i gather has been made public on wikipedia in the past. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note similar has been reported previously --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Merkey

I reverted a massive deletion of text from Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (my only edit to that page ever) and moments later this unsigned warning appeared on my talk page, written by 67.137.28.189 (talk · contribs).

• Cyberstalking the Merkey Page -- Only Warning
• Alter, edit, or vandalize the Merkey page, and you will be added to www.merkeylaw.com as a cyberstalker.

Does this qualify as a legal threat? -Will Beback 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No threat of legal action, only being added to a list. In the words of Billy Bragg, "If you've got a black list, I want to be on it." What it does amount to is harassment and vandalism. The policy violated is WP:OWN. Geogre 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it does. Please see: WP:LIVING

Any Wikipedia editor who makes a legal threat on the website is likely to be blocked from editing, and that includes the subjects of biographies who object to their article's contents. See Wikipedia:No legal threats.

If you are the subject of a biography and you have a legal concern, the designated agent for Wikipedia is:

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

146 2nd St N, # 310

St. Petersburg FL 33701

Facsimile number: +1(727)258-0207

Email: board "at" wikimedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

E-mails may also be sent to: info-en "at" wikipedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

Contact data

I would suggest to place acopy of this notice on annon's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 1 week for threats, he also has "served notice" that we have to remove certain information from the article on him (sic). Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Having in the past been at the receiving end of a stalker and received various threats when reverting vandalism, I think the comment above is not merely a threat but a serious one. And yes, a threat to smear and defame another user if the person making the threat does not get their way qualifies as a legal threat. Similar threats have led to immediate indefinite blocks. Before JT imposed the week threat I had imposed an indefinite one, with a template to that effect on their user page. Their behaviour in making that threat to smear another user on an off-WP site, and engage in defamation was appalling and needs a tough response. We cannot allow such behaviour to happen. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A review of the page where the user writes smears against other users gives a clear indication of just who were are dealing with. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't think it's a threat of legal action per se, but I never disagreed that it was block-able. It was a violation of policies in two areas. I just think that "I'll add you to my black list" isn't the same thing as "I will sue you or call the cops." It's blockable, but not, I personally feel, under that rationale. Geogre 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For any who haven't seen it, the blacklist is more than a simple listing; it includes personal information about editors, with vague threats about future actions. Since the subject recently filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia and 200 unnamed Internet posters, the vague threats may be include legal action. The disclosure of personal info should, and maybe does, have the same status as WP:NLT. -Will Beback 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner

Snowspinner has added the following to his User page:

If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject considered notable enough to include on Wikiedia, I will, on your say-so, close any deletion debate as "keep" within your field of expertise, and will undelete any articles within your field that you say are notable.

If he carries this out in any manner which is outside of the bounds of an admin's proper functions, I will speedily undo it and block him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do I understand correctly that if I violate the deletion policy, you'll violate the blocking policy in return? Phil Sandifer 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a weird thing to say. Any true expert will be able to come up with enough solid arguments, citations and sources to prevent deletion of notable material within his subject field. Doing things "because I say so" is unwiki. Radiant_>|< 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But Snowspinner considers himself an expert on webcomics, and won't accept other people's telling him that they will not follow his dictats when it comes to webcomics, therefore the above. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're making things up here, Zoe. I've never said that I will undelete things on the basis of my own expertise. That would be bad. Phil Sandifer 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I predict an AC case - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) That text is now in {{Expert recovery}}; David Gerard has it on his user page too. At first blush, I'm inclined to say this is a terrible idea. Putting aside the wheel wars this seems destined to cause, if the field expert can't make a good enough argument in an AfD, then the material probably doesn't meet WP:V. Which trumps the say-so of someone Snowspinner or David choose to call an Expert. I'll also note that Snowspinner has in the past chosen to call himself a subject expert on Web Comics; does this rule give him full deletion veto rights there? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have listed that template for tfd. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why, being a good boy I use subst: - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, subst all you like, but you might want to take a hint from the community reaction to this. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The community is not and never has been empowered to be on complete crack. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? I don't see a page Wikipedia:Snowspinner gets to decide what opinions the community may hold. ~~ N (t/c) 03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're an expert in something and an article gets deleted, the answer is to create a new one with sources.--Sean|Black 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is silly, per Radiant or Sean Black. Things are demonstrated to be notable by being referenced in sources, which are readable by anyone. Experts are great at pointing to those sources, but that's very different from them being given the power to make decisions exclusively on their own authority. -- SCZenz 23:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Read the evidence in the webcomics disaster. You do realise that one has led to two and counting forks for no reason other than not wanting to have to deal with fuckwits on Wikipedia, right? - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Regarding "fuckwits on Wikipedia," please see WP:CIV. Regarding "expertise," please see WP:V and WP:NOR. This whole concept is particularly disturbing in that it comes from the same wikipedia user who posts links to how wikipedia's deletion process makes him "really feel" "like killing."[205] It's bad enough that wikipedia has a user that makes death threats against users he disagrees with; it's even more ridiculous for that user to expect to base deletion discussions on his idea of verifying the expertise of other editors. In general I would suspect that users on the receiving end of death threats are probably less likely to reveal personally identifying information such as their CVs to users who make death threats. It's sort of a Catch-22 of "I disagree with you and that makes me feel like killing, but maybe I'd respect your opinions more if you just told me your full name and what school you teach at." -- Dragonfiend 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first read this I got the impression that it would require someone with some kind of postgrad degree in the area, such as a Master's or PhD. Maybe Snowspinner could clarify what kind of criteria he would use to judge whether someone is an "expert" in their field? BTW, I think it would have been courteous to notify Snowspinner of this discussion, Zoe. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I have now done so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that I agree with Snowspinner's methods, his point is correct: we don't listen enough to the experts, especially in deletion debates. There are just too many people who vote to delete articles because they have never heard of the subject. Rhobite 23:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think there is a debate to be had here. We are dreadful at respecting expertise (see anti-elitism). I've given expert testimony on AfD - with reasons cited, and had it ignored by many 'voters' and the closing admin. It is very frustrating. (In that case I was calling for deletion not retention.) However, what qualifies as an expert? Experts can have very strong POV biases. There might, however, be some benefit in contructing a list of wikipedians who can verify their subject expertise, and instruct WP:DRV to take them very seriously. But we can't give someone a blank cheque, just because they have pubished a book in a closely related area. --Doc ^ask? 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but at the same time, we can't have a Snowspinner who keeps saying that he should have the final say as to whether webcomics should be kept, even though he is repeatedly asked for sources to back his statements and can't come up with any. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your personal antipathy appears to be showing. If this is not the case, I'm sure you can discredit his claimed credentials below - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your personal sympathy appears to be showing. Pot, meet kettle. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I will not undelete webcomics on my own expert advice. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what editors would think about the following analogous language:

If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject considered notable enough to include on Wikiedia, I will, on your say-so, close any deletion debate as "delete" within your field of expertise, and will delete any articles within your field that you say are not notable.

Paul August ☎ 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just as bad, if not worse.--Sean|Black 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Just as bad and just as good. Paul August ☎ 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that we will ever see a verified expert call an article a piece of shit and then have it kept anyway. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is SOOO not true!! Getting an article that is original research deleted here is INSANELY HARD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Neanderthal_theory_of_the_autism_spectrum comes to mind (it was later deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum but I still have the scars from the war...) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember that AFD is supposed to be for topics, not the article text. The AC dropped the ball big time in the webcomics case (which I was recused from). - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, an AfD with delete consensus is no bar to a different article on the same topic. AfD is for deterining the deletion of an article as it stands. It should and does consider the potential as well as the current status, but it doesn't and really can't consider any possible articel on a topic, because it can't consider evidence not available in articles not yet written. DES ^(talk) 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad thing. Overruling consensus on Afd would surely cause friction, but more importantly, he appears to be completely disregarding verifiability. To be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, we need more insistance on verifibility, not less. His antics related to webcomics are bad enough; encouraging more of this sort of thing is beyond ridiculous. Friday (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I may be an expert on everything concerning Mega Man, but I don't flaut a higher authority because of it. Such arrogance is unacceptable. -Zero^Talk 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Do I think that one good, intelligent argument should overrule fifty people who don't have any idea what they're talking about? Yes. But I don't think that simply claiming you are an expert and it should stay/go on your say-so is sufficient. We can't work that way unless we really want to verify everyone's credentials. I think that any genuine expert should have the knowledge and the tools to make that convincing argument, though.

And furthermore: anyone who dismisses a good argument from an anon or new user simply because it comes from a newbie to WP should be LARTed within an inch of his life. But merely taking someone's say-so is not workable: you can't challenge or verify someone's say-so. I'd assume any expert who would argue for the deletion or retention of an article would have some sort of reason to cite for doing so, and it's probably a reason good enough to stake their professional reputation on if they're going to claim expertise. So I don't think it's unreasonable to require it be shared. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Paul August ☎ 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - it is worth noting that expert verification is quite a hurdle to clear. But it is a clearable one. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By instituting a system where so-called "expert" opinions override the consensus of interested parties, there is a risk of the formation of (as much as I hate the use of the term), a Cabal of Experts, who would detirmine the direction of information that is to be included in the Wikipedia. This seems on the surface to be antithetical to the purpose of the concensus building aspects of WP. Do we defer to these experts prima facie? On their word that they are who they say they are? That their credentials are what they claim them to be? Your word is as good as my word (unless you are a vandal or obvious nut-job POV pusher, that disregards any notion of concensus or NPOV). As DocGlasgow points out above, "Experts can have very strong POV biases." I don't see where AfD is so broken that it needs to be cancelled. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hamster Sandwich 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my pedantry, but it's "consensus". For such a key term on Wikipedia, it's surprising how many people get this wrong. As to your points, they are all the main reasons why a policy such as this, although perhaps ideal in theory, is impractical in practice. And I'm feeling like Sir Humphrey. [[Sam Korn]] 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He spelled it right the first time he used it... android79 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• A policy of paying more attention to experts might have sem merit. But experts can and often do have hobbyhorses, cortoversial veiws, and biases within their fields. Simply giving an expert veto over deletion decisions is simply unacceptable. If an expert cannot cite verifable sources for a position, s/he is perhaps not so much of an expert. And what woudl Snowspinner do if two experts disagreed? DES ^(talk) 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If it becomes policy to defer to any self-proclaimed "expert" that shows up with an agenda, I quit. android79 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Read what Phil said - he didn't say "self-proclaimed expert", he said "verifiable expert". So yeah, if someone is able to prove that they have academic publications in Field X, and they are trying to say that, in Field X, subject Y is notable, why wouldn't you defer on an AFD? What's more important for the encyclopaedia - accuracy or democracy? Guettarda 00:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have known several of the generally acknowledged 'experts' in the field of study relating to J.R.R. Tolkien's stories of Middle-earth for many years now (there are even some people who seem to think I'm an 'expert')... and I can tell you that they often completely disagree about what is/is not 'true', 'obvious', or 'likely'. So no, just because someone is verifiably an 'expert' in a field doesn't mean that they should automatically be considered 'accurate'. Verifiability not truth. If references can be supplied proving their position then it ought to be accepted. Otherwise it should carry no more weight than any other. Experts ought to be able to easily come up with verification... they're 'experts' after all. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And how, exactly, do you propose that they come up with verification that an article adheres to a non-existant definition of notability? In five days time, or else the article is deleted and the earth is salted, such that they have to deal with the wonders that are DRV. This isn't about article content or about their perspective on what is true - it's about whether or not something is, in fact, a major issue in a field. A verifiable expert in any field can be trusted, at an absolute minimum, to know the important contents of that field. Phil Sandifer 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This all seems to miss the fundamental question - if you have on one side a documentable expert who has written an article, and on the several AFD-addicts who are using the google test or "I have never heard of this" to declare something "nn, d", what do you do? In a case like that, I would be tempted to agree with Phil. I might not use that route, but I wouldn't oppose someone for doing so. Guettarda 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If the expert can cite sources, that is one thing. An expert's naked say-so is quite another. Even a verifiable expert. If I had a dime for all the time noted experts have strongly and flatly contradicted one another on suich issues, i could find all of wikipedia out of spare change. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have pur the related Category:Expert undeletion up for WP:CfD. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• One of the main problem with experts (and, indeed, enthusiastic amateurs) is that they write whole series of articles without citing sources. The irony is that articles that cite reliable sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. If the sources indicate that a subject has already been covered in several published books, for example, arguments that it is non-notable are (metaphorically) laughed out of AFD by many editors. Experts who write articles without any cited sources and then gripe when their articles come to AFD really have themselves to blame to a large extent. It's for this reason that I encourage any experts, especially ones new to Wikipedia, to get into the habit of always citing sources right from the start. Experts who repeatedly come up against AFD and who nonetheless persist in not citing sources have not learned. Uncle G 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of sympathy with that. I have a PhD and a publication in my field, but I have almost given up editing in it. I was being reverted by ignorant 12 year olds – and I thought ‘who needs this?’ I testified that an article was OR on a subject that simply didn’t exist – but the article was kept because of ‘looks interesting to me’ votes. Who needs this either? However, if experts are not going to edit their own field, then wikipedia is the looser. Folk say, experts can win their case by citing and arguing – but how many of the voters in a contentious Afd are actually willing to read more than half a paragraph of testimony on a complex subject? I think there is an argument for saying ‘assume an expert knows what he is talking about’ – but, of course, that assumption must be able to be contested (not least by other experts).--Doc ^ask? 00:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• There's a difference between deferring to known experts on a case-by-case basis in AfD discussions, and advertising on one's user page that claim of expertise is the ticket to automatic undeletion of anything. android79 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• The reason the statement in question is ignorant is that if an expert can't come up with verifiable and reputable references, then she or he isn't very much of an expert. I share Zoe's concerns. While we can all agree that AfD may occasionally reach the "wrong" decision, it has the virtue of being both (a) examinable by the public and (b) undoable, either through deletion review or by a new article being written at a later time. Promoting "editing by wheel war" is exactly what we don't need more of. Nandesuka 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've said it before and I'll say it again, any expert worth his or her salt can save any notable article with solid arguments, citations and sources. The assertions that AFD and in particular DRV don't listen to well-founded arguments are simply false. Radiant_>|< 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this as essentially a proposed exception to WP:NOR. Perhaps the discussion of the merits of the idea should be discussed on a relevant policy talk page? Friday (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(clarification) By "this" I mean, "the idea that experts can directly use their expertise and have it treated as a reliable source for content purposes". This would open a pandora's box. There's a reason we use reliable sources, not the opinions or expertise of editors. We're not in a position to determine who's an expert. To think otherwise is to rethink the idea of WP:NOR. Friday (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The amount of straw flying around in this discussion is amazing - David Gerard 01:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not generally consider anyone to be an expert on themselves. Phil Sandifer 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For Phil's idea to work, the expert must be capable, honest and without an agenda to push. All too often, they are not. What happened to WP:V and the idea that editors establish themselves through their body of edits? Phil's idea is rather half-baked. He has a point, though, and I'd suggest that the closing admin should be an expert in the subject if the matter is contentious and should also enforce WP:V. Pilatus 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Two comments from the eye of the storm

1. User:Snowspinner/Experts contains the people I am willing to consider an expert on topics on the face of it.
2. Verifiability and cite sources are policies about article content. They work as policies because Wikipedia is not on a deadline, and because we take an eventualist attitude. We can live with an article that's missing something important for a bit, because we're a work in progress. The content will be added and added correctly eventually. Deletion is not like that - there is a five day window to gather a minimum of 33% opposition to something, or else it is deleted, and a complete pain in the ass to undelete. Simply put, if a verifiable subject expert can show me that a mistake was made, there is no reason to drive through a tedious process just so we can say that third base was touched - particularly when so many people are willing to consider a 2/3 consensus on AfD to be a binding commitment to salt the earth so that an article can never be recreated. Why? Because subject experts who want to contribute in their field SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGED to submit to an exhaustive process of citing sources to the satisfaction of a bunch of just to be allowed to have an article to edit.

Or, to put number two more clearly, make the deletion system stop being utterly stupid and I'll stop ignoring it. Phil Sandifer 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly I haven't been following AFD and DRV closely the past few months, so could you please point to some deletion-related discussions where, as you claim, "so many people are willing to consider a 2/3 consensus on AfD to be a binding commitment to salt the earth so that an article can never be recreated"? Thanks. As an example of the opposite, look here, where someone points out a valid source and the article is reinstated and improved almost instantly. Have some faith in the community. Radiant_>|< 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil, what if the credible expert testifies that the article should be deleted, despite a consensus to keep. Will you speedy it? --Doc ^ask? 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely, as I will be dead of a heart attack. Phil Sandifer 01:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem to me is lack of thought given towards "established editors" of certain subjects, not so much experts in and of themselves. However, the whole idea is really anti-wiki in a way where everyone is supposed to be able to edit, and in reality you only have one or two people really monitoring an article so the 3RR becomes a problem along with the editors being able to participate in AfDs etc.. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardly - this isn't a content issue at all. Phil Sandifer 01:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying a flat 'I will speedy keep on the say-so of the following individuals' seems to be a bit iffy. It's not fair to presume that no other subject matter experts have (or will) participate in the deletion discussion, and I suspect that some of them might find it rather insulting to be told that their expertise is less valuable because they didn't make Phil's list. Further, experts have individual slants and biases–pet theories, pet peeves–and I would hesitate to give free reign to the individual biases of a single individual, expert or otherwise.

If you want to lend extra weight to a personally-selected pool of experts, tell them that you trust their judgement on certain topics, and ask them to notify you of deletion debates in which you might be interested. (If necessary, help them to create a shortcut link to the 'create new section' on your talk page.) Two keep votes–combined with the expert's reasoned testimony and Phil's endorsement of the expert's credentials–are sufficient to push many an AfD into 'no consensus' territory. The presentation of clear reasoning may also persuade others to vote in kind, or at least to consider the point in question.

Make reasoned arguments; use WP:DRV where appropriate; help editors to write articles that are well-sourced and that don't suck. Don't arbitrarily cut short discussions on topics near and dear to your own heart. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A question for Snowspinner: Would you consider User:Beckjord an expert on Bigfoot? He's written books on the subject. No matter that he thinks Bigfoot is a shape-shifter from another dimension. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not. Phil Sandifer 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This will shock some people, but I agree that the deletion system is broken. But the fact that the deletion system is broken is a symptom of the greater fact that the article cleanup system is broken. Far too many new borderline articles are created that... well, maybe they shouldn't be deleted, but they darn well shouldn't be sitting around on Wikipedia for another six months with a cleanup tag until someone HOPEFULLY gets around to fixing it... or until someone just takes the cleanup tag off and the article disappears into the morass of the nearly 1 million articles we have on Wikipedia. If we had a cleanup system that worked, or was properly staffed... heck, if people took 5 percent of the time to do article cleanup as they spent voting keep or delete, a lot of this would go away. I'm as guilty as anyone, and have been making an effort to at least dig into the Cleanup. There's like 14,000 articles piled up with a Cleanup tag! Until Cleanup is fixed, Deletion will continue to be broken.

I understand David and Phil's frustration, I really do, but the problem with such blanket statements of undeletion is on a practical level: It's an invitation to wheel warring on an unprecedented scale. I, too, believe that expert opinions should be given weight, but that weight should be given in a coherent statement. As in, if an expert editor presents a strong argument for keeping an article and the only reasons for deletion from a squillion "votes" are "This sucks," then, because AFD is not a vote, the expert opinion should clearly be upheld by the admin who closes the "Argument for Deletion." However, closing the debate early on a simple "I say so" basis is just not productive. Even clearly crap articles are not generally speedily deleted once put on AfD unless a clear consensus develops to speedily delete. On a larger scale, we need, all of us as a community, to develop a new system for deletion because AFD is clearly not scaling to a Top 20 Web site. FCYTravis 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a question here: Did Snowspinner copy my idea? User:Zordrac/experts. If so, well done! Although I don't recall wording it quite like this. 203.122.230.206 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of sensible comments here. I want to lift out a part of Snowspinner's posting above: Why? Because subject experts who want to contribute in their field SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGED to submit to an exhaustive process of citing sources to the satisfaction of a bunch of just to be allowed to have an article to edit. Now, I couldn't disagree stronger with this. An expert, of all editors in a given field, should cite his sources from the beginning, because (1) he knows what the best sources are for that subject —important knowledge that many of our enthusiastic amateurs sorely miss—, and (2) having academic expertise, he knows how to cite sources. As for eventualism, we are only going to reach our goal if we learn our editors to do it right from the beginning. It makes no sense at all to 'relieve' the experts of this task, especially not because they are (or should be) used to citing sources. And, just like it was noted above already, citing sources is usually a pretty secure way of keeping an article, thus removing the need to subvert the consensus-making at AfD. — mark ✎ 09:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

An outside view

There seem to be two valid points in conflict here. One is that administrators should not simply go about ignoring rules or process willy-nilly. The other is that our deletion process has serious problems, and that good articles shouldn't be deleted out of ignorance. Add to that a third point - When in doubt, don't delete - which has long been a Wikipedia principle - and I think that the answer is clear. Frankly, I think the community should abolish WP:DRV entirely, as it violates "When in doubt, don't delete", and replace it with an explicit rule that an administrator may reinstate deleted articles at his or her discretion. If someone can't find a single admin to undo a deletion, then it's a safe bet to say that the deletion was proper. Anyone can create an article on any topic, so I don't see why undeleting one should be so much harder. If we don't trust an administrator to do that, then maybe we shouldn't trust him/her with admin powers at all. Does anyone think that WP:DRV is really beneficial to the encyclopedia? I haven't found anyone with a good word to say about it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

<3Phil Sandifer 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes the give more powers to admins solution. It fails because a) It makes adminship a big deal b)it means that admins are being encouraged to make subjective judgements and c)breaks the fairly fundimental priciple that anything an admin can do off his/her own back can be undone by another admins (although some people don't think this applies to speedies they are wrong).Geni 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But here's the corollary to your statement, crotalus horridus: As the number of admins continues to grow rapidly, the probability that someone who hunts long enough can find one admin willing to undelete whatever it is they want undeleted approaches one. Every deletion decision ever made will rapidly devolve into wheel warring, blocks and ArbCom cases for all. Furthermore, if any admin can undelete anything, can any admin delete anything? If not, why not? You trust admins to undelete, why not trust them to delete? FCYTravis 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not proposing that administrators should have greater powers to delete articles. I'm arguing they should have greater powers to undelete them. Someone who wanted an article re-deleted would then have to take it back through the deletion process. Therefore, unless someone acted out of process, there would be no wheel warring as a result. This is more in keeping with the spirit of when in doubt, don't delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is in keeping with the spirit of "when an article you liked was deleted, bureaucratise the process so much that, once someone's favourite article is deleted, it can be quickly restored and then never deleted again without consuming lots of repetitive time". More serisouly, it has almost nothing to do with if in doubt, yadda yadda. It is the reverse "when in doubt, undelete", or in its likely usage, "when in disagreement, undelete". -Splash^talk 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying, then, is that if someone didn't like the fact that an article he created was deleted, he could get a sympathetic admin to endlessly recreate the article based on "when in disagreement, undelete" and that each and every single time it was undeleted, that article would have to go through another AfD process? I would suggest that your proposal borders on the patently absurd. One could *never* delete such articles, then, as they would simply go through an infinite number of AfD votes. FCYTravis 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd encourage those disparaging WP:DRV to take an active and constructive role in discussions there, where sensible and measured outcomes usually result. If there are specic articles that it is believed DRV has, um, "dropped the ball" on, than those examples would be helpful to this discussion. I also note that many of the regular participants at DRV are not in fact admins. With perhaps the exception of the recent rash of OOP userbox deletions, DRV gives more power to non-admins by providing an open forum for discussion... exactly the opposite of the intent of these templates and cats: making sure "slack jaws" can't screw things up. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but this "any admin should be able to undelete anything at any time" is one of the stupidest proposals I've heard in a long time. -R. fiend 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For an alturnative attempt at a solution that doesn't involve giving admins more powers see User:Geni/test.Geni 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel wars

I've seen quite enough of wheel warring lately, and the template mentioned above only seems to encourage it. Wikipedia works on consensus, not unilateralism, and while being bold or ignoring rules may be acceptable at times, warring over it should never be. Since the 3RR is enforced against revert warring, isn't it about time we enforce some rule against wheel warring? Please visit WP:WHEEL and join the discussion. Radiant_>|< 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) comments about this subject here will be copied to WP:WHEEL's talk page.

I don't think wheel warring will ever stop until the community can finally agree on a workable de-adminship process. Many people seem to think this would be a terrible idea, that it would encourage trolls and so forth, but I see no reason why we can't come up with a sensible process for this. We trust the community to bestow adminship; why not to withdraw it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you trust the community to bestow it. Phil Sandifer 03:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't trust the community on either end, then what process would you propose, Phil? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The current one - it involves less annoying discussion about changing things. Phil Sandifer 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't trust the community Phil/Snowspinner? I am in full agreement with the rattlesnake. Too many admins who have it in their head that they are above any realm of restraint. Hamster Sandwich 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

One trivial implementation of this would be for adminship to be for a limited period of time -- off the top of my head, say a year. This would allow the community to deal with those who go power-mad by the appearance of a few new buttons by simply not re-appointing them, rather than creating a whole new process (which would by its nature be "trial-like") to deal with it. Not that I expect this to happen, since it is the nature of bureacracies to perpetuate themselves. But it's a thought. Nandesuka 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see with 'term limits' on adminship is that it would increase the number of RFA votes going on... adding re-appointments to the new requests. However, this would completely change the nature of adminship... to remain admins people would have to be supported by the current community rather than just 'being good' for three months (about the bare minimum currently) to get the appointment and thereafter having much wider lattitude to bend/break the rules than regular users. Setting the 'term clock' for all existing admins to start when the policy was implemented would give plenty of time for notification and adjusting to the new situation... but such a change would require overwhelming community support. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This idea would have my support. android79 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember, 90% of admins, at least, are pretty uncontentious (at least, their use of admin abilities is uncontentious - everyone gets some crank angry with them!). Is it worth essentially swamping the existing RFA system (which gets relatively little community participation, even from admins, as it is) in order to catch a small number of people? But this is the endless discussion for talk on WP:RFA Shimgray | talk | 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then we split it by date, as was done on AfD. :-p Seriously, at some point in the future, we can expect this problem to arise. Wikipedia is growing. Not too long ago a week's worth of VfDs could fit in one day's worth of AfDs today. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one strongly support this. Adminship should have never been and should never be a big deal. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac = blissy2u = Internodeuser

[206] - David Gerard 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow - honestly that is really sad on several levels. Eventually you do learn to deal with those things but often it can be a hard process and I tend to think wikipedia or most places online, for that matter, are probably not the best place to do so. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Shocking. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the bliss...@yahoo.com.au and adri...@octa4.net.au accounts belonged to blissy2u? You cant exactly ipcheck an email address. I'm pretty sure your right, but I want this to be ironclad.  ALKIVAR™ 01:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can come up with another explanation for there being two users on the same IP, one of whom is posting to a board using the old email addy of the other, fire away. Grace Note 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised...just wanted further clarification. I trust David Gerard on this.--MONGO 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, not to impugn Dave's cred in any way, but I trust the evidence of my own eyes. You don't get too many bliss2yus to the pound. Grace Note 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not many who also happen to use the name Zordrac and who are also called Adrian. --bainer (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This kerfuffle blew up over the past couple of days while I took a brief time out from Wikipedia to chat with people on Wikipedia Review (my user account, in which I self-identified as Tony Sidaway, was hermione). What was most interesting about this case was bliss2yu's insistence to the last that, while he was indeed internodeuser, he was not Zordrac [207]. I think some one that board were somewhat skeptical from the first and he was treated with some wariness by a number of posters. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that enough proof that the Port Arthur Massacre article is ridiculous? Or not enough for you? I've been saying that story for years. But now, all that you can do is push hatred and abuse me over it. No, Wikipedia is not the place to talk about such things. It's not the place to get death threats by people who have nothing better to do with their time than to abuse innocent victims. It's not the place to lie about what really happened, or to push everything as a conspiracy theory. And I regret writing that thing. And I didn't come on here for 6 months you know, that's a long time. And the irony is that you were "catching" all of these people who were not me, accusing me of coming back in June and July when it wasn't me, yet you couldn't figure out that it was me in November. Why? Because I was nice? I was always nice. And "Internodeuser" isn't a name I use very often. But Zordrac is. If I was trying to hide, I would have used a name that I don't usually use. And why not just confess to it? Its simple. Because I was doing a lot of good here. I was not here to troll or vandalise or anything like that. I never was. Not as "Internodeuser" and not as "Zordrac". I was here to help people out. I never attacked anyone, and I hated when I was forced to respond to attacks. Its just not nice. But what choice do you have? If you fail to respond, then they just abuse you, and then later on go around saying that it was all your fault.

I didn't come here again to troll. I came here to edit Peter Falconio. It was just a joke to start with, but I started to enjoy it.

And I am glad that I came for a while, because it showed me all of the nice people here. Okay, so I saw a lot of bad ones when I first used it, as "Internodeuser", and I saw a few bad ones here again this second time as well. But I saw real people. And a lot of good people. And I think that the "real me" finally shone through.

That was what I wanted all along. All that I ever wanted was for people to be honest about me. Not to lie, not to smear my name, but to be honest.

If you want to, you can keep looking through google about me, I don't mind. You'll see that I have basically done nothing but talk about the Port Arthur Massacre and Robert Edwards since 1995. At least 50% of the time, I get around to that. Its because of what a difference it made to my life. Its what I talk about with my friends.

Perhaps you can say oh no I'm some nutcase, but I'm not. I am a normal human being who had something forced upon them and I had no choice, no control over it at all. I didn't choose to have some nutcase come after me, dressing himself up as Rambo and telling me about his whole plan. That wasn't my idea. And I didn't want to hear his whole story.

I just felt obligated to tell people, to warn them. But it didn't work. So for those of you who are saying that I am responsible for the Port Arthur Massacre, you are right. I could have stopped it. But I was a coward. I didn't push hard enough to stop it. Oh sure, I pushed a bit. Sure, I wrote up web pages and sent out fliers to people not to go there, but I didn't do enough. I should have gone on TV over it.

And I should have simply paid the money to go in there that day. I basically knew that was where it was going to start. Okay, so I didn't know 100%, but it was pretty likely.

But you know, I was worried that he might shoot me. I was worried that he might kill me if I went in. And you know what my biggest worry was? I was worried that I'd go in there and catch him and then be arrested over it. I was scared that people would think that I was just attacking a poor innocent person.

All of these years, it has hurt me. I have nightmares over it. Sometimes my very life is a nightmare because of it. I tell people about it and they hate me for it. They ridicule me. They abuse me. They send me death threats. Because they think that I am forcing them to live through it all.

And the guy is dead now. How amusing. He died in a murder/suicide in 2003. So any fears about him suing for libel are ridiculous. He was never going to anyway. If he did, then of course he'd be in huge trouble over it. Its not libel when its true.

And you can all say oh no I am this horrible person. So you can look through everything that's happened. You can look through what LJ Drama did to me over it. Go and look up on their site under "blissyu2" and see how much they abused me over the Port Arthur Massacre thing, how they threatened to kill me over it.

Go and see how badly behaved people can really be.

I don't want people to feel sorry for me. I didn't come here for that. I came here to write an article about an important, encyclopaedic topic, that is extremely noteworthy.

And hopefully one day someone will write that article in here, and it will stay. 203.122.230.206 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Help! Need advice. Please

I have already been through more than one month of a failed mediation over Significance of Venona and Harry Magdoff and espionage and several realted pages pages with Nobs01, which then turned into a weeks-long arbitration in which Nobs01 was banned for a year. I am currently in a content battle with an editor deleting my edits and pledging to defend all of Nobs01 text entries. I have twice filed RFC's on these pages. The current one has produced no comments. In the meantime, all the text I would like comments on gets deleted. What do you seriously suggest? I have been trying to edit these pages for three months. I keep trying different wording and rewriting text. All I get in return is deletions. If I request mediation, I will be told to try "dispute resolution." I have been in dispute resolution on these pages for months. Give me a concrete suggestion that deals with these facts, please. I am desperate.--Cberlet 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So basically we have a user who has shown up following the ban of another user who is vowing to carry on that user's edit war? Phil Sandifer 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it is more complicated than that, but not by much. God knows I am partly to blame for getting so frustrated. But I do try to discuss the matter and actually try to re-edit the material in various ways. But essentially this is a defense by an editor of Nobs01's one-side rendition of history in which my text cited to reputable published scholars is simply deleted because it is dubbed off-topic, or a minority viewpoint, or commie propaganda. I do not dispute that I am citing a a minority viewpoint, but I am arguing that some skeptical material from reputable published sources deserves inclusion. Here are some typical comments from Significance of Venona and Harry Magdoff and espionage (and I forgot to mention List of Americans in the Venona papers):

• I have all the time in the world to ensure you dont destroy all the hard work that Nobs has put into VENONA related articles. But I suppose it must really irk you that "Chip Berlet", respected author, writer and self described "right wing watchdog" is being outwitted and out argued by a 28 year old engineer, who takes break during modeling, to contribute to an encyclopedia. Busy indeed.

• you have attempted to cram Navasky's weak ass defense in every article related to this subject

• And just for the record, don’t you even for a moment doubt Navasky’s motivation sin this debate? I mean, how many individuals fingered over the past decade has “The Nation Magazine” had on its payroll at some time? At least a dozen or so. I swear, its like the left is suffering from some form of collective cognitive dissonance over the issue of Soviet cold war penetration in the US.

So this is basically a POV warrior defending Nobs01's edits. Nobs01 was banned for amazing personal attacks, not the edit war, but my experience during the mediation led me to believe that Nobs01 was not able to get beyond his own highly POV view of reality to allow any critical disagreement or complication of the issues. That's where we are again. Same outcome on the text pages. I dread the thought of going back into mediation over the same pages, but...what else is there?--Cberlet 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean absolutely no insult, but I would be inclined to believe, having also edited these articles that your accusations of others having a POV or that THEY are the only ones who are POV warriors, is a big stretch. I think there is a strong polarization there of politics and there was also evidence of suspicious information removal on associated articles that I commented on in the talk pages here:[208]. I'd be willing to make the articles conform completely with NPOV, but not if the current revert wars in all the related articles won't cease.--MONGO 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not in any way involved in "suspicious information removal." In a number of instances I have actually edited out of these articles text that I support in an effort to find a compromise. I have tried different wordings. I have added text that supports the other side of the dispute in an attempt to find NPOV. The editor who defends Nobs01's text simply reverts what I write. I do not for a moment claim that I do not have a POV on this dispute, but I really think it is unfair for anyone to imply that I am involved in "suspicious information removal," or that I only am reverting. Both of these claims are false. On all of these pages the overwhelming bulk of text reflects one specific POV. Attempts to edit the relatively small skeptical and critical sections get reverted.

Please recall that I spent over one month in a mediation process over these same pages which went in circles and revealed, at least to me, that Nobs01 was probably incapable of constructive collective editing. Despite this, I continued to engage in the mediation, until Nobs01 began an aggressive campaign of personal attacks that resulted in me filing an arbitration that resulted in his being banned for one year. (And there is evidence that Nobs01 briefly reappeared under a different name to edit some of these pages until being booted off).

Nobs01 introduced biased and sometimes factually flawed and exaggerated claims on scores of pages. His posting of claims that hundreds of Americans had been identified as "Soviet spies" by the "U.S. Government" was a fantastic hyberbolic exaggeration. Am I going to be cyberstalked across the project by a POV warrior who has pledged to defend Nob01's text--factual or not--fair or not--if I try to edit it to be accurate and NPOV? Do you want an encyclopedia where the majority view gets to stomp on the minority view; and where exaggerated and false claims get defended based on political POV backed by bullying? Or do you want a real encyclopedia that fairly explores disputes cited to reputable published sources? If I ask for mediation again, are admins going to take this issue seriously? Because after three months, including a month-long mediation, and a month-long arbitration, the text on these pages is still POV and exaggerated and sometimes not accurate--and being defended against edits. --Cberlet 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet, I am not accusing you, (although it may have seemed that way), of removing the information in the articles that can be linked through those one day accounts. It just seemed spurious that Nobs had hardly been banned for a month when all these related articles that he worked on all go through an erasure of virtually every edit he did. I can't say who is biased, who is wrong or who is right with the evidence. I can offer you the opportunity to do a number of things. Firstly, the articles in contention may get a less POV response than you are dealing with if you ask for Peer review. Another option is the Article improvement drive and I'll be glad to vote for anything you nominate there, if that will help. When I stumbled onto the List of Americans in the Venona papers and saw that almost the entire article had been erased [209], so seeing it as vandalism, I reverted that back and returned the page to the earlier state. The other option is to document your findings and once again, draw up an Rfc and if that fails, arbitration. I recognize that you already went through that and obviously feel very exasperated by this new influx of disagreement. But you are editing articles that do have very polarizing viewpoints, and the cases supporting and or denying that these people are spies can be be expected to also have some bias in them either way. Surely you can see this to be true. I did see that you do not just revert and that you do make an effort to adapt or NPOV certain passages that I am sure you have a strong enough disagreement with that your normal human inclination would be to revert, so I applaud that. You may also want to seek out assistance through the Advocates who will possibly be able to help you if you do go through mediation. I would be glad to assist as well, although I am not a mediator, nor interested in becoming one.--MONGO 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated time and time again, until I am blue in the face, that the material you insist on putting in the article, is simply not relevant and in some cases does not accurately reflect the opinion of the source you have cited. On the Magdoff article, you continue to use a reference who has not specifically spoken about the subject at hand. You justify the inclusion of the material on the basis of it “balancing” the article, but that really does not mean anything, if it is not relevant than it is not appropriate to include [210]. In another article you have used the same source, comments from Schrecker from 1998, to argue a different point, when as I have illustrated, the source no longer agrees with her 1998 statements [211]. As far as the allegations of stalking go, remember how many fingers are pointing back at you.

This page originated as a blacklist that falsely implied that the people on the list were Soviet espionage agents. I have only edited a tiny handful of pages with disclaimer material. I have been busy. There are many other pages I have not edited. I will get right on that important task. Thanks for reminding me [212]

Considering that many of the related pages have been recently vandalized by a pack of sockpuppets, I feel that my fears of the content being erased for sinister and underhanded motivations and the need for someone like myself to monitor these articles for such activities is more than justified. Knit Cap; on John Abt and Donald Hiss; Solid State on Jacob Golos, Zerber 252; Zerber 252 on Victor Perlo, Lud Ullman; Rebren20 on Harold Ware and Frank Coe; and PangRoh 894 on Lee Pressman and Maurice Halperin, and lastly, Poor Elijah on Charles Kramer.

One last thing, before I am painted with the guilt by association brush, let us not forget that Nobs was banned for his “conduct”, not his contributions. DTC 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view as an outside observer to several articles he edited regularly, his content was also suspect at times. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the truth.--MONGO 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Nobs was not banned for content, he was banned for conduct. My dispute with Berlet is one of content. DTC 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A dispute in which TDC does not edit, but merely deletes and reverts in defense of the text produced by Nobs01. Please note that I have repeatedly asked TDC to use my user name. Does TDC agree to mediation on these pages?--Cberlet 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times before, the information you are attempting to put in every article has nothing to do with the specific topic. And yes, I agree to mediation. DTC 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User: Spirit of Man

On the talk page for the article Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health, a Scientologist user calling himself User:Spirit of Man (who has been attempting, along with User:Terryeo, to turn many articles into blatant advertisements for Scientology) made a direct personal threat to me conditional upon me reverting my edit to the article, which was to add sources to comments about Xenu. Not only a legal threat was made, but a very distinct threat of personal harassment if I don't edit the article the way he sees fit. He also holds me responsible for the image of the Dianetics book on the page, which I had nothing to do with. This man is frightening and I consider him dangerous, but I do not respond well to personal threats. wikipediatrix 04:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

could you provide a diff?--Alhutch 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be what is being referred to. Rx StrangeLove 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that personal threats against wikipediatrix should be tolerated.--Alhutch 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to User:Spirit of Man's talk page. It is my opinion that Wikipediatrix deserves an apology over this. We must not allow such threats on Wikipedia.--Alhutch 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that some of his talk page discussions seem reasonable, I'm inclined to see how he responds before doing anything else, but I would support strong measures if this sort of thing continues. Dragons flight 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a "knowledge report", anyway? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but I've been looking for one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I quickly found on Google it appears to mean something like officially ratting on the sins of someone else, typically by telling their trangressions to someone higher in the Church. If the one being ratted on is not a Scientologist, I don't know why one should care. Dragons flight 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Because according to many sources such as Operation Clambake and Jesse Prince, the Church of Scientology collects files of knowledge about its enemies and critics for the purpose of malicious legal and personal harassment, and even physical attacks. Such a thing is not to be taken lightly. "Spirit of Man" knows I am not a Scientologist, and yet he ominously says "I encourage you to consider what you do next very carefully". wikipediatrix 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And what does "Your auditing folders if any exist on the planet" mean?

Anyway, SoM's comments seem to be in the spirit of WP:NLT, that is, trying to indimidate one's way towards a certain POV. Even if the post is laughable, I still can't see how it can be read as anything other than an intent to intimidate. --Interiot 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Auditing folders are files kept on people who have undergone the Auditing process, and thus it is a threat to access my personal identity information for unspecified but ominous purposes. That I've never done Scientology auditing is beside the point: the threat fits every definition of stalking and cyber-stalking. wikipediatrix 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Example of past harassment and abuse by Scientology cultists: Operation Freakout --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP range on Earthlink (what a surprise!). So banning the username will I predict have 0 effect. Whack-a-mole time! (I am way involved in any Scientology-related articles and will have to dive back into heavy editing of them myself, evidently.) - David Gerard 08:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix deleted the information that Spirit of Man (talk · contribs) was pressuring her to remove. While I understand why she did it, I nevertheless think it's a bad precedent to give in to threats generally. So I've restored the edits and left a note taking responsibility for them. If Spirit of Man has a problem with that, he can talk to me, and she can wash her hands of this affair.

God, I've got a ton of work now and REALLY don't have time for this, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who protected this article?

Saugeen Stripper appears to be extremely controversial. I got there from Deletion review, and that's not all that happened. It is now under protection (as a redirect), and there is no notice of it in the edit summaries. The last editor credited is Alkivar, who is involved in the dispute. If he has protected without discussion, he is wrong. If the page has been protected by a nameless figure, he is being libelled, which is worse. Septentrionalis 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Alkivar to unprotect it. I'm sure he's made a mistake or isn't clear on the policy. This surely isn't a good way to get a consensus that your ideas for the page are right. James James 05:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Several editors seem to agree with Alkivar (who did protect it). However the AfD was no consensus with slim to no merge request. This is a content/article nature dispute, so protection is not allowed. If consensus was for a redirect/merge, and another admin protected it, then it would be OK. I am therefore unprotecting. As a side note, I do agree with the redirect/merge.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, some agree and some disagree! That's the way of things. You can't pick and choose and say, well I can protect the page because some agree with me. If consensus was for the redirect, he wouldn't need to protect it! James James 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just noting that he was not alone. And I did note that there was no consensus. Either way the article is no longer protected.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antaeus Feldspar

I know that I can't have a voice now, but I would like for this user to stop harassing and stalking people. When someone says to him that they don't want to talk to him, he should stop. He has a habit of following people around (myself included), writing to me, writing to other people I am talking to, leaving personal attacks galore, and general abuse. In my personal opinion, he should be permabanned over it, as it is beyond a joke, and its not just me that he has attacked. Go and have a look through my talk page history, and my user page history, and indeed through his contributions. I am sure that you will see that there is comprehensive evidence of his abuse. I had asked for him to leave me alone, but to date not a single person has even so much as had a word to him about it. It is not merely a matter of him lying about me. He is a significant harasser, and is destroying the community. I ask please for admins to deal with him before he destroys this project even more. Thank you. User:Zordrac 203.122.230.206 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like he's doing great - David Gerard 08:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do, indeed, invite any and all interested parties to very closely examine the edit history of User talk:Zordrac, User talk:203.122.230.206 and other similar pages; you will see that what Zordrac is really asking for is the right to make malicious and knowingly false accusations against other users but to have it deemed "stalking" for those other users to defend themselves against his smear campaigns. I am collecting the evidence against him at User:Antaeus Feldspar/Zordrac, but I'll call attention to a particularly egregious example, namely the false claims he made against me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister: "08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [213]" Of course, one only need to check the diff that Zordrac provided to see that it bears no resemblance whatever to the quite serious accusations he has levelled. Zordrac whines for sympathy, telling everyone "I had asked for him to leave me alone" but what he isn't mentioning is that he refuses to leave me alone, that he is continuing his malicious slander against me even now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Displaying another's image on one's user page

Perhaps this isn't a big deal, but I find it a bit disturbing. In general, I find it in poor taste to criticize other editors on one's user page, although one may do so if one wishes. However, on his user page, User:Anittas is displaying the photograph of User:Node ue, whom he has a history of conflict and perhaps harrassment (see the RfC's at the bottom of the user page). The photograph is not being in an overtly offensive manner: it is simply featured with the caption "Node ue". And obviously, since the photograph was released under the GDFL, Anittas is not breaking copyright rules by posting it. I know that users have wide latitude over their user space; do others find this sort of thing acceptable? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the question is not whether people find it acceptable, but whether I am allowed to have the photo on Wiki. If it isn't allowed, I want an official statement from people who have the authority to make such statements. --Anittas 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

These tend to be one and the same. If people (the community) finds something unacceptable, then you cannot do it. Guettarda 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the procedure where the community decides these things? Are you holding votes or what? --Anittas 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The procedure is to hold discussions such as this one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a personal attack. He's including the picture to upset another user. I find that unacceptable. Since when was it okay to bully other users, just because you find a new and creative way to do it? James James 06:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. --Anittas 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't NEED to, this is not a Democracy, is a Jimbo-cracy. You don't have the same rights here as you have in "the real world". You don't have the same burden of proof. If you don't like it post a message in this guy's userpage. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas RFC 1, Anittas RFC 2: This strongly appears to me to be a continuing pattern of harrassment of Node ue by Anittas. Dragons flight 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is a history of conflict here, I think you need to make a case for why you need to display his pic on your user page. Guettarda 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: I like the photo. I think he is a handsome boy and I like the colours. The light-yellow colours go well with the rest of my page; just see the "Military history" box which is also of yellow colour. Also, I think the photo drags some attention to my userpage, which is what I wanted, because I like attention very much! --Anittas 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's harassment, pure and simple. A form of personal attack. You have an established history of harassing others and are on this page far too much. The pic needs to come down. You're testing the community's patience with your incessant harassment of fellow editors. FeloniousMonk 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion and interpretation and you have the right to hold such opinions. --Anittas 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my experience that people who pose "prove it" in the face of allegations almost always know that they've done something wrong. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas makes sense. You should stop looking at the picture as a picture of a person, but more like a decorative element. The colours of the picture balance the page pretty well and make it look peaceful. Lapinmies 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they do! They make me more calm and focused. --Anittas 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't make the same mistake as Anittas does here and play cute with us. Our patience has limits. Annitas is on this page for harassing others far, far too often. FeloniousMonk 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anittas' name pops up regularly after some harrassing behaviour or other, and this is yet another example of same. The issue is not the copyright status of the image, but Anittas' attitude towards other users. If he refuses to stop harrassing node_ue, or any other user, he should be blocked. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After ignoring my warnings and those of others found here and at his talk page, I've issued a 24 hr block against Anittas for harassing an editor he's in a conflict with, and violating WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL. FeloniousMonk 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That Anittas says, "Prove it," proves it to my satisfaction. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't need wikilawyering or harassment. It's not that hard to edit productively and be civil. - Taxman ^Talk 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. There is no "right" to act like a troll on Wikipedia. Doing something rude for no particular reason, and then not fixing it when it's pointed out, is not something we ought to tolerate. -- SCZenz 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Aidan Work

I've blocked Aidan Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a period of 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia through excessive personal attacks on other contributors. See here. From his user page, I see he has been warned against making attacks against users in the past. Just thought I'd note this here in case anyone disagreed.--cj | talk 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've since recieved an email from Aidan making more horrid attacks against this user. --cj | talk 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Tracking IP addresses of users and contacting their employers

For: Any and all administrators who care to comment

On one of the talk pages, Editor A tracked the IP address of Editor B and sent emails to Editor B's employer to report he was posting from a work p.c. and posted his full name (which he had no disclosed previously...he used a pen name as his signature).

Editor A then posted on the talk page the following:

"On the contrary, the vandalism is being propagated by the "sliver" breeders, mostly "<removed>" aka <removed> and posting from his WORK computer!!! Dave LastName (<removed>) is the manager at <CompanyName>, and his superiors are being informed about his Vandalism! I highly doubt that he is going to consider this very funny after his system is inspected".

Could you please comment on this. Is this a serious violation? What ramifications (re: Editor A's continued participation in Wiki) would you suggest would be appropriate for actions such as these? Thank you. MilesD. 14:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actual details would be useful, but my guess would be that Editor A should be blocked unless there are mitigating circumstance. Guettarda 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How would Editor A know the real name of Editor B? I assume you mean Editor B is an unregistered account, in which case, Editor B would not be operating under a pen name but an IP address. This incident seems rather farfetched. Disclaimer:I am not an admin nor do I pretend to be one. Prodego ^talk 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, editor A should be blocked. While this is not mentioned at WP:NLT, but if users are actively trying to get people fired or put in prison, that is still a serious problem. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is covered by Wikipedia:Harassment (--> Types of harassment --> Posting of personal information --> "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." Aecis^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if this happens (it would be hard to actually find such information) Aecis is correct. Disclaimer:I am not an admin nor do I pretend to be one. Prodego ^talk 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found the comment MilesD. was referring to. For privacy reasons, I won't disclose the name of the victim. I will only say that this comment was made by Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog. I have accordingly left the {{Pinfo4}} template on her talk page. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job Aecis. Prodego ^talk 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WoW and IP linked

The evidence is compelling that the latest WoW suspect Chili on circuit court of appeals (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (who I blocked indefinitely) also contributed as 169.157.198.116 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Is this information of any use to anyone? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And what about the permanently blocked Willy on Rims (talk · contribs)? Has he been added to the list of Willies? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy usually comes in on a proxy; test if you can set up to edit under it, and if so, we'll block it as an open proxy. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When can we get our subpoena to check the logs of these proxies? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Witch

Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as The_Witch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Proposed_remedies. Fred Bauder 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Has she broken the terms of her probation? Couldn't see any on a quick scan. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jason Gastrich and User:WarriorScribe

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) WarriorScribe (talk · contribs)

They are engaging in several edit wars with Jason being pro-christian and Warrior being anti-jason. These users have a long history in NewsGroups and their conflict has spilled over onto Wikipedia. I have intervened for Louisiana Baptist University, but as I am now involved I need neutral admins to manage the other conflicts, perhaps start an RfC, and get this situation under control. Other users and anons (possible sockpuppets) are involved but aren't causing any serious issues. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions needing attention

Piedras grandes (talk · contribs) has been adding "cleanup", "unverifiable", "hoax" and "speedy" tags to a whole slew of articles. While many of the articles need a lot of improvement, a lot of them are par for the course in Wikipedia - short, need references and expansion, but wikified and not really "cleanup" candidates. The "speedy" and "hoax" tags are more worrying - see, for example, the edit to Plant sexuality; when I asked him/her about it, s/he replied "So you're telling me plants run around behaving like people?--Piedras grandes 19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)", which suggests to me that s/he did not even glance at the article. I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Guettarda 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course they do. Feed me, Seymour. On a more serious note, I'd just revert the worst of them and explain why on this person's talk page. They probably just discovered the tags and think they're helping; I doubt this person is going to park himself on these articles and insist that Plant sexuality retain a {{hoax}} tag. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the user was blocked for a week the say they started editing (Dec. 16), came back yesterday and seems to be making up for lost time. Not everything is bad, but they seem to need some oversight. Guettarda 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch after his contribs also, particularly since he's involving himself with Plant sexuality -- titillating! ;) Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Has created {{Good}} and {{Bad}} and is using them to rank articles (albeit, on talk pages). On one hand, good to see someone getting the article ranking thing off the ground, on the other hand, this seems a bit overly WP:BOLD to me. Guettarda 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This editor is also adding multiple (sometimes inappropriate) templates to articles, and frequently non-existant templates. We need to put the brakes on this before the entire WP is plastered with this stuff. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) There seem to be 3 sets of Good and Bad: Template:Bad Article, Template:Bad, and User:Piedras_grandes/Bad; Good also on all three. Not sure how much of that was development. Would like to add, the Good kindof discourages improvement, and the Bad is horribly ugly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Good/Bad templates should probably go to TFD as duplicates of the efforts at WP:GA. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, except the additions are apparently random. Check edit history on Talk:Institut National des Appellations d'Origine. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've TfD'ed {{Good}} and {{Bad}}. I was going to do the same for {{Good Article}} and {{Bad Article}}, but they turned out to be nothing but transclusions of Good and Bad, so I speedied them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)