Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intrigue (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 15 May 2005 (→Evidence of sockputtetry or trolling?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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:DrippingInk

    DrippingInk (talk · contribs), editing from his account and from various IP addresses, has been persistently changing the titles of songs, albums, etc., and the use of numbers ("1st" for "first", # for "number", etc.) across a range of pop-music articles, from Wikipedia style to his own preference. He hasn't even claimed that his changes reflect the labels' versions of the titles; he simply, stubbornly, and with no other explanation that he thinks he's right, and doesn't care about Wikipedia style, insists on changing them. He has even twice made a copy-and-paste move of an article to its redirect and vice versa in order to pursue this agenda. He has also (again, with no explanation) moved short descriptions of singles from album articles in order to create stubs. He refuses to engage in discussion of most of these issues.

    Although I have no interest in the subject matter of the articles concerned, I've now been defending them against this sort of semi-vandalism for long enough that I probably count as involved. Could someone else look at the situation, and deal with his IP-address sock-puppetry and his other behaviour? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    He's also now blanked my user page. Is it unacceptable for me to block a user for vandalism when it was aimed at my page? I assume so, if (as in this case) I've been in conflict with the person in question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blanking someone's userpage isn't acceptable and I won't have a problem with you blocking him for such a blatant vandalism act. Nevertheless, I'll look into the issue myself and block after checking his edits myself. Mgm|(talk) 17:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've blocked him for 6 hours for the blanking. Try to get him to discuss and come to an agreement after it expires (feel free to unblock yourself, if you think I'm too harsh). Please, be as specific as you can when quoting rules and policy. Mgm|(talk) 17:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

    I shall certainly try — but he's stated (on my Talk page) that he doesn't care what Wikipedia style is. Still, I suppose that anyone can change. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I am completely uncertain as to whether Mel is right about what he says is official Wikipedia style. For example, he wants the song "I'm With You" to be called "I'm with You" (lowercase "with"). And I just don't think that looks right, and I suspect the label would recognize the former. Everyking 19:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I kinda agree -- Wikipedia style should take back seat to the actual usage, in the case of titles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With in this case seems to fall into a bit of a gray area. Chicago suggests, "...Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length, except when they are stressed (through in A River Runs Through It), ..." In this case, I believe I would capitalize it, just as I capitalize without in U2's "With or Without You". — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Chicago Manual quote from above, I should point out, says more fully, "3) Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length, except when they are stressed (through in A River Runs Through It), are used adverbially or adjectivially (up in Look Up, down in Turn Down, on in The On Button, or [Latin section omitted]. (Section 8.167, page 367 of the 15th Edition). So something like "Spice Up Your Life" (DrippingInk's version) is preferred to "Spice up Your Life" (Mel's version). It's not vandalism per se as Mel Etitis makes it out to be, though DrippingInk could certainly use some work on his social skills. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You really think you can block me for long? I have a problem with all your blocks. I dont give a **** about all your styles. Drippinglnk 19:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The case of "with" is just one of many, though; he's capitalised "to", "the", etc. in various other titles, as well as insisting on phrases such as "the 1st single reached #2". He also reverted my wikifying of headings which were all-capitalised. (Incidentally, I found a number of sources (including Amazon) that used the "I'm with You" version; Lavigne's own site has no relevant information, astonishingly. No-one has offered the obvious evidence — an album cover with the title in the form insisted upon by DrippingInk.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just blocked him for 24 hours, this time as User:64.231.131.126 (same edits as before), for block evasion and for leaving an abusive message on Mel's talk page. If anyone feels this is too harsh, feel free to unblock. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    He's still at it, from various IP addresses. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    As a songwriter, musician, recording artist, studio and label owner, I think track titles should be case handled using initial caps. But that's just my uninformed opinion, right, Mel? Adraeus 12:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Amerinese/BlueSunRed/160.39.195.88 sockpuppetry again

    In the Instantnood case before the arb com, there's been a fair bit of sockpuppetry on the polls relating to the case in evidence. The same person running User:Amerinese was running User:BlueSunRed and coming from IP 160.39.195.88 (a dorm IP at CUNY) claiming to be yet another different person. I've blocked all of these with a note to email me concerning which is the real account. (If any - I strongly suspect Amerinese was created as a sockpuppet by someone else.) Please don't unblock either of these or the IP - I want to see what they have to say for themselves - David Gerard 22:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    160.39.195.91 (talk · contribs) is in the same subnet and made his/her first edit today on China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where 160.39.195.88 (talk · contribs) had been very active before. --MarkSweep 03:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the /24 - David Gerard 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got any proof that they are sockpuppets and not just several people sharing a computer? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The congruent editing style and point of view is why we bothered looking. Please don't unblock until I hear one of them actually email me making a plausible claim of such - so far I've had none - David Gerard 17:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    160.39.153.35 (talk · contribs) seems to have taken over. --MarkSweep 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    HisOwnMom (talk · contribs) shows an unusual interest in controversial topics in his first couple of edits. --MarkSweep 22:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually User:DINGBAT et al (possibly a separate sockpuppet set) - David Gerard 14:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that actually suggests that the DINGBAT socks and the Amerinese socks may be related. On List of national flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we see User:50Stars (a DINGBAT sock) revert warring for a week in April, then after 50Star gets blocked User:160.39.195.88 (aka Amerinese) takes over for a bit, and after that subnet gets blocked User:HisOwnMom (another DINGBAT sock) takes the baton. --MarkSweep 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DrippingInk (again)

    Because I'm involved in a continuing conflict with DrippingInk (talk · contribs) I can't really do anything directly, but I'd be obliged if someone could take a look at his behaviour and see what they think should be done. For some time he's been pursuing a revert war over a set of pop-music articles, insisting on his personal preferences over Wikipedia style (for titles, headers, language, etc.). I've been the main person involved, although Tony Sidaway, Ultimate Star Wars Freak, a couple of anons have also had their edits reverted by him. He's already been blocked for using a sockpuppet to vandalise my page and to make edits to avoid a block, and has used various IP accounts to make his edits. He's now adding dubious copyright templates to images I've listed on IfD (including placing templates about the original up-loader's position on images for which he wasn't responsible), and has replaced the images on Spice Girls, from which I removed them when I nominated them at IfD. His latest message to me was DrippingInk 22:30], which is pretty well par for the course. I doubt that anything like mediation or RfC would do any good, though I'd be willing to go through it. It's possible that the intervention of other editors to try and calm him down would have some effect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be that there's another side to the story; perhaps his behavior has not been entirely unreasonable. Could you represent that side of the story? Better yet he could do it here himself. Everyking 23:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is another side to the story. However, no explanation excuses a comment such as this [1] (left on Mel Etitis's talk page):
    ...I don't know what the fuck you think you are doing, but like I have said before, you can keep going buddy. But since I called the girls' article home way before you did, there is no way you can barge in and do things your way. That's the message for you. And yes, fuck you.
    There's no way to classify such a statement other than unreasonable. Carbonite | Talk 00:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is much too strong. However, I am always leery of judging someone based on comments like that, because I know that the length of time it takes for someone to lose his or her temper is a poor measurement of the fundamental issue(s). Everyking 00:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It would also help if Rednblu could stop attackimg me in his messages to DrippingInk ([2]), which only encourages him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to recall bumping into this chap before but cannot recall the details. I don't think he's being entirely unreasonable in wanting the pictures in the Spice Girls article--if they're copyvios the usual deletion procedure should be followed and then you can remove the picture links.
    On the subject, the article itself is written in a rather breathless, juvenile style, and could do with a good cleanup. Given their massive global appeal in the late 1990s, the Spice Girls probably deserve a decent write-up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first point, the problem is that the images seem pretty clearly to be copyvios, and are indeed going through the copyvio process — but I understood that in such cases they should be removed until proved to be in the clear (when I marked images as possible copyvios in the past, I noticed that they were removed from the relevant articles by a helpful admin).
    On the second point, I couldn't agree more (some of your attempts to tone down the style are among the reverts that DrippingInk keeps making). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unclear what to do now; this user seems to be completely lacking in self-control. I found that he'd up-loaded a number of images to which he'd attached no copyright templates; he refused point-blank to give them templates, and they seemed obviously to be scans from magazines or taken from Web sites; I listed them in IfD and removed them from the article Spice Girls. He (using his account and various IP addresses) keeps putting them back, also reverting edits made by Tony Sidaway, me, and others, accusing us of vandalism.

    When I found that he'd up-loaded more images, I checked them, and founf that – although he'd added a general Fair USe tag, they seems to be taken from Websites or magazines again. I listed one as a possible copyvio, and asked him if he would put a template on the other. His response was: [3]. On Image:Gwen Stefani.jpg he's placed a "GFDL" template, but with no information as the origin, nor any indication that he's in fact in a position to grant permission to use it. RfC isn't relevant, as his behaviour has been alomost wholly aimed at me; is there any other action that would stand a chance of getting him to stop thrashing around in this way? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KaintheScion and User:ElKabong

    I wonder if some people would like to look at these two new chaps. They showed up 6th/7th May, less than a week ago, but both have the air of long-time Wikipedia editors and both seem to be pretty aggressive and interested in pushing a particular extremist point of view.

    User:KaintheScion's first action on Wikipedia was to upload a picture of a rather angry-looking young lady, surrounded by children, apparently burning some pieces of paper with an extremely puzzling edit summary (Rachel Corrie, at her "Best" and "Most Caring"). He then seems to have gotten himself into a fight with another editor called Yuber resuting in mutual 3RR reports [4].

    Getting into a revert war with Yuber is very easy. Just make any changes to an article which he would consider defamitory to Islam or Islamic countries, and like a Djinn Yuber will show up and start reverting. Klonimus 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ElKabong seems to share similar extremist points of view and frequents much the same articles. He along with User:Klonimus, signed support for User:KaintheScion in his response to a RFC by Yuber. I think this is a display of remarkable nous for someone who was a new user only six days ago!

    • Or maybe he saw the notice that Firebug left on KaintheScion's talkpage, hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005

    It all seems like quite a coincidence that these chaps showed up so recently and found one another and demonstrated such belligerence, both individually and together, not to mention such intimate knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and Wikipedia picture uploading. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ever bothered to do a little reading? Figuring out Wikipedia procedure isn't that hard. I love the standard "well he knows too much to be a new user" bullshit that you are throwing around, given that it's all well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005
    If it's what I think it is, that's a photograph of Rachel Corrie ripping and burning an Israeli flag in half, whilst some Palestinian children look on in puzzlement/amusement. It's often used by the Little Green Footballs crowd to paint her as an anti-semite.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was a mock American flag she burned. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Here's the chap [5] - I am now baffled as to what flag it's supposed to be. There's only one stripe, and it's upside-down, and are those Jewish stars, or just... stars? In any case, I'm not sure where this could be placed on Wikipedia; it's apparently a real photograph of an actual event, but it would only really fit in an article called 'Criticisms of Rachel Corrie', which doesn't exist. As for Klonimus, who is mentioned above, note the text here [6], where he supports an RfC on a presumably left-wing user with the text "Klonimus 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Way too many Islamic sympathisers are disrupting WP these days".-Ashley Pomeroy 21:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a hand-drawn, upside-down American flag. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No point in putting too much effort into your American flag drawing if you plan to burn it. Klonimus 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Well what struck me about that as the first act of a new user was its sophistication. The edit comment suggested either ignorance of NPOV or a determination to run roughshod over it. I'm a little concerned by the belligerence of these two new users and suspicious of their evident twinning. Could they be sock puppets? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them as socks. Someone claiming to be KaintheScion emailed me saying they weren't socks and to remove the block. The interesting thing is, the mail was sent after 00:44, 13 May 2005, when ElKabong tried and failed to edit, and before 01:03, 13 May 2005, when KaintheScion tried and failed to edit. Whoops, email sent claiming to be wrong ID! I'll unblock whichever is the real account if the user will ever admit which that one was - David Gerard 01:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, KaintheScion has just e-mailed me to say that he's not Elkabong, and that now he can't edit his RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Running two accounts is not blockable. Running two accounts and pretending they're different people (as has happened here) means the sockpuppet account can be blocked. So if ElKabong/KaintheScion gets back to me and says which is the real account, I'll unblock it promptly - David Gerard 01:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about that? Special:Log only shows manual blocks, not autoblocks, and as far as I know, Special:ipblocklist only shows one autoblock per IP address: the most recent. If the timeline went
    1. 00:44: ElKabong edits
    2. 00:45: KaintheScion edits
    3. 00:??: KaintheScion sends the email
    4. 01:03: KaintheScion edits to see if he's been unblocked
    you'd see the same thing in the logs. --Carnildo 03:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    KaintheScion continues to e-mail me insisting he's not ElKabong, but I've just taken a look at their contribs, and two things jumped out. First, they don't seem to have edited at the same time: sometimes they used alternate days, and when they did post on the same days, when one stopped editing, the other would start. The second thing that jumped out was this. [7] Someone got a little mixed up, it seems. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Well spotted. From looking at some his edits, it seems to me that this guy has been very, very naughty. See User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox. Although both socks are new, his editing habits suggest someone who is well acquainted with editing on Wikipedia and sometimes is courteous enough to explain why he puts a POV template up, sophisticated enough to list articles on Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, and so on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that Klonimus immediately lept to their support, as he was also (a couple months ago) a 'new' user who immediately jumped to VfD and RfAr and displayed intimate knowledge of Wikicedures. The phenomenon seems far from new. Radiant_* 09:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I had been lurking for a while, before I started editing. As anyone who looks at my list of contributions can see that I have made many positive edits. Klonimus 07:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intimate knowledge? Heaven forbid that users should bother reading anything that's posted publicly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005
    Klonimus is almost certainly not the same person - completely different editing habits - David Gerard 10:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think he was the same person. I just object to the apparent tendency of creating a new account to become anonymously opinionated. Radiant_* 11:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Ah, I love this setup. It's so brilliant. Since you blocked them both, they can't speak in their own defense. If they're innocent, and both keep saying so, then Tony Sidaway and whoever else he's a sock puppet for get away with what they're trying to do - both of them stay blocked forever. If they're both innocent, but one of them lies and says the other is a sockpuppet, then you've got a legitimate user blocked out. No matter what happens, you've been used as pawns by a vandal.
    Meanwhile, Sidaway's back to his usual tactics over at George W Bush, happily inserting misinformation. You admins are just a bunch of tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005
    Strangely enough, we seem to have achieved a working consensus since you were blocked. The incidence of personal attacks has plummeted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    ElKabong/KaintheScion was already busted emailing claiming to be the wrong account. Both emails I got from ElKabong/KaintheScion were from the same IP as well. Oddly enough, I don't believe any claim they aren't linked - David Gerard 14:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny, you've edited that three times, and now: first it was "a matching" IP, now you're claiming it's the exact same. I find myself not believing YOU. And you make accusations about emails claiming to be the wrong account, too. I have to wonder about your own personal involvement in this. You're playing a very cruel joke on someone, here. Like I said earlier, if you are wrong, you have TWO editors permablocked. And the vandals that these editors were holding at bay are now cheering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2005
    As someone on IRC just said: "I think some of these people are dense enough that they can't conceive of someone smarter than they are on the other end reading their mail. If you were as stupid as it was, after all, you'd be fooled!" - David Gerard 15:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn, no, you're just a zealot. The moment anyone screams "waah sockpuppet", you go after the target. I have no doubt that your throwing this block around was protection for Sidaway and nothing more, because there's no substance to your argument, and it's clear that you are using it as an excuse to block two editors that you or power-drunk admin friends of yours disagree with for an infinite time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 May 2005
    Yes, dear. It couldn't possibly be that anyone knows more than you about how to check up on you, how IP numbers work or what sort of editing patterns match or don't match on Wikipedia, or that you already gave yourself away at least twice before this as listed above - David Gerard 17:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You're obviously just trying your level best to avoid doing your duty, on behalf of your friends. "So if ElKabong/KaintheScion gets back to me and says which is the real account, I'll unblock it promptly" - Obviously they've both emailed you, and neither is going to give you that pleasure, so you're enforcing a de facto block on both parties on YOUR assumption of guilt. Given the disputes they've been in the only thing that comes to mind is that you're doing this on behalf of the power-drunk Admins who got tired of having to deal with editors trying to stop them from pushing POV nonsense into Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 May 2005
    I see you're trying to repeat your track record from elsewhere [8] [9] [10]. The value of your contributions is indisputable - David Gerard 10:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got an idea. Why don't the two of you just demonstrate that the suspicions of sock puppetry are misplaced? Clearly you can make Wikipedia edits when your both blocked, so blocking you is pointless. We're human, we make mistakes. And why not, in the meantime, stop making these poisonous, eerily KaintheScion-like accusations? Please be nice. We like nice people. Be nice and you may find that others are nice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. You catch more flies with honey than with boiling vitriol - David Gerard 10:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The catch is that David Gerard refuses to believe any demonstration that sock puppetry didn't happen; or perhaps DOES believe them but doesn't care as long as it protects his friendly Admin vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course! My lack of knowledge in the area has been famous for years. Why didn't I think of that. - David Gerard 14:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Alert! Proverb public accounts!

    Dear admins, I have just caught a proverb public account, that uses the Albanian list of proverbs. I am an albanian, and it is easy for me to guess that the password of the account "ARrohetMeZemer" is "TeLepurit?" ! This was a public account that targets all Albanian people that are public account lovers. I will revert the password immediatly! I hope the admins will manage to find all proverb public accounts, in all languages, and revert their passwords. All private accounts, together with the anonymous IP users (I am one of them), we are going to help the admins in their fight against proverb public account barbarians. ARrohetMeZemer 18:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the proximity of Albania to Greece (Geographically at least, I know nothing of Albanian culture), and the love of public accounts, my first thought is this could be the Iasson/Faethon troll. Thryduulf 21:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, given the distinctively fractured prose style of the above "warning", I'm convinced that ARrohetMeZemer is Iasson himself, trolling. In any case, an eye should be kept on him, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT

    Today Radiant! put up the policy tag with all bells and whistles on WP:POINT. There was never a proper vote conducted on the thing and it was never ratified, so I removed the tag. In the rolling straw poll that's been going on for a year, the current support is 36/49 (73%). However, I was twice reverted by two administrators, who used the roll-back feature without explaining their actions and also marked their edits as minor [11]. Currently it's classified as semi-policy, which is neither here not there. I suggest that people who want to have WP:POINT become policy organize a proper vote on the thing, so that we can finally know what its status is.

    BTW, the mere idea that you can have a rolling vote and once that hits 75% support, a proposal becomes policy, is hilarious. When another person votes against and it goes below 75%, does it stop being policy? Ridiculous. Zocky 19:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Slightly less ridiculous than the idea that policy is determined by voting. Snowspinner 19:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    I thought it was you that first suggested that this policy be determined by number of votes [12]. Zocky 21:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't voting the most fair and democratic method? We can't get dozens or potentially hundreds of people to reach an absolute consensus on hardly anything. Everyking 23:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    m:Don't vote on everything. Voting is the enemy of consensus. Wikipedia is not in fact a democracy - David Gerard 23:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    David, I just said why consensus alone is not feasible for deciding important policies. Everyking 23:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to voting being the most "fair", see Arrow's impossibility theorem and consensus decision-making. "Absolute consensus" is a contradiction in terms, and more akin to unanimity. JRM · Talk 23:55, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
    I didn't say voting was more fair than consensus. I said it was more fair than any other reasonable, feasible method I could think of for reaching these kinds of decisions (as opposed to, say, rule by fiat, or letting sysops make up the rules as they go along). Everyking 00:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. Apologies for not seeing through the ellipsis immediately. I didn't know you were trying to focus the discussion on how admins can (or do) make unreasonable decisions. Contrary to some, I am not easily annoyed by recurring themes, but I do prefer them to be out in the open. JRM · Talk 00:49, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
    Heh, you knew. ;) El_C 11:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It's semi-policy. Don't disrupt Wikipedia at all is the policy. This is a special case that advises people thinking they have a good excuse to break policy to think again. It's more than just a guideline, because arbcom repeatedly affirm it and use it in their judgements in cases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what it means to disrupt; is it disruption to disagree with some decision, or to vote against the majority? We shouldn't throw the word "disruption" around liberally. Everyking 23:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that complaining about every arbcom decision could certainly be perceived as disruption. RickK 23:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I think you've made my case quite nicely for me. Everyking 00:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, touché. [chuckles] Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • If, as Tony says, "don't disrupt Wikipedia" is policy, it then follows logically that "don't disrupt Wikipedia for reason:foo" is also policy. Unless the former has any exceptions, which to my knowledge it does not. Anyway, in a (likely vain) attempt to decide this, I've archived the old poll at WP:POINT and put up a new one that lasts for two weeks. Please vote. (Or don't, frankly I don't see how it makes much of a difference, but I would like the bickering and reverting to end) Radiant_* 08:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the question was whether it's disruption in the first place. My point was that dissent should not be confused with disruption, and that's the tendency I see. Everyking 09:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er, yes. My remark was in response to Tony's "it's semi-policy", not to your debate with RickK. Radiant_* 11:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Radiant is completely right. Even Wikipedia policy is not exempt from term logic :) dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Radiant is right - having this be called policy changes nothing. It' s redundant. It's instruction creep. It's just a thing people use to throw at each other. Zocky 14:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the above - it seems that nobody is actually clear on what 'semi-policy' actually is. Is it something that can be 'semi-enforced' and for which violators can be 'semi-blocked'? Whatever. Would there be any objections if I were to reclassify all 'semi-policies' as guidelines? Radiant_* 00:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    As long as they're not in fact failed proposals, i.e. things that somebody wanted to make policy, but never got consensus for it. Those should be filed away in the userspace of the editors that proposed them. If there's any useful information to be salvaged (i.e. good advice, descriptions of how things work), it would be great if they were rewritten as guidelines, we just need to make sure that they don't sound like instructions. I don't know if they need special tags, but the text should make clear what they are. Zocky 04:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Number and User:Sollogfan alleged sockpuppetry

    Both are problem users, whose contributions to Wikipedia consist mainly in the airing of grievances. Both have shown similar edit behavior in the past, especially in connection with the Sollog article. They have been accused of being a sockpuppet pair, and User:The Number has been the subject of an RFC, which had seemingly fizzled out when The Number announced they were leaving the project for good. The Number has since returned and become quite active over the past couple of days, trying to defend himself against accusations of sockpuppetry. Sollogfan has pursued the same agenda more aggressively, engaging in vandalism and personal attacks repeatedly, which he/she perceives to be "retaliation" for having the {{sockpuppet}} template stuck on his/her user page.

    One possible way to resolve this dispute would be to conclusively prove or disprove that The Number (talk · contribs) and Sollogfan (talk · contribs) are indeed sockpuppets. This may turn out to be difficult, because of the vast number of sockpuppets and open proxies that have been involved in the Sollog case. I'm posting here not to report the ongoing vandalism, but to request assistance in resolving the sockpuppet issue. If this requires filing for arbitration, please let me know. --MarkSweep 21:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a tricky one if The Number hasn't edited in the past week - it's difficult to check before that - David Gerard 23:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    They've both edited in the past couple of days: Special:Contributions/The Number, Special:Contributions/Sollogfan. --MarkSweep 03:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note fairly nasty personal attack here. [13] -Ashley Pomeroy 09:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the recent activity from these two accounts, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. --MarkSweep 09:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    They're both in the UK, but that's about all that can be said. However, both appear to be pure trolling and personal attack accounts, and those generally get blocked without much controversy - David Gerard 14:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SummerFR

    OK, I know this is technically a 3RR, but the main issues are other, especially that the ArbCom seem quite keen to deal with the civility issues of this user. Compare SummerFR'S rejected and somewhat notorious Request For Arbitration and also Tony Sidaway's comment here. 205.161.226.189 is obviously User:SummerFR editing anonymously. I blocked her for 24 hours for manifold reverts within a few hours at Jeb Bush, with a message to her talk page. It turns out that she's editing from a dynamic IP, and she now continues energetically to revert from 205.161.226.71. If everything she has access to can be blocked for a while, that would be nice; if not, I suppose we'll manage, I don't think the ArbCom will leave her at large for very long. She has turned Jeb Bush into hagiography, and please note the aggressiveness of her edit summaries. FreplySpang has e-mailed Sannse that SummerFR is baaaaack. --Bishonen | talk 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    $ whois 205.161.226.189
    Sprint SPRINT-BLKE (NET-205-160-0-0-1)
    205.160.0.0 - 205.163.255.255
    Sprint-United Telephone of Florida SPRINT-CDA1E0-6 (NET-205-161-224-0-1)
    205.161.224.0 - 205.161.239.255
    Naples Free Net 205-161-226NAFRENET (NET-205-161-226-0-1)
    205.161.226.0 - 205.161.226.255
    That's dynamic, but it's a total of 254 IP addresses. Block the /24 as appropriate, being sure to stay around in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 13:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a technical suggestion for a mechanism to help deal with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools - see WP:AN#POV-pushers with DHCP pools. Noel (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Legion of Trolls

    I've blocked this user indefinitely as a sock or attempted imitation of Entmoot of Trolls/142/whatever we're calling him. I say this mostly so that the usual suspects can call me a petty tyrant. Snowspinner 03:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not going to call you anything, but I do wish you'd explain exactly what makes you think this is a reincarnation. Other people with "troll" in their user names have edited for a long time (although I think usually they don't end up well), and I think also the ArbCom (it may have been Jimbo) has said having "troll" in one's user name is not in itself grounds for being blocked or banned. Everyking 03:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Drink! --Calton | Talk 03:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "X of Trolls" is a bit more flagrant - or, at least, a closer mirror of Entmoots. Furthermore, he arrived and began posting Entmoots-like claims about the creativity of trolls, and went straight for policy pages. So an obvious sock posting Entmoots-like claims with a name in the same pattern as Entmoots - hence the ban. Snowspinner 03:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    You think it's obvious, but I don't. So is it still obvious? I mean, it may be obvious from your perspective, but that doesn't make it so obvious as to be uncontroversial. Everyking 03:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! Yase, here we go! I may have had one too many of these Drinks!, but I would have been more than satisfied with troll as an explanation. That you're able to tie it to one specific person only serves to impress me, but is otherwise, impertinent. El_C 04:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If I expected it to be uncontroversial, I wouldn't have posted it here. Snowspinner 04:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Then that raises another question, to me. If something is likely to be controversial, shouldn't it be discussed first? Everyking 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It dosen't raise that question to me. It isn't just having troll in the name, as you seem to be suggesting, it's the name in combination with the contributions which are clearly indicative of disruption in the making. El_C 04:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing one edit that made a legit point, and two edits that were somewhat questionable but still made intelligent points and could have been incorporated somewhere. Definitely not what I would call serious disruption. Anyway, the user will probably still come back, so why not be welcoming and considerate instead of doing things that will likely lead to further alienation? Everyking 04:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Crunch, crunch. Maybe, if and/or when that user wishes to discuss his/her grievences in a mature fashion, without the troll name/contributions melodramatics, I could see that POINT. Otherwise, as I said, it's disruption in the making. El_C 04:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'm not sure that is in fact an immature way of expressing one's grievances, and even if it was, that doesn't mean the grievances shouldn't be heard. If you ask me, throwing down a block like that just confirms much of what trolls complain about. And anyway, I'm not so unconditionally opposed to disruption as you; I think a little disruption (more accurately defined as dissent here) isn't necessarily a bad thing. So I don't see the sense in opposing something purely on the grounds of disruption. Everyking 06:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The grievences were heard —I, at least, was duely enlightned— though since the new user had troll in their name, somehow took them less seriously as I would otherwise. El_C 06:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose they were very briefly heard, but the guy got banned for expressing them. Come on, now. That's a problem. Everyking 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a problem. They were heard briefly because and s/he got banned for being a troll. El_C 07:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not in itself a valid reason to be banned. Policy votes were held over this last year, and the votes went against allowing sysops to ban trolls (by the way, I actually voted in favor of the proposals). Everyking 07:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, obviously not, we're still having this conversation, I should have been blocked long ago. But let's not play with semantics. El_C 08:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    C'mon, the User's first edit was The ArbCom Cabal and the rogue admins will behave how they like regardless of how the 'community' votes. Clearly a returning sock puppet with an axe to grind, clear trolling. RickK 05:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    I don't think Everyking is disputing that, rather, suggesting that we should try to be its friend first. :) El_C 05:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen this a few times. There was a vote on this a while back, the community clearly voted not to make 'trolling' a blockable offense, or to endorse a definition. Nevertheless, people freqently get blocked for it. Yes, the name is provocative, but perhaps not undully, given the behavior of some admins. Intrigue 07:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    And as he said: "the rogue admins will behave how they like regardless of how the 'community' votes"...oh, my head hurts. Everyking 07:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This is probably superfluous, but I'd still like to say it: YHBT. YHL. HAND. The only question open now is who is on the trolling, and who is on the losing side. JRM · Talk 08:12, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


    Mixedfolks

    Somebody seems to have MOVEd the Wikipedia:Sandbox to Mixedfolks. Do we care about the edit history of the sandbox, or can we let this go? RickK 05:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    The Sandbox has been moved a million times. Of all pages to move, the Sandbox is the least of my worries. Let the newbies/vandals have a ball with moving this; it's easy enough to move back and delete the redirect. If it keeps them from moving the rest, I'll be happy. JRM · Talk 08:15, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    Oh, all this is not to say the user doing the move shouldn't be slapped on the wrist and blocked if they persist in doing it, of course. Testing is one thing, being a dick is another. JRM · Talk 08:26, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    But the problem is not that we have lost the edit history of the Sandbox so much, as that the edit history of Mixedfolks is hundreds of Sandbox edits. RickK 08:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Urrrk. What the hell happened here? Did someone just recreate the sandbox instead of moving the Mixedfolks article back? What a mess. I say delete all the sandbox revisions from the Mixedfolks history. This is not a GFDL violation since neither the current Sandbox nor the current Mixedfolks article have any content in common with those revisions; they are not derived works by any stretch of the imagination. (And even if I'm wrong, nobody's gonna sue.) JRM · Talk 10:14, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    User:Statistics

    A troll whose sole purpose seems to be to stir up trouble. RickK 09:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, what the hell? That was totally uncalled for. El_C 09:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    RickK, you deleted my comment which gave a user's factual edit history, taken from Wikipedia's own records, because you called that a "personal attack". My listing of facts taken from Wikipedia's own records were in answer to the blocking of another user based on his edit history.

    You don't call blocking based on edit history a personal attack, but you call my noting that others have a similar edit history to the user blocked a "personal attack". Then you label me a troll, without listing any factual basis, but you don't consider that a personal attack.

    Is your contention that some editors are above any criticism, even objectively pointing out their numbers of edits?

    You're not hurting me when you delete my comments, but you are depriving anyone who reads this of an alternate view. By what right do you decide what Wikipedia gets to read, and what gets censored? Statistics 09:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    [For the record: my comment, deleted by RickK, was in response to the blocking of a editor based on the fact that that editor's first edits were to Wikipedia policy pages: Deleted Personal Attack El_C 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]

    Evidence of sockputtetry or trolling?

    comments below censored by both RickK and El C. Tsk tsk. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    Snowspinner tells us that User:Legion of Trolls "went straight for policy pages" suggesting that that is indicative of either trolling or reincarnation. RickK says "Clearly a returning sock puppet with an axe to grind, clear trolling."
    It should be noted that on Snowspinner's very first day at Wikipedia, on 18 April 2004, Snowspinner himself made 16 edits to the Wikipedia namespace: 10 of those to Votes_for_Deletion, and two each to Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. (Ironically, one of Snowspinner's votes was to argue against a deleting a page RickK had listed for deletion.)
    Do most new users know about Votes for Deletion, much less the much more obscure Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship? Ask yourself how soon into your Wikipedia career it was when you first learned about those pages. Statistics 08:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    Your insinuations under the guise of 'facts' are intentionally inflamatory. I deleted them, too. You incorrectly cite a reason for the block ("edit history" per se.) as grounds for directing them against Snowspinner. I dispute that. Let me spell it out for you: Username = Legion of trolls. Edits: 1. Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; 2. Wikipedia:What is a troll; Wikipedia:What is a troll. El_C 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, you and RickK are either i) falling for a troll, or ii) dancing on the line (if not over it) in deleting a comment that basically does nothing but cite the same kind of data others are using against LoT. Yes, it's intended to be critical, but so what? Criticism NotEQ personal attack. In deleting this stuff, you all are at best just making more trouble, and at worst falling for a troll. Just let it be. Noel (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. On this side: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. On that side: don't feed the trolls. You can walk either way, but censoring comments is neither here nor there. JRM · Talk 14:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    El C, I have no problem with your disputing the reasons for the block. You have every right to state your opinions on the matter.

    But one of the reasons given for the block was that the user, and I quote, "went straight for policy pages".

    Why is it that you are allowed to state your opinions, but you delete my statements of facts? Is calling my statement of facts "insinuations... intentionally inflammatory" not a personal attack by you against me? And why do you put "facts" in scare-quotes, when the data is taken directly from Wikipedia's own records?

    According to your user page, you are "an historian specializing in British, African, Chinese, and Middle-Eastern history." Don't historians believe in free and open discussions without censorship? Statistics 10:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I find the statistics interesting and I doubt that I'm alone. Please don't try to silence those who raise legitimate (if perhaps unpleasant for some of us) questions with accusations of trolling. I hope no one has already gone and banned this user. Everyking 13:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The block log is available to anyone. You'll be pleased to know the sky hasn't come down. While the only statistics I care about are these, I don't mind if someone gathers other ones. I would ask that they not be posted here, however. A link to a user page will do just fine. Reserve this page for specific comments on specific conduct, not for suggestive data dumps. JRM · Talk 14:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

    I'd respond to all of this, but I did it before, on my first RFA. So here's the text with which I responded to HCheney when he asked why I edited RFA my first day:

    The edit was a non-voting edit in the process of discussing UninvitedCompany's nomination. There was some discussion over the fact that UninvitedCompany had previously used a different account. Someone mentioned a "reason for concern that they didn't feel comfortable going into." Another person asked what this reason was. I speculated that it was the use of a different account that had been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion. As for why I was on the page so early in my Wikilife, it's linked to off of Community Portal, and I was on Community Portal because it seemed like a very sensible page for a user to hit on his first day. I saw the link to RfA, I followed it out of curiosity, I saw the discussion, I attempted to clarify. There's really nothing sinister at all about it. (In fact, it's possible that the edit in question wasn't even originally made under my name - my April 18th edits were, I believe, all IP edits that I had assigned to my username later on.) Snowspinner 03:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

    I also need not point out that the criticism is a straw man of my argument - immediate gravitation to policy pages is one thing. Immediate gravitation to obscure policy pages while ranting about an arbcom cabal is another. VfD and RFA are pages regularly linked to - VfD off of RC, RFA off of Community Portal, both sensible places for a newbie to go. Furthermore, one of my first edits was [15]. from an IP, because I was hesitant about the whole idea of editing the page, so I looked for somewhere to warn the people in charge that I had removed some content in case I wasn't actually allowed, and found RC patrol. Presumably I found the other pages while stumbling around as well.

    As for the rest, I point out that User:Statistics resembles User:orthogonal in most regards, that he has clearly arrived to disruptively make a point instead of enter a discussion (Which would be better achieved under his own username), and that his status as a not-banned user can probably be ascribed to his departing Wikipedia when an arbcom case was raised against him and coming back as sockpuppets, not on any good conduct.

    If y'all wanna listen to this crap, I can't stop you, but I can't help but notice that most of the people who are seem to have already made up their minds about me. Snowspinner 14:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

    You're being too sensitive (or something). Just because I think it's OK to post discussion of LoT's history doesn't mean I listen much to it - or to the posting of yours. So you don't need to either contrast your record (or justify it, not quite sure what you had in mind); you've accumulated a long one since then anyway (this last observation is not to be read as pro or con). (FWIW: I was far more taken by the contents of their first post - anyone who starts out with The ArbCom Cabal and the rogue admins, you know they are not a new user.) Again, don't feel the trolls! Noel (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've assessed the situation and here's my conclusion. Any conflict involving RickK will likely be resolved by removing RickK's opponent(s) from the equation. Why? A simple cost-benefit analysis suggests that RicK's extensive track record is more valuable; at least, that's how I think the decision-makers will view such conflicts. Fairness? Justice? Wikipedia is governed by popularity. So, I impersonally advise RickK's opponents: step off. Adraeus 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a joke, right? Please, tell me this is a joke. If you disagree with RickK you will be 'removed from the equation'? Intrigue 16:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Explanation of Tony Sidaway's block of Pioneer-12, who isn't doing anything wrong.

    I also mailed a copy of this to Wikien-L.

    Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to talk space.

    To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like the best way to limit the potential damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a problem with this block. If a user refuses to accept WP licencing policy, he has no business editing anyway. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=13742961"