Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Longer term discussions

Potential problem concerning episode articles

Moved to /Episodes. Mercury

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

Moved to /User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John. -- Cat ^chi?

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

Moved to /PR. Mercury

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Everyking blocked

I've given Everyking (talk · contribs) a week-long block for his persistent restoration of comments made by Amorrow sockpuppets. He's asked me to bring the matter here for discussion.

I am open to anyone reducing the length of the block if/when Everyking agrees to cooperate in this matter. I'd ask that anyone thinking of unblocking him to be quite sure he's going to do so, however. Kirill 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at his contributions ... is this about the edits to Everyking's talk page? If so, it's user space - who cares? The policy says that it's up to the page owner whether he/she wants to revert. --B 05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a somewhat unusual situation; you really need to know a bit of the background of why this particular user was banned. To put it simply, Amorrow is absolutely not welcome to participate in the project in any manner, even on the level of innocuous talk page comments. (And these were not innocuous, in any case.) Kirill 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does Everyking want to restore the comments? I can't imagine a good reason, but I have a poor imagination. --B 05:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lar#Amorrow has some useful background on this particular incident, I think. Kirill 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha ... Lar won't give Everyking access to deleted Amorrow articles, so Everyking responds by leaving an Amorrow edit on his talk page. That sounds rather pointy. --B 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If a banned editor fixes a minor content error and the edit is later rolled back, then editors who agree with the correction are free to make the correction again. But talk page comments by banned editors should not be restored. Doing so is the equivalent of editing on behalf of the banned editor, which is a violation of the banning policy. WP:BAN The situation is more egregious because the banned editor in question is much worse than most. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I've googled around to find out who the guy is - forget my previous comments - I concur with Kirill's block. --B 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely feel that anyone aiding and abetting Amorrow knowingly and repeatedly should be blocked for a lengthy time period. Under no circumstances is Amorrow welcome back here and anyone knowingly assisting him needs to be kept on a very tight leash as well. The potential real life harm this guy has posed to various persons on this project are not to be taken lightly.--MONGO 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, Everyking wishes to make the following points:

• He pledges to respect consensus, both regarding his block and regarding the comments.
• He further pledges not to restore the comments until a consensus develops.
• He maintains that he was appropriately following the policy regarding the edits of banned users.

Please see User talk:Everyking#Blocked for more details. Kirill 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy needs clarification

The current policy needs to be clarified: reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner is being taken as either a) editors have discretion about whether to keep comments from banned users [1] or b) user talk page owners are responsible for reverting them, but should not restore them [2]. There is some value in having whatever his comment is out in the open, but the disruptive effect probably outweighs transparency, especially in this case.--chaser - t 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For right now, I just suggest that Everyking just not revert the comments until we perform Chaser's suggestion. Kirill, I am good for an unblock now, but he should agree to your terms before you do anything. I would have done it myself, but several personal factors will prevent me from being effective in this manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the situation, it appears to me that Everyking was in fact disruptively making a silly POINT, apparently due to his skepticism in the opaqueness of the checkuser process; though it doesn't seem that he was actually collaborating with Amorrow. Given the horrible things Amorrow has been responsible for in the past (and present =/), this was still an extremely poor move on his part, and I think the block was justified. Now that Everyking has pledged to respect the community's consensus, though, it would probably be best to reduce his block to the time he has served, and we can all work on better clarifying the relevant policies and make sure this doesn't happen again. --krimpet⟲ 06:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page definitely could stand more input, right now it's just a small handful of people participating. I'd encourage more folks to give their views.++Lar: t/c 11:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "user talk page" exception that Everyking relied upon is a recent addition. It has subsequently been reverted and the policy now no longer makes any distinction. I think most admins can be forgiven for not being aware of a policy change which appears to not have had consensus in the first place... ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking appears to have been blocked for a WP:POINTy re-addition of comments which had an unclear policy background. The policy backing him re-adding it is not clear, but nor is the bit of the policy which Kirill used to block him. Given this policy ambiguity (regardless of any statements by Kirill about his interpretation being right), and given that Everyking apparently received no warning beyond these mysterious "subtle hints" Kirill talks about in the block message, this block is not appropriate. - Mark 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've argued this issue from Everyking's viewpoint before (also involving a comment by an Amorrow sock, as it happens), but in this case I feel I must side with Kirill: the comment in question was clearly inapproriate, both per WP:BAN and WP:NPA, and it should not be restored. I might not have blocked Everyking for it myself, although, in retrospect, the block seems to have been the right decision, insofar as it stopped the revert war and led to this discussion. I agree that the wording of WP:BAN needs to be clarified; I'll post my suggestions for that on its talk page. In any case, as Everyking has agreed not to restore the comment until and unless consensus for it develops here, I've unblocked him subject to that condition. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) While Kirill only mentioned the restoration of the talk page comments by Everyking, that hasn't been Everyking's only effort on behalf of Amorrow's edits. He has been pressing Lar for a week to undelete an article that Amorrow wrote as well.[3] I don't think that Everyking takes seriously the concept that banned editors are not allowed to participate in Wikipedia in any manner, or that Amorrow is an especially unwelcome person here. I'm not sure why he is so fond of Amorrow's editing, but it is not appropriate for him to be restoring that person's edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the unblocking...completely disagree. AMorrow is a special case in a lot of ways, and none of his edits should stand under any circumstances and this should apply to all pages, even userpages. Any efforts to aide AMorrow should result in an extended block.--MONGO 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's concerns

I'm concerned that I'm being portrayed as being somehow soft on Amorrow. I find his actions, which, as I understand them, extend to off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians, to be absolutely reprehensible. I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not (people seem to be taking that for granted), but for the sake of this discussion I'll assume that it is. The comment on my talk page was just pointing out some policy issues and offering advice. I found nothing objectionable about it, I want people to feel free to leave me comments, and I don't believe in removing a comment from someone simply because they are banned, although I may support the ban itself (as in this case) or removal of the comments if there is something specifically objectionable about them. I recognize that other people are going to pursue the absolute removal of anything any alleged Amorrow sock has written, but I like to think my talk page is like my own little garden, a peaceful little place where comments and thoughts are valued regardless of their source, as long as they are not particularly offensive to me. Policy supports me on this; it specifically provides for users to exercise discretion over posts of banned users to their talk pages. If Amorrow is a special case, fine, let's have a decision on that—perhaps there is one developing here. Or we could even change the policy, if there's consensus for that. I am, however, upset that I was blocked for doing something that policy, as it stands now, specifically allows me to do. If I had felt anyone was so extreme on this issue that they would block me for a week over it, I would never have tried to stand my ground about it, although I may personally believe I am right. A simple warning that a block was imminent would have been sufficient to get me to surrender: I value my principles, but I also value my ability to work here and make this encyclopedia better, and I am pragmatic about things. Now my block log, which has been clean since July 2006, is stained by another block, and I had taken pride in avoiding any trouble with anyone over that time. I think Kirill, no matter how strongly he believes he is right, should show a little more deliberation, caution and tact in matters such as this. Everyking 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking says "I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not" ... I'm frankly flabbergasted and dismayed at that comment. How many checkusers saying so does it take before Everyking accepts it? (for me, the number is ***1***, and if I didn't think I trusted a particular checkuser implicitly, I'd take it up with the ombudsman instead of making vague insinuations) But regardless, I am not the only checkuser who ran the check here, and we all concur. By policy, the details of checks are not revealed, but I am 100% convinced that Edgesusual (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is Amorrow. I am also 100% convinced that the other socks recently encountered and tagged as Amorrow or SallyForth123 socks are Amorrow as well. I'll have more to say later but that sort of questioning of multiple checkusers is very deleterious to the encyclopedia. I'd have required a cessation of that sort of disruptive and corrosive behaviour before I lifted the block. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note... In addition to the very long thread on my talk page, This archived WP:ANI discussion has relevance. Everyking cannot say he was not warned, multiple times, about this. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I just list my views on a range of subjects and you can tell me which ones are and are not acceptable for me to have? Everyking 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that comment means, Everyking. You can have whatever personal views you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lar - no amount of checkusers can confirm that someone is a sockpuppet. To be 100% convinced after a checkuser, you have to be 100% convinced before the checkuser. It's not reasonable to expect everyking (or anyone else) to really respect the outcome of a checkuser - they're really not very useful. WilyD 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have as much experience as other CUs but I'm not the only one seeing a strong correlation here. I tend to say  Possible when others would say  Likely and  Likely when others would say  Confirmed but this is solid. Amorrow makes no attempt to hide the connection and his socks speak with one voice. This is solid as they come. Everyking can doubt it if he wants but in order to be perceived as constructive, has to say "confirmed by multiple CUs but I don't beleive it" instead of just "I don't know if it is or not" which is disingenious. It's confirmed, I stake my reputation on it. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But I really don't know if it is. That's just a simple, honest statement. I am largely agnostic about the reliability of CU, if the actual evidence is not available for me to evaluate. I am sorry that you find it so awful that someone does not have pure faith that this person is Amorrow, but I would appreciate it if you would avoid calling my absence of a firm belief on the identity of this editor "disruptive and corrosive behaviour" and suggesting that I should remain blocked because I do not profess a certain belief. Everyking 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this life is certain... however I suspect that when a sock is tagged as an Amorrow sock, the rest of us are going to act as if it is Amorrow, regardless of whether you personally decide to trust the checkusers or not. I further suspect that you saying "I don't know one way or another" is not going to be an effective defense if you again revert material that was posted by someone tagged and blocked as an Amorrow sock. You can have whatever belief you want, but to try to use "I don't know for sure" as a defense for your behaviour in violation of policy is itself disruptive and corrosive behaviour, in my personal opinion. I'd advise against it. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting me. I never used my skepticism about the accuracy of the CU as a defense; in fact, I made a point of assuming its accuracy when making my argument above. You're also suggesting that I might restore his comment again, despite my repeated and firm pledges not to, and I find that to be a "disruptive and corrosive" assumption of bad faith. Everyking 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground. If a banned editor talks to someone on a user talk page, usually the best thing for others to do is ignore it. If in some specific case, it is removed (but still in history) with a clue to why it was deleted (eg "banned user comment deleted"); then it is usually best to ignore the deletion. Minimize the wiki-drama guys. WAS 4.250 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Excessive?

The block was excessive and inappropriate; a week-long block for restoring a talk page comment in his own userspace doesn't result in the protection of the encyclopedia in any way. What was the block supposed to prevent? Certainly not a major disturbance to the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments above...anyone aiding Amorrow in any way needs to be kept on a tight leash. The level of harassment a number of our female editors have endured at the hands of this guy is truly awful. He has created a plethara of sock accounts and engaged in BLP violations on some of our articles about prominent women. Please do not aide this person in any manner.--MONGO 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - WP:BAN says it clear. Amorrow was banned for a reason, you know (in addition to the AFD, he's quite literally a creep). Will ^(talk) 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse what? This is not a vote. The banning policy is not clear on this. It also says reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner and Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing. All of which were according to the letter of the policy completely in line with James' edits to his own userpage. Apparently there is the Morrow exception to that, a decision that was not made clear to everybody. And yes Amorrow has issues that make him an inimical element to everything we stand for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Users that reinstated banned user's edits are treat like the banned user himself. As Everyking was reinstating a known stalker's edits, in that case he should be treat like a stalker. Will ^(talk) 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock - I would suggest that given above discussion, the consensus was fairly firmly (and correctly) in favour of removing Amorrow's "contributions". Given Everyking has pledged not to go against this consensus, I don't think unblocking at this time should have caused any problems. Whether or not the block was over-harsh is an unnecessary tangent we don't need to go down; the important issue was unblocking once we have assurances the restoration will not be repeated. We had those, Everyking was unblocked, he won't do it again, let's move on. Neil ☎ 08:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Analogy

I don't wish to defend Amorrow in any way (he's one of the few who have managed to be banned from both Wikipedia and anti-Wikipedia "attack sites", so there's clearly an extraordinarily broad consensus that he's a serious problem), but this seems to be yet another clash between two of the "parties" of Wikipedia -- the "Live and Let Live Party" and the "Scorch the Earth Party", which get into fights over whether evildoers, heretics, blasphemers, traitors, and other Enemies of Wikipedia need to be treated like Orwellian Unpersons or Scientologist Suppressive Persons, or if, especially in user talk space, somebody can allow something originating from them to remain in a discussion. The ambiguity of the current policy reflects the fact that people strongly holding these contradictory positions have had a part in shaping it. Personally, I think that if somebody wants to let comments from Osama bin Laden himself in his own talk page, we should let him. *Dan T.* 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Before law enforcement wants to get involved with a case against a stalker, they want to make sure that the complaining party has made it clear that contact is not welcome. This means that we need to make it clear that all contact from Amorrow is not welcome on Wikipedia in any form. All known edits are to be reverted. No exceptions in his case. --FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan T - Osama bin Laden is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia and his comments would only be removed if he were to get banned. Assuming he edited under an acceptable username, my money would go on a block for "persistent tendentious editing". Neil ☎ 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Osama'd get hit with 'making death threats' way before tendentious editing could kick in. As to the 'substantive' issues here; FloNight describes a situation beyond WP:BAN where, in Amorrow's case, all edits post banning not only can be removed, but must be removed. So far as I know, there is no 'ruling' to such effect anywhere. Indeed, the reason for his original banning seems to have been largely unrelated to (and thus not list) the issues which have caused him to remain persona non grata since then. Thus, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Everyking to have assumed it was like any other WP:BAN situation. In any case, I don't think it is a good idea to block people for 'violating' unstated 'special restrictions'. Also, I don't know that the 'legal explanation', that we have to make clear that his edits are not welcome, is really something covered at this level. Any sort of 'restraining order' to legally keep Amorrow off Wikipedia as a whole would certainly have to be filed by representatives of the foundation... and along the same 'making it clear' lines, a precursor for doing so would presumably be that the foundation would need to have said that he isn't welcome here. Which... they haven't. Lots of us users have, but there is no foundation level edict to this effect. I don't think even ArbCom has weighed in (officially). Technically, he is banned by a single admin... and the fact that nobody is going to undo it. Realistically, any sort of foundation level legal action seems unlikely. Individual users might complain to the police if his actions have been/are illegal, but then they'd presumably need only show that THEY have made clear they do not want him around... not that Wikipedia has done so. --CBD 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have any knowledge of what this guy has done and continues to do in real life...furthermore, as I mentioned, his edits under various sock accounts are oftentimes BLP violations and are connected to his stalking activities. Banned editors do not get to edit...plain and simple...so reverting his contributions is not really controversial.--MONGO 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CBD: "Remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt Please see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#A and this mailing list post which has been cited multiple times. Amorrow is a special case, and in no way was this unstated. It has been mentioned over and over. Block on sight, revert on sight, per Jimbo. This has been explained at some length to Everyking, who has persisted in asserting he does not agree with policy. Disagreement is not an acceptable reason to go against policy. His revert warring over a deletion supported by policy and by fiat was disingenious, at best. I agree that the policy as written gives some tiny wiggle room for those who like to ruleslawyer. That apparently needs fixing, since some people can't avoid ruleslawyering. But this is open and shut. Everyking was warned, he knew better. (remember, he read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#The_return_of_Amorrow which was what brought him to my talk page to start badgering me about deleted content) I'd suggest that no one else restore any edits of Amorrow socks either. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, CBD speaks of the unlikelyhood of legal action. There was in fact talk of legal action at the time. I don't know what transpired there. However, I have reason to speculate that the reason we are facing this new onslaught is that Amorrow has recently been released from incarceration for a previous harassment case, and I would not at all be surprised to learn that what he is doing now is a parole violation. Consistent reversion of his edits will be an important component of any evidentiary submissions, I would expect. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Everyking 1) Has a long history of disruption to this very page and was, for quite some time, banned from the Adminstrators' noticeboards pages (I don't know when that ban ended, but apparently it has), and 2) Offered to restore pages which were validly deleted and their deletion endorsed by a number of admins, so that people on anti-Wikipedia websites could salivate over the vicious stuff that Wikipedia admins do. It would take tons of salt before I, at least, would assume good faith where Everyking is concerned, and those commenting here should make themselves well aware of not only Everyking's history, but Amorrow's, as well. Corvus cornix 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Some people claim a history of disruption here based on arguments I made here more than two years ago, which were essentially that admins should seek consensus in controversial cases and that proper reasoning for blocks, based in policy, should be given. I was banned from this page for two years by the ArbCom for making those arguments; the ban has not yet expired (it will on Nov. 11), but there is an exemption for matters concerning myself. 2) This is a complex matter, and I consider your version of it to be a serious misrepresentation. There was one page in question, there was (as far as I know) only one admin who endorsed that deletion, and I refrained from making any deleted content available due to my concerns about what it might contain and potential controversy that could result. If people want to hold such past events against me and consider me somehow suspect on those grounds, they should at least understand what that history actually is. I would suggest that we instead just look at reasoning and policy to evaluate this matter. Everyking 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter how much of a "serious misrepresentation" of the situation you may feel my comments are, The arbcom felt your actions sufficient to desysop you. Corvus cornix 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but I am uninterested in an appeal to authority argument. Anyway, as I said before, I think we can look at this case best by focusing on the facts of what transpired and on what the policy on WP:BAN means (or should mean) and how it is applicable. Everyking 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lar, no offence mate, as much as a clear and frightening weirdo Amorrow can be, your remarks could be thought libellous (in the UK anyway, easy pickings I know) if wrong, so perhaps you might want to rephrase them? [although I agree 100% in reverting him instantly everywhere] Corvus cornix, I understand how heated this matter is, but Everyking has always claimed to be acting in good faith. We've never proven he isn't, we've just said that some wikibehaviour wasn't what the community was seeking in an admin. Extrapolation beyond that is probably unhelpful. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so there was foundation/legal action after all. Obviously that contradicts what I said... but it wasn't mentioned at all (let alone "over and over") in the first 30+ messages of this thread. Nor do I see any mention of it in the discussion leading up to the block. Indeed, the block itself and all discussion before and since (until now) consistently cited WP:BAN instead... and as noted there is a marked difference between what WP:BAN says and the stricter restrictions in the case of Amorrow. You state that Everyking must have known about this issue because of the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#The_return_of_Amorrow discussion... but there is no reference to the mailing list/Jimbo/the banned users list for special foundation/legal restrictions there either. I read alot of the back commentary before responding on this and it just wasn't cited. That really ought to have been the first thing brought up. You seem to be acting on the view that Everyking was ignoring this special prohibition... but you never actually linked to or explained the unique nature of it. Instead you cited WP:BAN... which just doesn't make the same case at all. Maybe he did know about it from some previous discussion... I dunno. But citing it would have made a world of difference in any case. --CBD 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Another ugly, pointless admin debate. Everyking's userspace should not be a big concern to anyone no matter who is editing it. If he wants to let the comments stand, so what? I really dislike this scorched earth/unperson business (to borrow Dan T's terminology). The overzealous misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies grows more ludicrous by the day. — Brian (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Two evils

This block has brought far, far more attention to Amorrow (whoever that is) than Everyking's edits did. If this guy is psychotic enough to have been bant from WP and that other anti-WP site whose name I forget than of course his influence should be gone forever, but I think the worse of two evils was chosen here :-\ It looks like acting on principle was detrimental to the principle itself in this case. Everyone should consider that in the future. Milto LOL pia 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What's a frown-star? ... If more editors are aware that he's back and are watching for signs of the sorts of trouble he causes, tis not all bad. If policy about reversion is clarified (in whatever way) tis not all bad. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty much all bad from my perspective. You're not the one who now has this ridiculous block tarnishing his block log. Everyking 05:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If the block actually WERE "ridiculous", and if nothing at all else good came of this, I'd agree. But I think your perspective is a bit narrow. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? Are you saying that you were not warned by an admin? Eiler7 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There was certainly no clear threat to block if I restored the comment. All I got was this from Lar: "It is POLICY that edits of banned editors may be removed by any editor. Restoring them, rather than rewording their thoughts in your own words and then standing behind them as your own words, is editing on their behalf, and is against policy. I suggest you not do that." Although I found the tone of that to be a little ominous, I was more incredulous than alarmed, since it seemed impossible to believe he would actually block me for such a thing. Furthermore, I felt that what Lar wrote was a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of what the policy says. So I restored the comment again and went to his talk page to propose that we seek a wider consensus on the meaning of the policy, but when I clicked save page on my comment I found that Kirill had already blocked me. In retrospect, I would have left the alleged sock's comment out when I proposed seeking wider consensus, but at the time I had no idea that they were going to escalate. If someone had acknowledged that I was correct in policy terms but said that Amorrow was privately considered a special exception, then the whole thing would have been quickly defused and could have been resolved quietly. Everyking 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming your account of events is correct, I think that this was a failure by the admin. Prior to blocking, there should have been a warning on your talk page saying "I am an admin. Do not do action X. If you do, you may be blocked". Eiler7 11:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler trolling

User:Karnoff is trolling my talk page and his user space.Proabivouac 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake! All I did was ask him why I can't edit Adolf Hitler! Why is he calling me a troll?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnoff (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old." That's why you can't edit it. Go edit something about puppies or flowers or something; you look like a troll because most people don't show up on Wikipedia, stick a swastika in their user profile and try and edit Adolf Hitler first thing. Oddly, that gives people the idea you might have a POV. --Thespian 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He just left this comment on my user talk. Can someone just ban him for life? Really, I barely tolerate spending time trying to rehabilitate an editor that's been around a couple of months, this guy should go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is blockable about that? Viridae^Talk 06:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but someone blocked him already, apparently. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

His grammar, and the fact he used the term 'widout'? That's my vote. --Thespian 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler can't be trolling. Hitler is dead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is? I thought he was hanging with Elvis someplace?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

<rimshot/> Seriously though... blocked? Isn't that a bit much? --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And declined too... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) I have asked the blocking admin to explain. There was no trolling at all in my view, so I have no idea why they were blocked. Viridae^Talk 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins can look at the deleted userpage to see why the editor was blocked for trolling. You'll need to preview it.--chaser - t 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that. That is not instantly blockable. Viridae^Talk 06:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, if you want to try rehabilitating a lost cause, then unblock him. I think it's a waste of time.--chaser - t 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to see people actually given a chance to fuck things up before we jump down their throat because they might do so. Ass I said to Krimpet - he might be here to cause trouble, or he might be a kid with a nazi obsession that would liek to add something to their favourite subject. Accounts are blocked with ease when you have solid proof, why not wait for it? Viridae^Talk 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have given him the benefit of the doubt and unblocked. Viridae^Talk 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is trolling already on this page. It's very odd that you found the swastika on his user page unconvincing. --Mathsci 07:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is that trolling... People are far too quick to use that word on wikipedia, and it rapidly poisons the atmosphere. Viridae^Talk 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not an admin and can't see the swastika that was on his page, isn't it kind of ignoring WP:AGF to ban him/assume he's just trolling/write him off as a lost cause? I mean, so the guy has a swastika on his page - that doesn't mean that he's necessarily a Nazi - it just means he has a swastika on his page. Until he actually starts DOING stuff that proves he's editing in bad faith or POV-pushing, I'd have thought we would need to assume good faith about the guy. Just my $.02 anyway. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It wasn't a little picture of a swastika with some historical context around it. It was a huge ASCII-art swastika that was the entirety of his user page. We don't need people who display things like that. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait - he puts a picture of a swastika on his userpage, but the thing that's poisoning the atmosphere around here is when people use the word "trolling"? I probably wouldn't have blocked him, but let's think logically about what we say, shall we? - Philippe | Talk 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To toss in 2 cents here, anyone who puts a swastika anywhere is perhaps the epitome of a disruptive person, much less a wiki user. It serves no purpose other than to inflame/incite. Tarc 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm still missing something. So he has a large ASCII swastika on his userpage. Does that automatically qualify one for blocking under some rule? I've certainly seen other users with pictures of less-than-desirable people and symbols on their talk pages, but they haven't been blocked. As far as I can tell, the guy has an interest in Adolf Hitler. Ok, fine - so do a lot of people, including a lot of very respectable people. IMHO, the guy was never even given a chance to prove himself a good editor or a troll. All he apparently did was commit some faux pas and immediately got squashed for it. I'd think that if we're going to block for trolling, one actually has to troll first, prior to being blocked. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite distressing that another Wikipedian could brush aside the flamboyant display of a swastika as a mere "faux pas." Raymond Arritt 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing for nothing, but the Hitler comments aside, a Swastika on a user page could be for someone's religion, or something harmless. Just pointing that out. • Lawrence Cohen 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Second edit ("Oy!",)[4] fourth edit,[5] then immediately to ANI. How does he know me? How did he know about ANI? We are once again played for the collective fools we so obviously are.

AGF!Proabivouac 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am serious. I'm not "brushing aside" his behavior, but rather, am trying to assume good faith and not judge him too quickly. Frankly, it's a little worrisome to me that we're so quick to pass judgment on a new editor, merely because that editor isn't following what we more experienced editors consider to be good behavior. I'm not making a value judgment on Karnoff or on his interests. However, I continue to believe that the mere display of a swastika does not, by itself, constitute grounds for blocking, especially when little or no attempt was made to correct inappropriate behavior. If, after he starts editing, he displays himself to be a troll, then block him; but not before then. In fact, it looks like he was trying to apologize. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, no use continuing to argue over the past. I'll be closely watching his edits, and at the first evidence of disruptive behavior he'll be on the fast train to indef-land. Raymond Arritt 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the display of a swastika, in itself, is no grounds for a ban. More to the point, it's obviously not a "new editor," but a sock created to troll.Proabivouac 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On what evidence can we base the conclusion that this user is a sockpuppet? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ both Viridae and Raymond Arritt. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem, there is a half a dozen people watching him including myself - should it turn out to be a troll he will be very rapidly blocked indef. However nothing he did warranted indef blocking without warning. Viridae^Talk 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have gone completely black on this user, but, reluctantly, I agree he must be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to display actual hate before we can assume it. Ronnotel 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The standard should not be hateful views but like everyone else, incivility and trolling-like activities. It should be actually possible to have an editor here who is virulently a racist but is somehow civil (admittedly quite an accomplishment). We shouldn't block on the hatred but should block more strongly (I think certain attitudes justify a lower threshold of acceptable behavior) if there's any incivility or otherwise. I see enough of the "looks like this is a sock of user XX, or this guy doesn't do anything but vandalize or whatever and should be immediately blocked" before any substantive amount of edits have been done and I'm a little concerned about that. We already have enough issues with claims about the clique-like nature around here and sending users off because users (even if it's the majority) disagree with them on political grounds doesn't help that claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW, Karnoff turned out to be yet another User:Connell66 sock. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, as well as User:Kaktibhar. He's been doing a lot of disruption lately; if Jp were to include every sock he's made over the past little while, there'd be quite a few "fascist Bimbo Wales sockzi". ;) Shenerana 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous questions

User:Picture of a cloud has asked a series of worrying questions on the Reference Desk. Links can be found in the third of them here. I don't want his mom and dad to come looking for a scapegoat when their boy ruins his eyes. I'm posting a notice to the user on his talkpage about this discussion. --Milkbreath 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed that section. Isn't that sort of reckless to tell a kid what poisons to put in his eyes? • Lawrence Cohen 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dig it. Thanks. --Milkbreath 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I'm able to make my own decisions, and as I said this was purely hypothetical. Also, I'm a girl, not a boy. Picture of a cloud 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you are also a troll as I suspected, unless you actually are a girl with a large penis. --Milkbreath 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. If the reference desk answers a persons question about a "cool thing" which could possibly blind them, and said person takes the "advice" of the desk, and blind themselves, does that not make us legally accountable?--Jac16888 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer might apply here. Besides, the drops Cloud was asking for aren't available over the counter (in the US, at least) - one has to be a licensed optometrist to acquire those. And even if you do get hold of the drops, self-administering those... man - that's a terrible idea, as is self-administering any medication about which you have no knowledge. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that Picture of a cloud went on to ask a question about how to handle his overly-large penis on Misc ([6]) while nearly-simultaneously asserting on AN/I that he's "a girl, not a boy", my ability to assume good faith here is getting stretched. I've removed his penis question, and I'll warn him not to play silly buggers around here if someone else hasn't already gotten to it first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost definitely a troll. I also see no warning on the users talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

but you know what - even if he was banned with no or a single warning - who'd care besides the wikisocialworkers who rush to AN/I to defend troll accounts? why should anyone care? we spend too much time debating such minor matters. --Fredrick day 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Such trolls should be indef blocked immediately as they aren't here for serious work, they just jerk other editors around for the fun of it and waste everyone's time. -- Fyslee / talk 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman gave final warning, let's see what he does next. Rlevse 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff TOAT's, I was having a slow day until I hit "concertmate" and now everyone thinks I am a little cuckoo :P Dureo 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any ref desk procedure or established rule of thumb for dealing with questions like this? For example, if I ask, "Where can I get coke in Dallas?" or "What is the best way to run a line from my muffler's exhaust to the inside of my car?" People don't seriously try to answer these questions...? • Lawrence Cohen 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously in this case it was okay to answer, because he was asking what the side effects might be in non-medical terms </sarcasm>. This person knows enough to get around the medical disclaimer and get an answer from the helpdesk folks (who naturally assume good faith). I think something needs fixing but I'm not quite sure what. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more procedures than you can shake a stick at - see Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines and specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice, debated ad infinitum on their talk pages and at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Gandalf61 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. Dealing on a case-by-case basis seems to work better at the desks, SheffieldSteel. The guidelines are supposed to outline a certain consensual framework for reference, but there's no need or popular demand for codified procedures on how to handle the occasional user wearing a troll's mask. Ignoring works best. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of a cloud just filed this RFC regarding Milkbreath's username. Time for a block? --Bongwarrior 09:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours. --Bongwarrior 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All that remains to be seen is if the individual suddenly transforms into a useful editor in the next 31 hours or if they are on the train to Indefsville.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This amazes me; why again are we wasting time on someone like this? The user has no constructive edits, asks dumb questions on the ref desk and then makes trollish remarks when reverted. We need to deal with obvious trolls better than this, guys. I'm going to indef. And obviously, if someone asks a question like that, it should be removed, not answered or added to the instruction creep of things we can't answer. Grandmasterka 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the original poster up above was attempting to assume good faith, yet had some very understandible suspicions about this person. Teenagers ask some very almost-trollish questions. So the original poster asked here -- & was given the appropriate answer. You can't assume every person posting unusual questions to the Reference Desk is a potential troll from the get-go. And I notice that the obviously trollish comment right after it required an anon to provide this obvious response! And four hours passed before that thread was deleted.) -- llywrch 23:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but... Those talk page edits really clinched it for me. Grandmasterka 03:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks

As a result of this ANI thread, a few accounts have been blocked indefinitely between Oct. 14th and 15th. Haomo, chaser and me blocked indefinitely a total of 4 accounts belonging to User:Lahiru k. The blocks were based on the evidence gathered at the RFCU case against Lahiru k.

User:Iwazaki tried to explain to me and now discussing it at the CheckUser page that the IPs were "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" (allocated dynamically). I've have been receiving emails for these last days from emails apparently belonging to User:Netmonger and User:Lahiru k arguing about the same. What i could know is that allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. That's "subsequently" tricky. I just don't know if that is acceptable as a justification/defense. Indeed, supposing the IPs are in fact AP doesn't mean that they can be allocated to the same wikipedia editors who happen to edit the same articles w/in the whole Sri Lanka. One chance in a million? Lahiru is a known sock master (back on 2006) and this makes me feel that the blocks are still being justified and preventive.

I'd just like if some people know further details about "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" IPs could please try to tell us about their opinion and see if blocks could be undone. In any case, those set of articles need a bit of more attention. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a thread here and AmiDaniel supplied some info about it.--chaser - t 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Updates I have received some new evidence suggesting that User:Netmonger (who is both User:Mystìc and User:Arsath), User:Lahiru k (w/ a few sock accounts) and User:Kaushini are three different users. This means that they are not sock puppets but we can call them meatpuppets (Kaushini). If any admin would like to verify they'd just contact Lahiru k and Netmonger via email because i can't reveal any personal detail w/o authorization. The evidence is composed of ID cards, Passports details and a gmail screen showing that they are 2 different accounts in contact w/ each other. I've also received some old exchanged emails between these accounts and others showing that they are not the same person. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So is it conclusive that both Lahiru_k and Netmonger both used socks ? Also is it conclusive that these three are indeed meatpuppets ?---User:watchdogb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.81.182 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It has already been conclusive that Lahiru k used socks on 2006 (see CheckUser list). Arsath/Mystic/Netmonger has a different story. These are the three accounts' edit periods (start/end)...

• Mystìc (talk · contribs) 16:17, 18 January 2006 / 07:14, 21 November 2006
• Arsath (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 November 2006 / 10:54, 20 December 2006
• Netmonger (talk · contribs) 05:31, 14 December 2006/04:22, 15 October 2007

This means that the Mystic account was abandoned. Netmonger was then opened while preserving Arsath for exactly a week back on 2006. That is sockpuppetry (though was not longer than a week in a year span) but we can just keep Arsath and Mystic indef blocked since they are not allowed to edit anyway.

The only clear meatpuppet account is that of User:Kaushini and is related to User:Lahiru k. Since the account Kaushini (talk · contribs) has only edited a few edits and have not edited since 04:16, 17 November 2006 then we can keep it indef blocked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So can I ask why wiki pedia process lets sock masters edit wikipedia ? Since Lahiru account used socks wouldn't it then mean that that account must be blocked ? I think so and I believe that wikiprocess also says the same. However, Netmonger account I am not sure about. Watchdogb 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you. If i were the blocking admin back on 2006 i'd have blocked User:Lahiru k indefinitely for being a sock master. {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}. Simple as that. This is what i did in fact in this case. I don't leave sock masters rooming around in cases of abusive sockpuppeting. Nevertheless, there are two points that should be asked. a) what to do w/ Lahiru k's case? He has been using abusive socks but no one so far in 2007. b) is CheckUser a reliable tool? c) What to do w/ ALLOCATED PORTABLE (AP) issues?

I personally believe that Lahiru k has to be unblocked since it appears that he's done nothing wrong in 2007 and i doubt there is an admin who would undo a decision taken by another admin after a year. But if there is i'd really support it. Netmonger has to be blocked for the same reasons. Both accounts were blocked for belonging to the same person when actually they are not. The rest will remain blocked.

The CheckUser system is honestly not effective. You get the evidence but here you are w/ another issue of AP (read AmiDaniel's opinion). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also passport, ID and Gmail account screen shots can be borrowed and/or faked. There should not really be any unblock because of this. Another note is this Allocated IP. No one has clearly said that this is two distinct users who edit wikipeida. So in essence why are we giving special preference to a user ?

Honestly, AP issues have very little to do with it; they may, or may not, be dynamic and we can't see which specifically. I'd really like some clarification from all the parties, accounting for when, and where, they used the colliding IPs and more input from CheckUser about the Mystic/Laihru connection. --Haemo 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have we all of a sudden forgotten a ton of behavioral evidence ? Is anyone really bothering to read that ? Sinhala freedom 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking into that (sharing a POV isn't unusual for those from the same small geographic area, but there are a few other indicators).--chaser - t 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Honostly, can you explain to me why User:Elalan was blocked and Lahiru was not ? When Elalan used only one sock. All I can say is that I am sure there are others who are watching this debate right now Watchdogb 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very enthused about using this as a basis to unblock in part because such things can be faked, but more so because requiring that of suspected sockpuppets strikes me as an uncomfortable invasion of their privacy under the duress of an effective ban. Now that we have it, I think we should consider it, but this shouldn't become a precedent.--chaser - t 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But by doing this indeed you are setting a precedent. Its like we are rewriting and applying laws as we like with selective attention span. Sinhala freedom 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is basis for unblock, then it should. Otherwise this is hypocracyWatchdogb 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is wikipedia against Tamil Editors ? Is that why Lahiru can have socks and Elalan can't ? Let me know Admins. Why are you considering Lahiru's appeal not Elalan who was claimed to be sock by a fake wikipedian (ESSAJAY). I am sure Tamils are watching this injustace by wikipedia. Watchdogb 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on Watchdogb's talk page, we're looking into this and haven't come to any decision yet. He shouldn't assume anything until that's done. I will consider future invitations to evade process as disruption and will block accordingly.--chaser - t 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand but how about users who are blocked who come and edit in their SSP case? Is that not in direct violations ? Or am I missing something here ? Watchdogb 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, technically. I think in this case blocked SSPs were told to only edit their talk page and have mostly stuck to that.--chaser - t 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no special treatment at all. I simply have had no idea who is/are Elalan and User:Trincodab. If you want equal treatment i'd ask you to bring some evidence they are not the same. i'm not a detective and i'd assume good faith and we are dealing w/ normal people though disruptive and not w/ criminals falsifying documents. i can easily verify that if i were a detective. If you could i'd definitely do the same and treat the Elalan/Trincodab w/ the same fairness.

And the CheckUser system is functioning well but when it deals w/ AP it turns into unverifiable (as in our case).

Lahiru k should have been indef last year and as i said above, it wasn't me who dealt w/ his 2006 case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem that everyone should consider is that not all passports or other id are created equal. Sri Lanka's yellow id, anyone can recreate in their basement with a disposable inkjet and a laminator. Sri Lankan passports, unfortunately are not taken seriously by most Western countries since it too can be easily faked. I doubt there are holographic indicators even now. As a results to get a visa, lots of other forms of id and verification from third party individuals are sought. Sinhala freedom 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry guys. I admit I jumped on the horse and started to act without WP:AGF. I will let the admins do their job as they have no axe to grind in this matter. Hopefully everything will work out for the best of wikipedia. Watchdogb 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With due respect I would like thank User:FayssalF User:Chaser User:Haemo for being impartial and looking at the issue from both viewpoints.You have shown what a firm and impartial Admin is.Thank you.Wikipedia runs because of Admins like You.

Earlier in Netmonger case .Netmonger misled that the account from which an email was sent to Wikiraja Even refusing to accept or refusing accept or deny is okay but going to extent of saying this My email address is my actual name, which I cannot reveal here. I mail only to users whom I know personally[7][8][9]

Assuming Good Faith an admin unblocked with an apology. Netmonger could have privately emailed the Admin and told him so.Further if your email and chatname is the same and your email is from a Popular service like Gmail or Yahoo.It only offers semi privacy as it is easy to guess and has happened in many chatrooms.[10][11]username and email same from Yahoo or Google offers little privacy.But replying from an email which I do not know but unarguably offers greater privacy is intriguing.But refuse to accept an email account which the same as his Wikipedia name only makes it more suspicious.Further he has used account 1 day after being blocked and posted the personal information of a user with whom he has had content dispute with another account Arsath.[12] . In contrast Lahiru has been great contributor to Wikipedia and oppose blocking people for there views,.Through I differ with him strongly ,I had accept his POV at times when they were backed by his arguments.I was really sorry to see him blocked unlike Netmonger who has used account to attack WikiRaja and post personal material against another user which Lahiru has not.Netmonger was blocked and then unblocked with apology later it was found he lied and blocked again to avoid this .[13][14]

Please note Arsath created Netmonger account and started editing even when the issue was in arbitration regarding his earlier block.[15]and it was declined.

But now it would better if the decision is refered to [16] to an Arbitration Committee for any unblock it should not be the Netmonger situation [17] where one is blocked and then unblocked and again blocked after it is found out he lied it is far to complex otherwise if an unblock is warrented I feel it should be done only by the Arbitration now as it has reviewed by another Admin and the block upheld .Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No action has been taken yet and we are still looking at the matter in depth. It is really a mess but i am confident we will arrive to a fair decision very soon. Until now the accounts remain blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins I also want you guys look into whether accounts have been shared, that is two accounts one in Sri Lanka and the other operated from USA, although operated by two individuals at times is also operated by single individual whenn needed such as violating 3RR, voting in XFD's when the other party is asleep. The evidence is langauge skills. The account holder from Sri Lanka has poor English command where the US account uses Queen's English but sometimes the Sri Lankan account starts using the impecable command of Queen's English. Infact we have evidence of the US account holder forgeting to sign on when trying to do some clean up of the Sri Lankan account. This can be caught only by checkuser of specific time frames. This issue is tantamount to taking the entire Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia organization for a ride by a bunch of people. So I think this really needs to go to Arbcomm. Thanks Taprobanus 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah no. This case won't clutter the ArbCom page. It will be resolved here. We are still dealing w/ it. It is just about time gathering all elements and solve the puzzle. This is what i think. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FayssalF. A lot of this is happening via email and isn't readily apparent on-wiki. Please give us time. ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution.--chaser - t 05:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The case already went to Arbcom in the Mystìc (talk · contribs) case.and was declined.[18]Hence was the suggestion to take it to Arbcom.Now the Same user has created another account just a day after he was blocked even when Arbcom was going on.I feel it should go the Arbcom particurly in the netmonger (talk · contribs) case.Further Netmonger has misled Admins in the past.Anyway have full faith in your judgement.Pharaoh of the Wizards 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can what User:Taprobanus said be looked into please ? Watchdogb 12:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Could Taprobanus provide us w/ some diffs? That would be helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that 131.104.219.176 is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 70.15.116.59 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 70.15.116.59 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy which applies is WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. User:Serafin's comments should be removed and those who seek to obstruct tackling him persistently should be blocked. Sciurinæ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and general disruption

Cliffs-Notes version of the situation: Four editors were edit and revert warring on the Winter Soldier Investigation article, so I requested (and received) a Page Protection to motivate us to discuss the edits. One of the four, JobsElihu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), decides to wait until the protection is lifted before engaging in discussions about his edits. When I informed him that I would request an extension of the protection if we haven't yet reached consensus, it didn't sit well with him. He suggests it will just have to stay protected forever. When I later asked him again to discuss his edits and sources, I get this response, with an edit summary that threatens, "I guess we can just keep it locked." I have deleted his latest comment. His threatening to hold up discussions is one thing, but I took offense at the untruths and personal attacks he made. He has reinserted his comments each time I delete them, even though they violate WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I'm requesting someone give some "administrative encouragement" to JobsElihu to engage in discussions and consensus-building, and to refrain from personal attacks. If I start dropping warning tags on his page, I'm sure he'll view it in the wrong light.

I noticed his account is less than two weeks old, so my first inclination was to just patiently try to work with him. However, I also noticed that his very first edits used inline citations, Wikifying and detailed editing. He has also taken to lecturing various editors on how Wikipedia does things; what rules certain editors are violating; he has been canvassing support for (just) his positions; etc. Not sure what to think now... Xenophrenic 09:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking someone to check whether he is a sockpuppet of one of the other people involved in the dispute? Good luck. Geo Swan 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is only one other editor that shares a similar position with JobsElihu, and they have markedly dissimilar writing styles -- I doubt they are related. Even if he is a sockpuppet, the problem here doesn't involve him using sockpuppetry to his advantage, as far as I know. My focus here is to have him stop inserting personal attacks [19] and start discussing his past edits and proposed edits so we can reach consensus. Instead he refuses discussion. His past half-dozen visits to the article talk page are to re-insert personal attacks and nothing else. Xenophrenic 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see an Admin has tried to suggest to JobsElihu here that his comment wasn't helping, and that he should take direct steps to try to resolve the problem. It looks like Jobs lectured the Admin on making "amatuerish and unwelcome comments" and borderline personal attacks, but Jobs did say he would take steps to resolve the problem. So far, those steps consist of re-inserting his personal attacks on to the talk page several more times. Xenophrenic 22:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angela Kennedy, User:MEagenda

I have indefinitely blocked the above users, in line with the Wikipedia policy on no legal threats, for this edit from Angela Kennedy and this very similar edit from MEagenda in particular. I have informed the users that they can be unblocked at any time if they rescind these threats of legal action. Would appreciate feedback, having never really taken action on legal threats before. Neil ☎ 10:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. My only problem is the daft idea that, after those who made the threats (typically grudgingly) rescind them that we do indeed unblock them. Legal threats are a spiteful attack on members of the Wikipedia community, with the clear goal of intimidating them into compliance or silence. Those who issue unambiguous threats, such as this one, should be permanently excluded for Wikipedia, regardless of whatever post-hoc wailing they make when the find their bully tactics have repercussions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Finlay's response was before I mentioned MEagenda was also blocked (although I think the response would be the same?) Neil ☎ 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusly so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by (somewhat) involved editor: My personal impression is that AK is doing two things here: (1) accusing JzG of libel and (2) requesting information/material to be used in possible legal action against Prof. Wessely. However, I can see how it may be interpreted it as a legal threat and would hesitate to propose unblocking. I would advise the editor to accept Neil's offer and retract the problematic text. (A request for said information/material can be made via foundation e-mail; since the editor appears to be corresponding with Mr Wales, who was the designated contact last time I checked, it would be easiest to simply ask him). PS The same applies for MEagenda. Avb 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These blocks seem completely unfounded, since the 'no legal threats' rule applies only to legal threats against users, not outsiders. There is really not an obvious legal threat, either. One can see a limited potential for a legal action, but it has not been announced. I am therefore kindly requesting to unblock both users. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guido, they will be unblocked when they retract any legal threats. To me, it reads like they are threatening the preparing of legal cases against Guy Chapman / User:JzG. That is, by definition, a legal threat. Without even looking, I guessed you were not neutral to this, and a quick look of your contributions shows you are not. Neil ☎ 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Can someone other than Neil take a look at this? There is no legal threat against anyone. There may be a legal issue with Wessely, who is not a user, and that's all what can have been implied. Guido den Broeder 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. User:Angela Kennedy: "Guys comments here... are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel... I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails... to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way." ([20])

User:MEagenda: "If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with." ([21])

Either those are textbook legal threats against an editor, or we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, most likely, both of the above. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about: She wants to go after Wessely. If Guy thinks she has libelled him, forward the evidence to her so her lawyer can deal with them (IE, Defend her). That is what I get from the gist of the whole matter. Legal threats against Wessely and defense against Guy. Spryde 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I still read it as threatening to unleash a solicitor upon Guy, and I note Angela Kennedy has not denied that on her talk page in response to the block message. Even if we go with your version, Spryde, whoever they may be against, they are legal threats. NLT does not draw a distinction betwen legal threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or non-Wikipedian groups or people, and nor should it. Neil ☎ 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just pointing out another angle people may have not considered. That is all. Spryde 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Point by uninvolved editor: It probably should raise some red flags when someone's username contains "agenda". shoy 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Point by involved target: I never said who did the harassing, and certainly not down to the level of individuals, only that Prof. Wessely told me in an email that he had been harassed and threatened. It looks very much as if they were trying to iport their external battle, whihc is what they've been doing all along. I have no real opinion on the block, other than that it probably saved a tedious ArbCom case. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'm very serious, I'm inclined to consider this an abuse of power. It further troubles me that after my comment above, I have been called a liar by Neil, and suddenly the article ME/CVS Vereniging was deleted without discussion. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to? Guido den Broeder 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the admins on this: these are legal threats. However, why was User talk:Angela Kennedy deleted to remove the history? Also, why was Guido not alerted to the addition of the speedy tag to ME/CVS Vereniging (eg with {{nn-warn-deletion}})? Guido openly admits a COI in this matter; I hope the admins here hold themselves to a similar level of openness and transparency in their actions. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the ME/CVS vereniging discussion should go to DRV, rather than be shlepped along here for an unrelated reason. Guido should not have created the page to begin with, and it most definitely did not assert notability. We don't have articles on very large UK and USA patients' organisations (thankfully) for CFS/ME patients.

As for deletion of Angela's and Suzy's talkpages, accusations of libel were being made on Angela's talkpage. When I attempted to challenge these accusations, my posts were reverted. The only upside was that the user briefly stopped making threats. The wikilawyering would have continued on these very talkpages.

The subject of the article in question, Simon Wessely, has a number of critics. One is Malcolm Hooper, associated with MEaction.[22] Another is Martin Walker.[23] Most of the criticisms have been made on websites and in blogs, in self-published books, and in publications by membership organisations. A big WP:V problem, in other words. The only external sources on the conflict that we could identify were a newspaper article in The Guardian (which was challenged) and a short mention in an unofficial report by MPs (the "Gibson Report"). The latter source makes an unsourced mention of harassment by patients' activists, which is why Kennedy & MEagenda attacked its use so vocally. Never did JzG or myself directly accuse any person of harassment, and this troublesome comment was never actually part of the Wessely article.

I would hope some admins would be kind enough to keep Talk:Simon Wessely on their watchlists. The feelings that have fed the most recent spate of edits are not going away. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct way to address the removal of ME/CVS Vereniging, an article that was added in light of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands, is to approach the administrator who removed it. This I have done; I am now waiting for a reply. Please refrain from suggestive remarks v patient organizations ("thankfully"??). Guido den Broeder 11:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to JzG's accusations, see [24]. Guido den Broeder 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "thankfully" because any article on a patients' association is fraught with WP:V problems. Also, I am entitled to my opinion. I am more than a bit worried by this user's further attempts at reopening the debate on Talk:Simon Wessely,[25] as well as less than pleasant remarks at MastCell (talk · contribs) on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis.[26][27] JFW | T@lk 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong picture : Christopher Paul Neil

In the article of Christopher Paul Neil[28] a picture keeps being added wrongfully. The posters claim it is a picture released by interpol, but on their website the picture is nowhere to be found [29] although other pictures can be seen. I find it offending that a unconfirmed picture of (in my opinion) someone else is shown in the article of a known child molester.

[30] [31] [32]

edit: I see other people have been worrying about the same thing: [33]

Avlan 12:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• The image is here - http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/vico/Default.asp The image is credited to the Thai government, and is therefore public domain. Neil ☎ 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the image he means - I removed the other one, one that Meanlevel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to provide evidence that it is of the subject (it's not on the page Neil shows). Clearly WP:BLP applies here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk

(okay , that got garbled: it should read "one that Meanlevel uploaded, for which I've asked Meanlevel to provide evidence...") -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is Image:M a1b76234bb1cccac7e17b26b5d87cfb4.jpg, which does not have adequate sourcing information. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed the one I mean, it was back just now and removed yet again... Avlan 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That picture was taken by the statue of the comedian Eric Morecambe, in Morecambe, England, see here. Not sure why Christopher Paul Neil would be there. Nuke it. Mr Stephen 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The person (or person's) who have been adding this are still at and once again close to violating the 3RR rule. Davidpdx 13:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the picture as a BLP violation. Eugène van der Pijll 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page, and blocked the IP that kept reinserting the image. User:Meanlevel probably warrants looking at. Neil ☎ 13:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Another new editor who magically finds his way to WP:AN and WP:AN3, knows the proper usage of {{indef}}, and can use uw-warnings, all in their first ten edits... east.718 at 13:56, 10/19/2007

Actually, you're right. I have indef blocked Meanlevel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which seems like a single-purpose account intended solely to troll. Feedback welcome. Neil ☎ 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I feel bad, because I'm responsible for the indef block on JWiamlmeysTNUC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as I was assuming good faith with Meanlevel at the time, and it may have clouded my judgement. Could you please review that block too? east.718 at 14:21, 10/19/2007

I would say block of JWiamlmeysTNUC was entirely appropriate after scanning his charming contributions such as this and this. Neil ☎ 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He's clearly a disruptive account, solely here to cause trouble and defame whoever is in that picture. I support the block — I would also like to commend Avlan for bringing this too our attention. --Haemo 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problematic images (the Morecombe one, and the one titled M...) were of me (both have been my recent mySpace profile pics, which he seems to be collecting). My pet stalker is obsessed with calling me a peadophile, and making it known that he knows where I work, etc.). He's spent the last week or so leaving links to the BBC News stories about this case on my user pages. (See my talk page history.) His latest account is similar to my real name. I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve. You may recall I brought it up on here a couple of weeks back. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the vigilance. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I had db'd the image because it looked suspicious and am appalled it was of one of our editors. I suggest lots of vigilance and deleting of any suspect pictures appearing on this article (its the second controversial pic that has been added in the last days), SqueakBox 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelocasio continues to accuse editors of serious criminal acts

I had earlier (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive312#User:Angelocasio_accuses_another_editor_of_committing_criminal_acts) drawn attention to these postings by Angelocasio [[34]]. Unfortunately, and even after being given a warning, Angelocasio has continued to throw abuse about and make slanderous and offensive accusations, both on the entry's [[35]] talk page and in Angelocasio's own talk page. His most recent accusations like "none of you see anything wrong with harming children" and are "defending child predators" and (on his talk page) "Meowy likes the violation of innocents" are seriously over the top. I request that something stronger than a warning be given, and that his offensive and legally slanderous comments be erased. Meowy 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the "l" word. That said, I would support a strong {{uw-npa4}} warning on this user or perhaps a block for disruption (non-admin). x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin with preconceptions wiped out my proposal and wrote over it with his own

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_closing I requested my proposal that had been open for 7 days with 25 supports and 18 opposes be closed. I was hoping it be approved. However, an admin who previously started a The proposal, as it stands, is a massive waste of time section on the talk page of this proposal decided to wipe out my proposal and open his own. It is conceivable that some might agree to reconsider an alternate proposal, but I believe many would have closed debate as proposal approved because after the debate started at 10 oppose and 7 supports some tweaks were made to the proposal and it started meeting with great approval as revised. Is it appropriate for an admin with preconceptions to wipe out a proposal and write over it with his own?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting him? That would be the proper first step, not coming here. -- John Reaves 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

*scratch head* You eked out a 58% majority for a proposal to change the main page and were hoping that would be interpreted as consensus? Am I missing something? —Cryptic 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the totals were 58% overall, but the responses after modifying the proposal were 69%.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there is overwhelming support to change the main page. The question is which of three methods to use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way. This is my suggestion to him: "There is overwhelming support to put FLs on the main page. There is some skepticism about how this particular proposal would play out. However, people have given support, especially since the proposal was tweaked. Since this mechanism will have voting results on December 20th for Main page inclusion starting on January 1, we experiment with the voting and if it does not work out submit the nominees that were voted upon in sequential order of promotion date starting with January 1 main page inclusion in either case." That would be my suggestion given the responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I marked the original proposal as rejected due to lack of consensus, the rebooted proposal is proceeding. A couple of observations: bear in mind that any proposal that will result in changes to the Main Page will require very high levels of support (so be sure to advertise the proposal well), and take care that you get the process ironed out so that everyone is clear what is actually being discussed. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a high level of psupport to change the main page. There are just 3 or 4 alternate proposals. In all, 4 skeptical supports, 9 specific opposes and 4 various opposes would probably be mollified if we could show voting would work. The system gives 10 days to set the calendar after the conclusion of voting each month. If in any month the results are unsatisfactory (I.E., voting did not work), we would have 10 days to switch over to another method and scrap the plan. We should run with the plan and use the first in line system as a backup. Since this process takes 2 months to run you can not do it the other way where you go with the first in line plan and switch to this if you don't like what you get.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird and trollish behavior from Scottandrewhutchins (talk · contribs)

I happened to come upon this [36]. As you can see, this person created a redirect titled "Most overrated film of all time" and directed it to "Rocky". I tagged this as db, so hopefully you can still view the history. Going through his talk page, it looks like this particular person has had quite a few problems with this kind of thing, among other ill-advised behaviors. I warned him for his vandalism redirect, but it seems like more is needed here since there's a long-term pattern of various kinds of vandalism. Has been blocked for 3RR in the past. The Parsnip! 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He also created this serious WP:BLP violation based on a totally unreliable source. There's a mixture of Wikignomish and highly disruptive edits in this user's history. It seems like a troublemaker trying to fly below our radar. Any other opinions supported by evidence? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Parsnip!, can you invite the user here and we'll ask them directly if they understand why these edits are disruptive. Perhaps they can take advantage of WP:ADOPT to learn what's appropriate and what's not. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've placed an invitation on his talk page. Let's see if he heads over. The Parsnip! 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3-revert thing was unjustified. Someone was lording over the Gremlins page and wanted the lesser takeoffs ignored, even if supported. I admit this edit was inappropriate and will do better in the future. I think you will agree that of my 8,000+ edits, the vast majority have been beneficial. I'll have to curb my occasional urges to be snarky. I'm not sure what was wrong with the (SOMEGUY) article, which I thought was a good faith edit, even though there is snarkiness in choice of subject matter. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With (SOMEGUY), who's name we won't mention here, there was a report at thesmokinggun.com alleging self-inflicted dismemberment. The problem with the underlying article was that thesmokinggun.com isn't a reliable source, and that underlying content should have been deleted. I have deleted it. Adding a redirect to that content using (SOMEGUY)'s name isn't really fair to that person. Wikipedia has high visibility. We're not trying to damage people's reputations. The incident with redirecting "Worst Movie Ever" to Rocky wasn't really productive either. I love making wisecracks, but I don't do it here. Whenever I get the urge, I use the preview feature to see what my funny edit would look like, and then I don't save it. Sometimes, I go to a site like Slashdot where that sort of behavior is condoned. Can you please agree to keep it serious here, and don't go overboard with the snarkiness. If so, you'll be fine. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is, courtesy of our friend Herostratus, though, one form of snarkiness that is encouraged here... Joe 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I thought since they were actual police report scans, they wre valid, but I think you're suggesting that there is a possiblitiy, however unlkiely, that they are forgeries. Also, he is referred to on the page that I redirected to, and much of that information is in the Jerry Springer episiode, which was popular enough to be released on VHS as a complete episode, so they certanly do not constitute original research. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rbraunwa appears to have passed away...

There was speculation on WP:AN (and the topic seems to have been archived) that Rbraunwa had passed away, and sadly, I think the rumors are true- Rbraunwa's account just added an obituary to his userpage: [37]

R.I.P... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Very sad news. Jimbo has protected the user page, and at the same time, I have locked the account, per policy. Feel free to undo that if there's any reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The account locking is fine; it is within policy (that I remember; we did that to Rob Levin's account after he passed). I extend my condolences. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My most sincere condolences. There is no point in unprotecting the userpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This might sound a bit morbid, but has anybody ever proposed a {{deceasedwikipedian}} template? Or would that be beansish? Caknuck 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but I don't think this should be templatized. Mercury 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

His family sent me a note about his passing. Robert and I worked on the Spanish Viceroy articles, mostly Robert, but I translated some of the Indian ethnobotanical terms and did other work, and we e-mailed each other on occassion. He had been ill for some time. I think locking his user page is fine. He was a fine editor, with a keen curiosity, and great fun to bounce ideas off of, because he was the only person I've ever met, other than myself, who reads extensively from the Spanish naturalist studies of the New World. He read them largely for his Viceroy articles, but knew all the ships and kings and explorers. He added a lot to Wikipedia, by the way, with his articles. We're pretty unique for all of his work. I will miss a lot. KP Botany 07:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Please don't categorize him as a "deceased Wikipedian." He didn't fit neatly into any categories. KP Botany 07:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this news. I've created an entry on Robert at Deceased Wikipedians.--Alabamaboy 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article move

I recently came across the recently created article, Developing Community of Midvale Park. However after looking into the page history and user contributions for User:Mexican Sponge, I discovered that the article was a recreation of the article, Midvale Park which is now a redirect page to Developing Community of Midvale Park. There was no discussion prior to this move. Could an admin please take a look. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think the problem is, and what do you want admins to do? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Thats why im asking. Surely you can't just perform a potentially controversial move with no discussion but im not sure in this case. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pages can be moved boldly. Discussion really only needs to precede moves if a reasonable person (sorry for being vague) would predict the move to be questioned or reverted. Anyway, the actual mistake that was made here was making a new article instead of literally moving and rewriting the old one. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any text copied that the GFDL would be concerned with, so it's not so big a problem, although an interested admin could merge the article histories to fix any potential problem there. Someguy1221 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.I wasn't really concerned about the cut and paste as it is a complete rewrite but since no one has disagreed with the move. I guess theres no problems. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 11:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Wikipedia policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's going to "trivially extend" the arbcom ruling? He's rewriting it altogether! --Marvin Diode 14:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of El C. Three cheers, stopping a massive edit war, showing initiative, and an action that shows exactly why IAR is policy. My mood has been lifted. It's Oktoberfest, Bratwurst and beer for all! -M^ask? 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Tenacious POV-pushers give us much bigger headaches than simple vandals and trolls. And they strike at the heart of the project by consciously making our content unreliable. Raymond Arritt 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The nice thing too is that "indefinite" here does not mean "forever" - the FlaggedRevisions extension, should it prove fit for purpose, will serve nicely to keep pages like this under control - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a new and innovative approach that renders Wikipedia:Dispute resolution obsolete. Where there is a protracted content dispute, an admin may simply decide that he prefers one gang of POV pushers over the other, then join the gang that is to his liking and enforce its version of the article. No need for consensus, either. And what is more, there is no further need for the arbcom, now that User:Georgewilliamherbert has ignored all rules, stepped up to the plate, and simply done their job for them. --Marvin Diode 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That you have been a pro-LaRouche POV pusher on this article has no bearing on your opinion, of course - David Gerard 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some evidence to substantiate this personal attack? --Marvin Diode 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of page protection policy

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes says that:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

User: Georgewilliamherbert has been a participant in a recent content dispute at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Today he reverted to his preferred version of the article, then protected it, in violation of policy. --Marvin Diode 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he's ignoring all rules to end a pernicious edit war on this page. It makes sense in this context, and is buttressed by the ArbCom rulings on the topic. See the above section — the pernicious LaRouche edit-wars have already led to special provisions against pro-LaRouche versions of articles, against regular policy. This is a logical extension thereof. --Haemo 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom decisions don't say anything of the sort. They say that if someone adds references to LaRouche to an article where it is inappropriate, then admins may protect the version that doesn't mention LaRouche. This is an article about LaRouche, and it appears to me that GWH is protecting a BLP violation (which is never supposed to happen.) --Marvin Diode 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to enter the BLP discussion on the article talk page. If a reasonable case is made to that effect then I or another administrator can fix the article text. Protected articles are not frozen; they are just not currently world-editable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Georgewilliamherbert in this. (If you would really prefer, I'll go unprotect it and protect it myself, since I've not been involved.) POV pushes need stopping, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It's not an IAR, it's entirely per the spirit of the arbcom ruling. - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Three cheers for User: Georgewilliamherbert and common sense. WAS 4.250 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? What's wrong with semi-protection and liberal blocking of edit warriors? --Tango 00:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edit warriors here have long-standing accounts. --Carnildo 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the blocks are for. If certain people are persistently edit warring on an article, it is generally best to block them, rather than protect the article - protecting is good for forcing discussion and resolving the war, it doesn't sound like this war is ever going to be resolved, the people involved just need to be stopped. If you are worried about them just logging out or creating new accounts and carrying on, then you can semi-protect. --Tango 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's page protection was an appropriate way to deal with an increasingly difficult situation, and might make some progress possible. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the arbcom decision actually says, versus User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension"

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) The essential thrust of this decision was to prevent User:Herschelkrustofsky from adding references to LaRouche to a variety of articles where LaRouche or his opinions were not notable. What User:Georgewilliamherbert is attempting to do, is to write his own arbcom decision, which says that if an article about Lyndon LaRouche or his views is protected due to edit wars over the removal of material which is alleged to violate WP:BLP, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which is the "the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version." A "LaRouche supporter" is defined as anyone who disputes the edits of User:Cberlet or User:Dking, who habitually violate WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP on a broad range of articles, not just the LaRouche articles. I have added little or nothing about LaRouche, either positive or negative, to the LaRouche articles, or any others -- my role has been to object to policy violations by Cberlet and Dking. In the course of doing so, I have become quite familiar with the LaRouche arbcom decisions, and User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension" of them is in fact an entirely new policy which should not be represented as in any way related to what the arbcom decided. --Marvin Diode 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You may notice the lack of interest and support for your wikilawyering on this point. I wonder why that is. - David Gerard 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:CorenSearchBot tagged me as copyvio the same minute I created the article for the second time this week

• [[38]] Today User:CorenSearchBot tagged my article as copyvio the same minute I created the article. Look at the article history. And not only that, the bot was wrong and accused me of copyvio of a site that was itself a copyvio. User:CorenSearchBot said I had copyvio http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/Hendricks.htm when actually that site is a copyvio of the source I cited in my footnote. If you look at the article history you will see what I am saying is true. The footnote citation was for http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/346/case.html.

• [39] Here User:CorenSearchBot tags me one minute after I created the article on October 10.

This is nerve wracking. As I tried to explain to User:CorenSearchBot, in the first minutes of creating an article an editor is worried about not losing sources in the browser and not losing edits in wikipedia if things are slow. And at the same time, to get a message flash, then an instant delete template in the same minute or one minute after creating an article is not right. This is not a good way to treat editors. Thanks! --Mattisse 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... It's a bot, not a human. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What you should do is delete the copyviol warnings and proceed as normal. Coren's robot will not fight you; it's not a Terminator or a Cylon. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, though: like all robots it will try to take over the world if you turn your back on it. HalfShadow 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! My master plan has been revealed! Aaaaaauuugh! — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding the stress to me of the worry of losing edits in the beginning. I know I am not sophisticated so probably this is a joke to you. What can I say except it definitely will change my edit behavior to avoid the bot harassment as it is so stressful. --Mattisse 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, CSBot will ignore sources it knows are okay, or articles which are tagged with an attribution template it knows about. Its message is quite clear that simply removing the tag if it was wrong about the copyvio is the Right Thing to do; and cannot delete articles (and, indeed, does not tag them for deletion— but for human attention).

While I am sorry that you are distressed by the tags, it serves a useful, and needed, function and since the actual trouble caused by the occasional false positive (need to remove a transcluded template) is trivial, I can think of no reason to modify its behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean when you say the bot ignores articles that are O.K. It told me I had copyvio a site that itself was a copyvio, a site I did not use in my footnote citation the bot was complaining about. And it did this in the same minute I wrote the article. --Mattisse 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I'll just cut back for a while until that bot calms down. Truly I deal with daily electrical outages and such, so losing edits because of the tagging within one minute stuff is a real concern to me, aside from the bot harassment. Plus having to chase down inaccurate bot reports is a waste of time. I spent several hours today trying to figure out what happened, until I finally saw that the bot was plain wrong. Maybe I'll stick one of those 1911 templates or the other template on the article the bot guy suggested for protection in the beginning to buy a couple of minutes before the bot harassment begins. Just so things are not so nerve racking for me. Thanks, --Mattisse 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you're stressed over this; just remove the template. Your article was tagged because it had lots of quotes in common with the other page. Even if you don't remove the template, someone is going to manually check it before deleting it, so there shouldn't be a problem. --Haemo 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have one question. What, exactly, do you mean by "losing edits"? CSBot cannot cause you to lose an edit; at worse, it will cause an edit conflict which you can resolve trivially (by cut and paste from the bottom box), losing no time (and, indeed, getting rid of the tag in one fell swoop). — Coren ^(talk) 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One word: notepad.exe -- But|seriously|folks  04:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Notepad.exe does not work. I have tried. I get the error message from it saying that it cannot save wikipedia stuff because what I want to save contains formatting it does not recognize. Also when you say "cut & past from the "bottom box", what do you mean? Please, between power failure (frequent where I am) and wikipedia not saving because "it is having problems" I have lost many edits anyway. It is usually not crucial, except when I am creating an article within the first few minutes. My article that you tagged in the same minute I created it had lots of quotes in common with the other page because the page you accused me of copyvio was itself a copyvio of U.S. court opinions. It was a personal student page in the U.K. which appears to be completely composed of copyvio of U.S. court opinions. I had to hunt that down as I had not used that page as a reference at all. Your bot made that up. So I removed legitimate references before I figured that out by going back and looking in the history of your bot accusation page and saw that you were accusing me of using a reference I did not use -- an obviously unprofessional, student page with no credence that I never would have used anyway. I think the suggestion of putting a protective template on it in the beginning is the best. That will (hopefully) give me five minutes or so before the bot harassment starts. I'm going to stop with the legal articles anyway, as U.S. Supreme Court opinions are the only articles of mine that your bot seems to harass. Thanks. --Mattisse 12:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The page that the bot identified used public domain information (the same as you) so it wasn't a copyright violation. The bot was not talking about your references, it was talking about the text of the article. I get the impression that you think adding a reference somehow makes things not a copyvio. If you copy verbatim a copyrighted source and add a reference to the source, it is still a copyright violation. You can quote a source under fair use, but you have to make it obvious it is indeed a quote. -- JLaTondre 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I did not copy it. I wrote some of the article and I used quotation marks where I quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court decision, just as hundreds of articles on that decision do. But the whole article of a couple of sentences (remember this article was perhaps 25 seconds old when it was tagged) was not a quotation. When writing on a Supreme Court decision it is helpful to start with what the court said. We are talking about two sentences here, part of which was in quotation marks and referenced with a footnote. And no, I am not so dumb as to think that "adding a reference to a source makes things not a copyvio". How can I make it more obvious that it is a quote than putting the parts that are a direct quote in quotation marks and giving a reference citation for the source? --Mattisse 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you had copied it. -- JLaTondre 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Losing editors due to the bot's current configuration, as we have with Matisse now not working on Supreme Court articles, is unacceptable. I strongly recommend for the second time that CorenSearchBot not place a template on the article and not notify the editor, but instead only list suspect pages at WP:SCV. The editors working their, then, can investigate the article, including the article creator's contributions, and make an informed judgment to tag or delete the article, engage in discussion with the article creator or drop the case. --Iamunknown 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The flip side of that though is the author would have no knowledge that their article has been identified as a potential copyvio and would not have a chance to respond to the complaint before someone took action on it. How would Mattisse has reacted if someone had deleted it before he got the chance to say it was public domain? While I don't have strong feelings about the tags, I'm not sure that not having them helps solve the problem of false positives. -- JLaTondre 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would seriously hope an admin would not speedy delete an article created by an experienced contributor without first engaging said contributor in discussion... --Iamunknown 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem. The bot is identifying articles that are 25 seconds old and are not copyvio as copyvio articles. What is the point? Either I stop the article and go fiddle with bot and its notices -- which kind of hinders creativity in the first 25 seconds, breaks into the cognitive flow of creating an article -- or desert the article which I am going to do. My choice. Plus now I see the bot focuses on mental health law, court decision and crime issues, so I will write about issues the bot ignores like T.V. series episodes instead. Mattisse 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot doesn't focus on anything. It simply does takes text of new articles and searches it against the web. It doesn't care what the article is about. -- JLaTondre 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is the same whether it is an experienced editor or a non-experienced editor. -- JLaTondre 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse has tagged a bunch of articles (apparently all created by him) as copyvios for deletion. This is disruptive and unacceptable, so I have told him to not do it any more or I will block him. --W.marsh 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong block review

I received an e-mail from User:The Technodrome's Toilet asking for help after being blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It appears that Ryulong has blocked him/her indefinitely as a sockpuppet, without a checkuser, and in the middle of a Power Rangers content dispute. I'm no expert on the subject matter, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that the person is a sock. Hasty and overly harsh blocks have been a Ryulong problem in the past, posting here for review. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked because the evidence was damning at the time, and still is. In a checkuser that did occur, it did not turn up that he was either user who I suspected him of being, but then again, he was utilizing open proxies, and several other accounts were found.

Even though there is no evidence to show he is a sockpuppet via checkuser, he still has a bunch of edits that resemble both sockpuppeteers in question (baseball-related edits, Power Rangers edits, removing the "fictional" qualifier to an article on a particular character, trying to delete the page of that same character, etc.), as well as the hoaxes that he has admitted to. This block does not come from any dispute. I saw that he was editting a page that I have watched because I'm preventing it from becoming a page totally based on rumors, and I looked into his past edits that resemble two particular banned users that I've encountered.

We should not let a user who has admitted to screwing with the project be allowed to continue to edit it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking on the basis of sockpuppetry seems a bit hasty given that the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EddieSegoura is pending. However, from his talk page and deleted edits, TTT seems to think creation of hoax articles doesn't offend anyone, so I'm not rushing to unblock. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining/looking into it. Like I said, I'm no expert on Power Rangers sockpuppets. Not sure why the user picked me to e-mail, except that I was involved in Ryulong's RfC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an episode list for a series that doesn't air until February 2008 and everything here is either nonsense or a hoax (mostly fake films or nonsense TMNT references, like his username).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I know that Eddie is still editing (he told me via some recent emails) but I'd be surprised if this him. The language and writing style seem very different to Eddie's. But that said, I agree with AnonEMouse with regard to hoaxes etc and don't feel inclined to rush to unblocking someone who has so blatantly attempted to undermine the integrity of the project. Sarah 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the block rationale to reflect the actual evidence that was received from the checkuser, as well as why he should remain blocked, even if it isn't Eddie or CBDrunkerson (who is believed to be Eddie, regardless).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These points make sense to me. For what it's worth, the username probably needs some work as well. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've declined his (third) unblock request. If the only reason he won't create hoax articles is because other people don't like it, he still does not quite get it IMO. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, isn't that a bit too much like keeping some guy in jail for a crime he didn't commit because of his bad attitude? Not very professional. Michael2314 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• CommentSo now you just keep him in jail and retroactively change the charges? Come on fellows, you're better than this. Michael2314 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a random bullet from a wacked out author 'Cataschok'

Wacked = Continues to insist Jesus Christ is the Asian Master and Ruler of the Universe, and is wiping out new user pages, and laughing at people. Remind me what I did again to be the target of this?

• 03:51, 5 December 2006 Cataschok makes Jesus is Asian...http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=92149755

• 03:51, 5 December 2006 Cataschok gives the newly Asian Jesus a promotion to the Master of the Universe...http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=92149976

• 03:53, 5 December 2006 Cataschok wipes out instructions on the new user page for user [Z3da 9.2]...http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_page&diff=prev&oldid=92150246

• 03:57, 5 December 2006 Cataschok's racial characterization of Jesus didn't go so well, so he goes back to see if he can make the changes stick, insisting that Jesus is: 1) Asian; 2) The Master of the Universe; 3) The Ruler...http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=92150846

• 02:55, 12 March 2007 Obviously getting nowhere he begins to play God, Cataschok has hacked and currently been unchecked in modifying the model of the correct of the Earth...http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EGM96&diff=prev&oldid=114449955

• 03:00, 12 March 2007 And for some reason, stops to whipe out my new user page and laughs at me...http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cataschok&diff=prev&oldid=114450846 & http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Imlookingnow&diff=prev&oldid=114450743

Imlookingnow 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This fellow, Cataschok, has only made three edits since December 2006 and that was 12 March. I recommend you just forget about it and move on with editing. Sarah 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I have some things to report about Imlookingnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks like a disruption only account. Besides the above post I see evidence of:

• Soapboxing, canvassing: [40]
• COI editing: [41] - note the use of "we"
• Disruptive editing: [42]

This user hasn't been warned yet. I suggest we leave them a message setting clear limits with a statement that further disruption will not be tolerated. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Soapboxing, canvassing. Rebuttle - Thousands of articles have been deleted. I wanted a reason for the obnoxious removal of content. I got it. Don't a agree, and have moved on. I would hope that 9 million people would ask for something different. A majority of Authors here want a (1) page artile on WoW. I don't get it. We could offer so much more. Imlookingnow 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• COI. Rebuttle - Anyone that read the messageboard for the game Auto Assult knew it was being shutdown a year in advance. In addition, the company refunded customers time cards and gave them parting gifts. Without this information, there is a dark light on the company. Myself - I was too busy to play the game, but my friends told me about the shutdown in advance. So, I knew not to buy it. Imlookingnow 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Disruptive editing. Rebuttle - This was a new article. Not an edit. The purpose of the article was to describe the shapes a valley can form and the variance of the term basin. I have summers of geology field labs, and formal education on the topic although I do not consider myself an official source. Imlookingnow 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(These three edits are in fact helpful. However, to pursue a person after they identify others removing content, and others that are down right wrong leaves a feeling of concern. This person deleted the instructions to use my home page. If you know them, I'm sorry for turning them in. Please tell them to behave. My intension is to identify and help. Not to get them in trouble. Cataschok may think they are funny. As funny as they maybe, they still need to add value. Please have Sarah give my apologies to Cataschok for identifying the problem, and welcome him to continue his behavior? I'm kind of lost here, feeling hit by one truck, and then backed over by a bus. Ouch guys.) Imlookingnow 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel my message was like being hit by a truck. I am simply observing that the user has only edited three times in the last ten months and not at all for the last seven, and therefore, it is most unlikely that you will be able to find a responsive admin. No, he is not a friend or otherwise known to me. I have only responded as an admin who reads this page. I saw that you are still fairly new and inexperienced here and I was just trying to give you a response instead of ignoring this messages as most admins would tend to do in cases of reports of such old edits. Cataschok's edits were inappropriate but they were warned for the vandalism they did back in December and I am not prepared to act on the three edits made since then. If they return to editing and begin vandalising your pages again or you see them vandalising articles, please let me know on my talk page and I will block them or deal with them otherwise as appropriate. Sarah 13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New sock of banned user Jason Gastrich

From my comments on Jason's RfA: Along_the_Watchtower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - "New" account that removed critical site URL from a number of Wikipedia pages, including archives of talk pages and the pages of inactive users. This would indicate that this "new" user knew what to look for and where to look from long-inactive discussions, issues, and users, with the intent of removing the URL, in part, to violate WP:POINT. See the edits by Ronaldo847 and this off-site commentary, which vaguely references those edits and the aftermath. Additional comment: Though there is a sock-puppet reporting procedure, given the wrath and discord that can occur in these instances (see, for example, the history with Really33), it's probably best to see if there's an available administrator to address it at his or her convenience. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 03:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's not entirely clear to me why we would need to preserve the link, which is to a highly opinionated piece. We know about Gastrich's vanispamcruftisement and "Gastroturfing". If it were any other living individual then I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with removing the links. If you are completely determined to retain them, try unlinking and leaving just durangobill.com. As it stands, these are no more necessary than the long term abuse pages. Yes, it would be helpful to have an archive of such things somewhere (e.g. in a non-indexed area of Meta), but we don't need to keep them on Wikipedia itself, I think. We really don't want to give any impression that linking to blatant offsite hate is in any way helpful to the process of building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well put and, in fact, I agree with you. I'm less interested in retaining them than I am in making sure that Jason doesn't continually try to game the system with false identities and remove the links for all the wrong reasons. In my comments to Jason last even, you may have noticed that I was explaining to him that his method of removing them was not the correct method, because he is, in essence, demanding adherence to rules while violating those rules. I included a comment that the way to remove the links would be to get an advocate for that that has no particular interest in retaining them, and I even volunteered to act as that advocate. I can certainly defend their inclusion when compared to Jason's gossip group, but I also think that we can, at the least, discourage its future use and consider, even, removing references. I excised that portion of the commentary before saving, in part, because I knew that Jason would never go for it, but also because my comments were already very long and, in my view, quite futile. I'm frankly not sure why I saved any of them. I appreciate your efforts. - Nascentatheist 09:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Done and done. Let me know what you think. Again, I don't really think we need to keep them, at all and, really, if it were up to me, all of those silly, juvenile conversations would be relegated to archives. My issue with Jason was the mechanism that he was using to remove them, as well as his motivation, which is more about "sour grapes" than it is about whether or not others are following the rules. Thanks, again. - Nascentatheist 10:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Sigh. After the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev (and my amusing, if embarrassing, original mistake there) I've spend some amount of time looking through the contributions of Sadi Carnot. What I see there is a large, elaborate a subtle walled garden of pseudoscience— probably for the purpose of hawking his books (or simple self agrandizement).

Besides Georgi Gladyshev, Human molecule, Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity which seem to be the core of his garden; he makes large numbers of sometimes subtle vandalism to many articles related to thermodynamics using his own website as source to justify them. Many of the edits lie at the edge of my personal knowledge of thermodynamics, but given that his sources are unfailingly looping back to his website (humanthermodynamics.com) or that of another dubious institution related to him (endeav.org), and that they feel fishy, someone with better topic knowledge should probably look at the whole bunch.

The user has already admitted to being the author and owner of the site being pushed.

I dislike making personal allegations against a specific editor, and I am loathe to run through his contributions by myself quietly (I don't want this to look like stalking), but at this time I am convinced that we are either facing the perpetrator of a long and elaborate hoax, someone working at self-promotion, or simply the promoter of a fringe theory. — Coren ^(talk) 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In April 2007 I mediated a case between Sadi Carnot and User:Hkhenson about the Capture bonding article. We saw similar problems there. It may be useful to ask Hkhenson for further information. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked for it, the registered contact person for humanthermodynamics.com is:(DELETED personal info, no need to identify the editor here - JEH) Keith Henson 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Keith. I am sure you posted that publicly available info in good faith, but I don't think we need details about the user posted here. Should that information be needed, we will ask you for it confidentially. If you want to add comments about Sadi Carnot's editing, feel free to do so at the bottom of this long thread.- Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When you are talking about something as serious as banning an editor, I disagree with you with respect to details. "Sadi Carnot" claims on his user page a double major in chemical and electrical engineering. His alter ego, Libb Thims, claims the same plus "PhD Biochemistry / MD Neuroscience (in progress) - UC Berkeley." I didn't yet and may not check up on the Berkeley claim because the claim is outside of Wikipedia. In Sadi's favor (assuming he is the identified person) he *does* have a double major in ChE and EE--which makes his connection to this fringe business all the stranger.

BTW, anyone who uses the Internet, especially when they are trying to determine the reliability of information should be aware of tools that are much like looking in the front of a book to see who published it. There are direct ways and also web based tools. For example, http://www.dnsstuff.com/. If you go there and put humanthermodynamics.com in the "whois box" it takes you to the name Jehochman deleted. From there it's just putting the name in Google. This doesn't work if someone goes to a little more trouble. For example an associated web site, humanchemistry.net takes you to a web hosting service that is a dead end for finding out who is behind it. (This site uses Time, National Geographic and Wikipedia to give it credibility.) Keith Henson 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I've notified the editor) — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The referenced Capture bonding mediation can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23_Capture-bonding . I'm glad for that record, because it shows the kind of mess that Sadi Carnot makes of any article that he takes a strong interest in. As with all pseudo-scientists, it is always difficult to distinguish the charlatan from the fool. If I assume good faith, he has no capability of distinguishing fact from fiction, and is a dangerous editor. If I trust my instincts, I lean towards an elaborate hoax. He has at least one apparent sock puppet (User:Wavesmikey). Given the use of sock puppets, and my belief that he is consciously creating fraudulent articles, I heartily recommend a lifetime ban on the editor. I think it is worth forming a committee of people with greater depth in some of these topics than I have to go through every article he has touched and verify that his edits were not harmful. Capture bonding should simply be reverted to the state before he ever touched it, and someone should send poor beleagered Keith Henson a note saying that he is free to fix it without further sabotage.Kww 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson may need outside help. He's written about the topic and wants to cite some of his own work. Those citations may be appropriate, but they should be reviewed to prevent COI issues. Looking at the article history, it seems like Sadi gave up on capture bonding. The article has been sanitized. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, I more or less removed the BS Sadi Carnot added to capture-bonding and stuffed it into another article capture bond. If anyone want to delete capture bond, it's fine by me. Capture-bonding could still use some clean up work if anyone wants to. Sadi did "wikify" articles in addition to stuffing them with BS. Keith Henson 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the proposed community ban, Sadi Carnot has a clear block log. Within the mediation he said he's written a ~500 page textbook. The most plausible explanation is that Sadi has WP:COI and WP:FRINGE issues. Within the mediation he cited WP:COI. He's familiar with the guideline so there's no need to warn him. If he's weaving his own book references and novel theories into Wikipedia, that needs to be stopped immediately. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack! It's worse than I thought: 132 links are peppered all over! — Coren ^(talk) 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (added:) Although many of those are in AfD for bits of his walled garden. Still around 40 in mainspace. — Coren ^(talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost a year ago, when he created the Extra-Long Article Committee, Sadi Carnot seemed to have limited understanding of the way Wikipedia works. Since the Project was deleted, I can't provide examples, but it was quite frustrating and he tried the patience of even those who originally supported his goals.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The account hasn't edited since October 10 when the hoax was unmasked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. To prevent further damage or spamming, I am going to indef the account because it's clear to me that it's been used primarily for long term, subtle vandalism and COI editing, causing serious, widespread damage. Let's discuss this and see if any admin is willing to unblock. Establishing a community ban will be helpful because it will allow us to immediately revert and block any socks that show up. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here object to going through those contributions and scrubbing the links away? I'll do so tomorrow (now is bedtime) if so. — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been on a wikibreak for three weeks and just returned from a trip to London from Australia. I am surprised by this discussion. Sadi Carnot has tried my patience in the past but I have always thought he was well-meaning. His contributions to articles on thermodynamics have always been in good faith. The discussion above does not mention the wide range of articles where I have come across him. As the jet-lag fades, I will try to look into this. --Bduke 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A possibility might be a ban on him adding links to his website or citing his own work (or that of the "institute"). I've looked over the website and it does seem a strange mish-mash of serious references mixed up with polls and fringe theories. There are references to articles published in mainstream journals - but I would suspect that those papers would be, well, more restrained than what is said at this website. The journal (humanthermodynamics.com/Journal.html) also looks like a self-published effort with not much I can see in the way of credibility. For the "institute" (humanthermodynamics.com/About-IOHT.html), the "who are we" (humanthermodynamics.com/about-us.html#anchor_126) list starts off poorly and rapidly gets worse (scroll down the bottom). The best qualifications I can find are a PhD in polymer chemistry and a PhD in mathematics. It is also rather small - the core group is only about 10 people. Also, see humanthermodynamics.com/Science-or-Pseudoscience.html for a discussion of science vs pseudoscience for this "human thermodynamics" topic. I have to conclude that this is a fringe theory, and at best original research. We don't want it on Wikipedia until it becomes accepted by the mainstream (and I doubt it ever will be). At the most (per undue weight, a very small footnote somewhere with one link. No more. Carcharoth 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, capture-bonding and capture bond are confusingly similar and look like content forks. The issue needs to be resolved in one article, rather than splitting them like this. Though on a second look they do seem to be describing something different, but the titles are too similar and need to be disambiguated. I also agree that Keith Henson, as a researcher and publisher in that field, needs to beware conflict-of-interest concerns. Possibly someone else needs to write that article, not him. Carcharoth 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Capture bond is where I put the unrelated material I cleaned out of capture-bonding. If someone wants to delete capture bond in the general clean out of Sadi stuff, that would be fine by me. As to me being a "researcher and publisher in that field," it's a claim I would be reluctant to make. I used capture-bonding only as a minor example in a long article I wrote and credited John Tooby (who really is a researcher). Keith Henson 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this is his editing pattern. FWIW, this is Wikipedia's greatest weakness: someone subtly weaving a POV (or pet theory) into a large number of articles by doing large number of subtle edits over a long period of time— this makes it less obvious there is a problem because when he makes one of the edits, it seems to be supported in other articles.

For that matter, he also adds lots of citations and references... but when you actually read the referenced papers they turn out to be either completely unrelated, or misrepresented so badly the author would be livid if they knew about it.

I've been checking some of the subject matter of his edits, like [43] which he's been continually trying to push on Genius, Goethe and others despite numerous attempts by everyone involved in those articles at making him stop. When he gets sufficient resistance, he simply moved to another article.

I fairly confident we can stop assuming he's doing this in good faith. He's either willingly trying to push his pet theory into WP, or he's been constructing an elaborate hoax. In either case, it should stop. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If Sadi Carnot wishes to continue editing, he can ask to be unblocked, and we can discuss the conditions on which that will occur. An indefinite block doesn't mean "forever." It means, "until the problem is resolved." I personally wouldn't unblock him until he recognizes that what he's been doing isn't compatible with Wikipedia's purpose, and he undertakes not to edit the articles or subject areas where problems have occurred in the past. Additionally, he should join WP:ADOPT to be paired with an experienced editor who will monitor and assist his editing to make sure there are no relapses. Bduke, I think Sadi Carnot may become a good faith editor, but right now he doesn't understand how to edit Wikipedia and he's causing tremendous damage that involves many articles. My block is designed to prevent further harm until we can come up with a better arrangement. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to block Wavesmikey as well, or he will just immediately switch to his sock when he feels the need.Kww 14:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Clearly the same user. Can you please check if this alternative account has been used disruptively and report back here? For now it's just blocked because the main account is indef'ed. If there is evidence of a disruptive sock puppetry that needs to be added to this case. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman suggested that I comment on Sadi's editing here. I had rather not and just point you to [[44]]. Keith Henson 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged Wavesmikey as a confirmed sockpuppet because the account suddenly stopped editing when it's contributions were exposed as pseudo-science. Activity then shifted to Sadi Carnot. The use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is a form of disruptive sockpuppetry. Be on the lookout for additional socks. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactored live links to the spammed sites above, we don't want this page being locked up after blacklisting. MER-C 04:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spamming

This is much, much worse than we first thought. The problem is not confined to the English Wikipedia. I ran a all-wiki spamsearch on the domains

• humanthermodynamics.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• humanchemistry.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• endeav.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

and this was what I found:

Can someone take these to the global spam blacklist please? MER-C 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Tsk, tsk. I've report this to m:WM:SPAM, and I feel confident that our friends there will take care of it. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(Only some 20 links to "humanthermodynamics.com" exist outside enwiki, and I am quite convinced not all of them were added by the same user. Perhaps not so much of a problem compared to what you have here :-( /SvNH 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Community ban

Folks, User:Sadi Carnot has been indefinitely blocked. As requested by User:Coren User:Kww, this will be considered a community ban if no administrator is willing to unblock. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, let me point out that I did not request a ban, simply pointed out a problematic editor; although I fully support it. — Coren ^(talk) 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to unblock him at this time. I want to look into it further and also hear from him. Above I was merely pointing out that in the past he has had lots of good edits to mainstream articles such as Entropy. He also sorted out a major problem with Energy and related articles. I was not even aware of his interest in fringe science but I have worked with him in the past on mainstream science. He is a little difficult to work with, but lots of editors are. I think he needs to be told to stick to mainstream science. --Bduke 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of multiple accounts is very problematic. If you look at the sheer volume of self-promotional links and POV pushing, this looks like a determined COI editor who does a few good edits to establish cover. Of course, as I said above, if the editor is willing to admit mistakes and agree on editing restrictions and mentorship to avoid further problems, I am open to him returning. However, I think it would be a serious mistake to let him edit again before we have those assurances.- Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this, let's leave him blocked for a couple of week and maybe he'll cool down. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been engaged in a two-year campaign to push his fringe theories, spam his own website, and twist a large number of articles. This isn't a simple edit war. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban per extensive evidence of cross-wiki spamming above. This is one of the worst cases of x-wiki spamming I have ever seen. MER-C 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• It turned out that some of the links were added by unrelated users, so this isn't as bad as I first thought. Still endorse, as spammers aren't welcome here. MER-C 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks like the droppings of our friend spread to other wikis by well-intended transwiki, not because he went there himself. The damage, however, is still just as real. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - socking, spamming, original fringe research pov pushing (if not warring). --Rocksanddirt 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Sadi Carnot certainly appears to have been a very naughty boy in his recent attempts at autopromotion, but he has also made made legitimate edits in the field of thermodynamics, particularly to entropy. As such, an indefinite block as a "disruption only account" is inappropriate.

The user page is currently tagged with {{sockpuppeteer}}. The "confirmed sockpuppet" Wavesmikey has edited exactly three times in 2007, all of those on 7 March. Other than this single occasion, the account has been inactive since December 2005. The only suspected sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot is an IP address which only ever edited on 24 May 2007. Hence, the allegation that Sadi Carnot is a disruptive sockpuppeteer has no basis in evidence.

This case stinks of a witch hunt: given the obvious weakness of the current block, I am taking the unusual step of lifting it with immediate effect, so that at least this user has the chance to comment should he so wish. Obviously, this does not imply any condonement of spamming one's own book. Physchim62 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to do that. Should this user return to old ways, you will be responsible for the resulting damage. We didn't say that he had never made a productive edit. The situation is that the vast majority of what he's done has been spamming, COI editing and POV pushing. Have you read the above evidence, or did you unblock because WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that there's been a "witch hunt", such as an indication that those presenting evidence have an axe to grind? I think it's exceptionally rude to allege bad faith against others without evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that the "good" edits to entropy appear very suspicious to my eyes. I don't know quite enough to tell you for a fact that they are wrong, but they read off, and "mysteriously" match the vapid original research that can be found on his site. Expert attention needed. — Coren ^(talk) 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason he's marked for sockpuppetry is that he changed accounts after the first one was caught spamming. Using multiple identities to evade detection is considered disruptive sockpuppetry. The fact that he did it before indicates that he may do it again, so this information is highly relevant. It also demonstrates bad faith rather than a simple misunderstanding. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Project Participation

User:Sadi Carnot is listed as a participant in WikiProject Engineering and WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering (any maybe more). Should he be deleted from these lists or placed in an "inactive section" (if it exists for that project)? Let me know and I can make the change for the two Projects listed.--CheMechanical 03:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could remove him from the lists for the duration of the block or ban. It would helpful to notify those projects of what we've discovered: a pattern of pushing fringe theories, spamming, and subtle vandalism. The projects should check to see whether Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has damaged any of their articles. They should also watch for similar behavior coming from other accounts, as those could be sockpuppets. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I just joined these projects this afternoon and thought about it a little more, I'm reluctant to outright delete his user name at this point. I would be willing to add a NPOV (factual) notice with a link back to this incident. What link should I use so that it can be seen even if archived?--CheMechanical 03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done I added notices on both project pages linking back to here with a note that followup has been requested by Admins. I don't know how to make the link permanent, but I figure something is better than nothing if the integrity of his contributions in these areas is in question. I don't know how (yet) to find out what other projects he was involved in, so someone else will have to track these down and notify those projects.--CheMechanical 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just found User:Sadi_Carnot's list of projects at User:Sadi_Carnot/Miscellaneous and he's shown as being a member of only two WikiProjects...the one's I've already identified. No harm in anyone else double-checking just in case.--CheMechanical 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I left messages at both of the concerned projects' talk pages. MER-C 06:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have informed the Chemistry and Physics WikiProjects. --Bduke 07:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I noticed on reviewing this case (I endorse the ban for the record) that he was unblocked about an hour ago. Orderinchaos 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bigleaguer

User keeps reverting to POV edits on the page for Campus Watch. Asked him politely to discuss the edits with me, which he has refused to do. Even blatantly reverted another user's clean-up. I don't think he's a sock, but I think he needs a talking to. Just had to revert another POV edit. The history is here. DodgerOfZion

To add to this, Bigleaguer's edits appear to be to disrupt Wikipedia by repeated violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OP. If you look at Bigleaguer's user contributions, almost every edit to multiple articles (mainly Jewish related articles) were reverted as blatant policy violations. It appears he wants to downplay any criticism or negative facts about Israel. He even went so far to change Israeli “settlements'” to Israeli “communities.” He does not listen to other users about the inapproiateness of this edits, does not follow WP:BRD, and continues his edit wars. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible new account of old user

To whom it may concern, A user claims to be Jaranda and now just wants to use this new account or a renamed account instead of the Jaranda one, which seems problematic to me, because Jaranda has lots of blocks (see this). The new account does not and so that seems to potentially hide Jaranda's past. This new user indicated that he hopes to have the old edits moved to the new account, but I just want to make sure that the block history will be moved as well, because if not then it is unfair to everyone else who has ever been blocked if their block history is not effectively expunged by moving to a new account. I am also a bit concerned someone who still thinks Wikipedia is a "failure" and who has been using this alternate account since apparently abandoning the other account a couple of days before creating the new account should be permitted to retain administrative tools. From my own experience, I am all for editors having second chances, but I just want to be sure that if others start over with their block history evident then this condition is shared equally among members of the community and again, I am a bit concerned with an admin thinking of the project as a failure. I hope this forum was the right place for expressing these concerns. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of a single one minute long block, every single entry there was either self-performed, self-requested, or later overturned. It's not a big deal. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, though, part of my concern is that this second account has been around for about a month and only recently posted on the user page that it's a new account of the old user. That coupled with the admission of seeing the project as "somewhat of a failure" seems a bit distressing for an admin. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I could put what I want in my userpage, a few other editors has them. I only admitted my new account yesterday because of a email I got exposing it, I was going to keep it hidden. Now that I admitted it, I requested the tools back. I told several people beforehand about the new account anyways via IRC. Jbeach ^sup 04:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but intentionally trying to use an account secretively before being "exposed" still seems to cause reason for concern. If you're willing to have the block history transfer over and still have confidence in the project, then I am willing to assume good faith. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But there's nothing wrong with coming back under a new name and not telling anyone. If you're not sockpuppeting, and you're not evading sanction, then you're allowed to do that. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would still feel a little more comfortable if in this instance the previous edits/blocks are somehow able to be transferred over, just for the sake of history. If the bit about thinking Wikipedia is "somwhat of a failure" does not result in unproductive edits, then I'm fine with assuming good faith and hope that the return is a productive and pleasant one. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to have block histories "transferred", generally if that's requested, we issue a 1-second block on the new account saying "See User:Whatever". But as has been said, no substantive blocks were on the previous account, so I don't really see how that's a big deal. Jaranda, I'll be honest — I don't think you should get the bit back without a reconfirmation. I completely understand why you were upset, I agreed with you at the time about that article, and having been the recipient of a completely ridiculous potshot from Jimbo before, I know how it feels... but that doesn't really excuse using the tools in retribution, and I think that you have to undergo RFA since you -requested the bit under some form of a cloud. Perhaps a cirrus. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Me and Raul654 asked the opinion of the admins IRC channel when getting the tools back, and they all said ok. I only did one poor deletion, and I apologied for it, and many people did much worse with the tools. As for block logs, they are irrelavent, as it's mainly I blocking myself or I requested, the one that isn't was quickly overturned. Jbeach ^sup —Preceding comment was added at 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fussed. Jaranda did contribute a Featured Article so is trustworthy. Somebody better tweak Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor to contact about tweaking WP:WBFAN is Rick Block (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to write more FAs in the near future, along with User:Nishkid64, and User:Wizardman on baseball topics ;) Jbeach ^sup 05:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Err... I'm sorry, but the opinion of the admins' IRC channel is rather irrelevant. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I would (probably) support your resysopping, but I don't think this is quite so clear-cut. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Has it been noted anywhere that Jbeach56 is really Jaranda? If he is, it's great he is back (as far as I'm concerned, the reason for leaving was nothing to do with admin tools), but I think it would be good to have some confirmation on wiki (not IRC) from another user that they are satisifed that Jbeach56 is Jaranda. Preferably the user who made Jbeach56 an administrator. I'm trying to find out the log for that. Ah, it is here. Is that user rights log sufficient as a record that Raul654 believes that Jbeach56 is Jaranda? If so, that's good enough for me for answering the question about confirming who Jbeach56 is. In other words: We need clearer confirmation that Jbeach56 is Jaranda because admin tools were restored. Carcharoth 11:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that confirmed on IRC or something? ie. Did Jaranda (who I presume had a handle on IRC) confirm that he was operating the Jbeach56 account? Just as a voluntary desysop request requires the user to confirm by editing his account and leaving a note to this effect (I think that's right), surely a resysop request should require the same thing? If he lost his password, was there a committed identity? Can an IRC handle substitute for a committed identity? Can the word of trusted users vouching that Jbeach56 is Jaranda substitute for a committed identity? Did Jaranda not have an e-mail address enabled to recover the password? Carcharoth 13:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was right about the need to confirm identity for voluntary desysop. See meta:Requests for permissions: "If you want to request that your own status be removed, please don't forget to place a note on your local user talk page (preferably with an English translation). This is required to prove your identity. And then add the request here." - surely the same process should apply in reverse for voluntary re-sysop, regardless of whether it is a new account or not, in order to have some proof that the same person is requesting the resysop? Carcharoth 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am certain it is the same person, both because I trust Raul not to make a mistake like that and because of other evidence offsite. Viridae^Talk 13:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that as well. Just wondering what the normal process would be. Carcharoth 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bbatsell above, how is a conversation on IRC enough? If the opinion of a group of admins was wanted, it should be done on Wikipedia. After performing a pointy deletion of a controversial page this request should have been done here or on another more appropriate page. When IRC is useful it's in a case where quick action is needed. There was no hurry here and it gives the appearance of picking a familiar/friendly audience to make the request to. IRC should never be used for something like this, and I don't care who responds a snide zomg, cabal! comment. RxS 13:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note here, but so long as the bit wasn't taken away by arbcom/office staff, they don't need approval of anyone, really, to get it back. Some do request reconfirmation as a way to ease community feelings and re-establish trust when they think it's needed (see Danny) but even then the standard of their RfA is quite appropriately lower then a user without previous admin history (once again see Danny). And seriously, who the hell sees cabal everytime someone talks to someone else? It's just dumb. Assume some good faith. Less snide, more i-wish-people-would-cut-that-out. -M^ask? 14:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that when they wanted some admin input they went to get it on IRC. That's not the place to get input that's not time sensitive....RxS 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jbeach was using Jaranda's cloak when I promoted him. You can't associate the cloak with an IRC account unless you prove that you are the same person on-wiki, and thus the reverse holds true. Therefore, I concluded they were the same person. Raul654 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, this was a bad move

While I am for admins coming back under a different name, I am in opposition to Jaranda/Jbeach56 (Jorge) doing it. Jorge has a long history of flipping out, quitting repeatedly, and de-adminning. The last time, he intentionally abused his tools with the sole purpose of getting emergency desysopped. He is untrustworthy and notoriously unreliable, and should not have the bit back.

And since Jorge brought up IRC, its fair game to point out that he has stone-cold lied to several admins on IRC about his intentions and whether or not he had a sock puppet another account. When concerns were raised a few days ago about his access to the admins channel, he was asked straight out whether or not he had another account, and he said he didn't.

Jorge lied to the admins in that channel at that time, violating our trust; he has repeatedly shown that he is unable/unwilling to handle administrative powers; he is unstable and unreliable; and my own opinions about the poor quality of his administrative work aside, it seems clear that there should have been some community discussion about giving the bit back to a user who has a tendency to throw a tantrum, quit, and desyssop whenever anyone looks at him funny.

Its only a matter of time before he does it again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I wanted to make that account secret like many other former or gone admins and editors are doing, but I got a fucking email by some troll exposing that account because of my editing patterns and the name (too similar to my original name (Aranda56) and I was forced to come out. Anyways most of the people who was in the IRC channel whom I trust found out about the new account in IRC via PM (ask the 10+ admins who I told), and seriously I don't trust you for my life. And also I can't access my old account, the password is scrambled and the email was disabled, and note I'm having a hard time confirming the email for this account, if anyone can help. Jbeach ^sup 19:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that it wasn't a sockpuppet if he can't access the old account. Viridae^Talk 13:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And there is a significant difference between a sockpuppet and an alternate account. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda quit the old account before it was desysopped for some truly awful decision making (if he had not quit, he would have been desysopped, unquestionably), waits out a reasonable amount of time and comes back with a new account which gets sysopped on the dl, seemingly because he's an IRC regular. I really think this should have gone to RFA. Neil ☎ 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that when you quit and then return, you start over again. This is more than a simple name change; and the circumstances around his return have been shady. It seems that only after being "exposed" did he decide to ask for the admin tools. There is no reason why J shouldn't receive the tools, but through the proper channel of RfA like anyone else. Then there would be no controversy. If he was a valuable admin, then the RfA should be a cake-walk. It seems that this is one among several aspects of his return, where J thinks that WP should have been frozen in place during his absence. The world does not work that way and neither should WP. --Kevin Murray 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any major problems with the actions taken. In a case like this, IRC is identical to email, and as Raul highlighted a request by a user with a cloak has to have been authenticated by that user with a password known only to themselves, so is arguably better than email. IRC is only problematic if it is used as a tool to raise a particular outcome collectively without on-wiki knowledge of the association, which is not what happened here. Orderinchaos 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Shaljan creating deleted article, removing tags, removing talk page comments etc.

Shaljan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recreated a deleted article on a nn subject and is now edit warring on it removing tags. See the earlier deletion discussion here. He has also added/ and keeps on addings his own name on List of Non-resident Indians. Further he removed a comment from talk page without any reason. [[45]. He used IP socking to edit war. 69.156.144.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clearly is his ip. It is time he is made to stop. 59.91.254.107 05:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted A. M. Shinas as just a repost, and warned him about the rest. I've notified him about this page so let's see if he stops. It would be fairly obvious if someone else was doing the exact same edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SPA

Well, the asked time I asked for help for help on this issue I was bant for a week, so I hesitate to even bring it up, but could someone please block this single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Simplifiedmusings. It's clear he's just causing trouble edit warring (he just reverted changes that included an interlanguage link, certainly not a productive revert), mocking Privatemusings (talk · contribs) with his name and has created a userpage to avoid suspicion. Milto LOL pia 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. But I've got a question: how does creating a userpage help one avoid suspicion? Picaroon (t) 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because having a blue link on your name in edit histories, signatures etc. gives off a better initial impression than a red one. It's a trick I've seen, and is always done by people like User:Anomo sockpuppets, who I suspect this was. But I guess who it is isn't tto important, thanks for the block! Milto LOL pia 05:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a very common tactic, the first edit of most socks is to create a userpage and talk page. Sarah 07:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, but, Miltopia shouldn't be telling anyone: "called for your head at ANI". That is a violation of our No Personal Attacks policy, a policy Miltopia has shown keen interest in as of late.--MONGO 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it; this dude was trolling, which means he has a sense of humor. I'm sure he knows I was goofing. Milto LOL pia 09:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I will worry about it...I really don't think you should be making what could be seen as a threat of violence.--MONGO 09:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I had blocked Semiprivatmusings earlier today. El_C 09:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Um...well, no doubt, both accounts appear to be spoofs of User:Privatemusings...but even that account claims unabashedly that they are also a sock account. Are simplified and semi the same editor?--MONGO 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The same editor as whom? Each other? Affirmative. The original Privatemusings? Negative. El_C 09:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a checkuser on semi and simplified...my hunch is they are different...rationale...semi could have edited the NPA policy and not needed to create a new account just to evade 3RR...since he/she wasn't edit warring lately.--MONGO 09:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit far-fetched, but yeah, maybe; I still wouldn't waste the energy. El_C 09:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum...okay. Perhaps you can have a word with Miltopia to not use such potentially harsh comments again, sockpuppet or not, civility applies across the board.--MONGO 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he got the gist of it, but I don't think the line between civility and intimating violence was crossed in this case. El_C 10:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but that is in the eyes of the beholder. Regardless, a civility warning is definitely in order I think.--MONGO 10:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so at all. Being blunt, something you're known for and stand up for regularly, is all he's done. Stating that he posted about the issue elsewhere clearly removes the 'i want to commit violence on/to you' interpretation, and if anyone looks here, as directed, they would see the clear meaning. No NPA vio to my eyes. (Just the two cents of another beholder.)ThuranX 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Being blunt and saying that you have asked for someone's head are two very different things...the latter is fine, the former is not.--MONGO 17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(Former Semiprivatemusings) I am not the same editor as Privatemusings. I will inform users whom I trust and respect what my main account is. It is in good standing. MusingsOfAPrivateNature 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, first you will promise to create an account that bears no similarities to that particular username, or the autoblock, this time, stays on. El_C 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this acceptably dissimilar for your tastes? MOASPN 02:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Third attack on me via edit summary: now I'm pissed

The edit summary in question is:

(Undid revision 165772791 by ILike2EatShit (talk))

This is by anon IP 76.87.220.233. I trust this might get someone's attention here. The first couple of times I was annoyed but let it slide. Not this time. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried telling him that abusive edit summaries will not be tolerated? Any warnings, at all? ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Dynamic IPs mean blocking is ineffective, so I indicated semiprotection would follow instead. This is confined to a single article.--chaser - t 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, I didn't bother contacting them because 1) it's an anon. IP and 2) I'm basically a nobody around here w/no particular powers, and thought it would be better to have a warning come from someone with some authority. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who warns who; as long as the warn is given. Administrators don't usually block a user without warnings. And most vandals don't really identify users with authority anyway. The ones I come across stop after the first warning. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppetry by Mike Garcia

Resolved

 – Rudget _{Contributions} 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this user, which has been confirmed by Miranda as a sockpuppet of Mike Garcia also have created this user? I suppose it makes no difference now as they've both been blocked, but I was just wondering whether the "Acalamari" version could be added to a sockpuppet cat. It makes sense as they were created less than 24 hours apart, see [46] & [47], and the similarity between the usernames is striking. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and tagged as such. It was already blocked as a name vio. Rlevse 12:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Long article title

Resolved

 – Rudget _{Contributions} 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the longest title in Wikipedia, this page has been recreated twice this month (last time 11th October), could it be protected from that? Rudget _{Contributions} 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, it's also vandalism Rlevse 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Cypercrash1-12

Continues vandalism. Vandalised Mother Teresa, Grover Cleveland‎, Pope John Paul II, Polish language, Rutherford B. Hayes, Pepin the Short, E-40, United Nations -- Radical-Dreamer 12:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, and if appropriate add the user to AIV instead of here. (i.e Your request will be handled quicker) Thanks, Rudget _{Contributions} 12:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear...BIG meatpuppet problem

Resolved

 – Issue being resolved via talkpage. Shadow1 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're about to have a big meatpuppet problem on First-person shooters - read the post here dated 2007-10-16. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That article was sprotected the day after that message was posted and the protection doesn't expire until October 30. Sarah 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a registered account in the mix. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/68.54.56.198. I've requested full protection at RFPP. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found two meatpuppets:

• User:HavenBastion
• User:71.3.217.217

They are both backing up the meatpuppeteer on Talk:First-person shooter using the same argument. It could be possible that they are "aging" accounts to circumvent semi-protection. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to move to full protection at this point. Looking at the article's history, there hasn't been any edit warring for days now. I think it would be better to let them continue discussing the links on the talk page and just keep an eye on the situation. Sarah 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears as if this issue is being resolved via the article's talk page. Both the SSP report and the RFPP were closed, so this issue doesn't require administrative attention anymore. I'll keep an eye on the article for the time being, and re-protect if meatpuppets become a problem again. Shadow1 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock trolling through an anonymous IP

• Special:Contributions/76.31.110.124
• Was warned twice: [48] [49]
• Blanked both warnings: [50] [51]
• and resumed trolling [52]. Also note the subtle way that shows familiarity proving sockpuppetry. User attacks through edit summaries.

--Irpen 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hr. If the IP editor really thinks someone has an evil secret socialist agenda, then edit summaries are not the proper venue for warning the community. Indeed, it's nearly worth deleting the edit summary. Geogre 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets of ReplayamongXX

Resolved

 – 21 and 22 indef blocked by me. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Administrators. Please block some obvious sockpuppets.

• Replayamong31 (talk · contribs · logs), account created at 21:23, 3 October 2007 UTC, indefinite blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise at 21:32, 3 October 2007 UTC. The life time was only 9 minutes.
• Replayamong21 (talk · contribs · logs), account created at 20:39, 3 October 2007 UTC.
• Replayamong22 (talk · contribs · logs), account created at 20:46, 3 October 2007 UTC.
• Replayamong23 (talk · contribs · logs), account created at 20:47, 3 October 2007 UTC, indefinite blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise at 12:49, 20 October 2007 UTC, as trolling.

As per username and account creation time, all of them are by obvious same person. Although I had thought that they are throwaway sock account, but Replayamong23 ran today. I request to block remains 21-22 as blocking evasion. --Nightshadow28 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image renaming

We can rename articles, but we cannot rename images. there have been countless bugzilla request for this feature in mediawiki. But to this date image cannot be renamed. So I am working on a image rename bot. While Im writing the code I would like to get support and help creating the wiki framework. it will be run like WP:MTC. what I need help with:

1. Template creation:

A. {{botrename|Image:name.jpg}}

that request the move, the extensions of the images must remain the same though

B. {{botrename conflict}}

The target rename image already exist

C. {{botrename request}}

A user that is not approved to use the bot request an image rename.

2. Documentation and explanations of what happens when an image is "renamed", why that happens and other information to answer the basic questions of what is happened.

3. admins willing to approve users. Just like WP:MTC I will only approve users who have support

this is done out of security reasons and to prevent abuse.

4. Categorization for tracking.

What the bot will also do is actually go and replace uses of the old name with the new. (this will happen once I know the basic rename part of the bot functions first, the first few will need changed by hand)

Suggestions/feedback/Im stupid for trying to do this because it cant be done/other ideas β^_command 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better placed on WP:VP/T with a notice on WP:AN? I don't see any 'incident' here.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If it involves BetacommandBot its an incident, just check the archives. I want to make sure poeple know about this. β^_command 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be a nice tool - it's a pain right now to do this manually. I don't see why this couldn't be enabled for all admins, since they are already trusted to delete the images themselves. The bot needs to fix all transclusions of the image, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The list will start off as admin only, and once the image rename is working (after the first few tests) the bot will replace the old name with the new name. β^_command 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:C1k3 - does this constitute an attack page?

Can an editor have on his user talk page a section headed: "Wikipedians Who Pose a Threat to the English Language" followed by a list of 10 editor's names with links to their page? It seems to me like a blatant attack on other users; but it's not so clear cut that a report to AIV is warranted. Could an administrator please take a look and pursue the appropriate course of action? Many Thanks. B1atv 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly incivility, as it calls them out for linguistic failures. Further, it's amusing, as he asserts a pat buchanan position (speak english or else), while asserting a far left ideology. LOL. I'd support an admin deletin the section, and dropping him a note to explain the removal of the section. ThuranX 18:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Removed as unhelpful. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. B1atv 18:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gawanti

I marked several images that this person uploaded for deletion. The deletion notices are here. He deleted the notices from his page and called it vandalism (which is annoying enough), however, he also removed the deletion notices from all the pages. He did the same thing with OrphanBot at Image:DoooomDagger20102007.PNG, and uploaded several images falsely under commons in a similar manner: [53]. As I'm anonymous, and he'll never listen to me, and I don't have the time to sit around Wikipedia all day, I'd appreciate if someone did something. 64.178.96.168 18:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to handle this? :( 64.178.107.132 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-added all of the deleted warnings and then warned the user for removing them. I see no problem with your decision for adding them and as he did delete a bots warning it is clear you were in the right. Rgoodermote 21:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TomJBlane Cont.

TomJBlane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps contacting me, as well as contacting Tony Fox, and seems to be turning things around to me, attempting to place blame for harassment on me, such as this edit here where he claims I harassed him first. In all honesty, he harassed me first after I warned him about adding personal opinions.

He then called me a psycho, said I have psychological problems with other people. I have tried my best to keep calm, so far succeeding in my efforts, but I can only stay calm for so long. All he is doing is trying to get me banned, and trying to get the Wikipedia Administrators on his side. I have asked him to stop contacting me and now I am coming to you, the administrators, for some help in dealing with this rather harassing person. I fear he may be trying to get me to say something out of line, in an attempt to condemn me and get me banned again, which is why I've told him not to contact me. Thank you for any help you can give Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to de-escalate the situation and explain policy to the new fellow, for the record. I suggest, Tyler, that you just walk away from it at this point; if he contacts you again, don't respond. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I've done. It's just I was worried because he seems to be placing blame on me, and trying to turn you against me Tony, and he's even gone as far as to claim that I'll be blocked again. I'm gonna remove his comments from my page, seeing as Mediawiki keeps an archive for future reference. Thanks for the help Tony! Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ford1206 and issues on Martin Anderson controversy

Martin Anderson controversy keeps getting moved back to Martin Anderson by User:Ford1206, an avowed single-purpose account. The block for Nazi accusations didn't have any effect. Chris Cunningham 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 1 week for using their userpage to continue to make personal attacks against other editors. I deleted the userpage (per CSD G10) as well. If there are any concerns with this block, let me know. Caknuck 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Paper Mario series characters and Paper Mario (series) edit war

There has been on-going discussion on the merger of List of Paper Mario series characters into the Paper Mario (series) article. The List of Paper Mario series characters article continues to be redirected into the Paper Mario article, against protest and valid discussion point on the talk page. The page was redirected 4x by User:TTN and once by User:The Prince of Darkness. The problem lies in that the List of Paper Mario series characters page was recently brought up for Afd, with no concensus, and now is receiving the redirect, with no incorporation of any elements of the previous article in the "merge." I am seeking the List of Paper Mario series characters be reverted and protected, until discussion can conclude. 66.109.248.114 22:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Username block review

I'm going to WP:AGF here and believe the user. I blocked Cuntass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an obvious violation of the username policy. (It was a soft block). However, the user has contacted me on my talk page claiming that his name is Tass and he is from Cun, Hungary, and that he uses this username at other sites on the net. My feeling is that even if the story is true, native English speakers will read "Cuntass" as Cunt + Ass, which is blatantly profane, and against WP:U. I can't see how the user could be taken seriously with that username. I believe the username block should stand and that he should register some other username, but if there is consensus that I am wrong, I will unblock. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is correct. The problem here is that too many people will belive the name is referring to "cunt ass" and will lead to a lot of time wasted from uses checking through their contribs to make sure they are legit. I would appologise to the user, but say that the username is against our username policy as it is blatantly profane, even if by accident. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

agree. Viridae^Talk 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The person's explanation is quite plausible, and may indeed, be the intent, however, I think that a very small fraction of the Wikipedia population (if any) would realize this, and instead would see this as a severely offensive username. I would endorse your suggestion to the editor to choose the name Tass Cun, instead. Ariel♥Gold 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Alot of users would think that the username is referring to "Cunt Ass". Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the odds of this? Wikipedia says that Cún is located right next to Tass, Hungary. Somebody might want to check these articles to make sure we're not being trolled. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cún and Tass are about three hours away according to Google Maps. [54] –Crazytales talk/desk 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My god I found this incredibly hilarious for about 2 seconds. Just block the guy. Checkuser to see if he/she really is from Hungary. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) Two Google searches show multiple sources for the existence of both Cun and Tass in Hungary, and they are in adjacent counties in the south of the country. Amusing coincidence. (And Tyler, the user's already blocked). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My hovercraft is full of eels; this is the en-WP, we act according to the dictates of English language sensibilities. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, My hovercraft is full of eels is indef blocked. PrimeHunter 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But not due to a username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a valid soft block. Even if one's intention is not to disruptive, it can still happen accidentally. This name would have been likely to be disruptive. 1 != 2 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious softblock. Endorse. Daniel 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cla68

Was blocking a user for asking a question really justified? *Dan T.* 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is WP:POINT, yes. Crum375 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Especially considering this warning from Jimbo. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another yep here. Please see the above/read up on the history of the dispute. Shell ^babelfish 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan is perfectly well aware of the nature of the dispute, which is archiving from a talk page of a WP:BLP article a series of attempts to discuss and promote the agenda of banned User:WordBomb. But of course since WordBomb is a valued contributor to a certain site, our friend Dan appears to feel the need to pitch in. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Whereas certain individuals on Wikipedia feel themselves immune to aspects of Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. in their commentary; but then why apply policy when debating application of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• For some questions, yes. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of your comments are getting pretty close to personal attacks on me. *Dan T.* 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of us feel that you are actively harassing us and deliberately impeding good faith attmepts to improve the encyclopaedia by ensuring that people don't unwittingly act as a proxy for banned users, and some of us find that vexatious. And some of us are losing patience with your holy crusade to support your friends on Wikipedia Review, at least one of whose oopinions are actively being promoted in the talk page of an article on a living individual. My level of tolerance for editing as a proxy for that person - whether intentionally or as a result of a mistaken impression that what he says has some probvable objective basis - is at zero and dropping. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Some of us feel". That's always a difficult one to judge. Please permit me to do you the favor of giving you an unbiased, outside opinion.

I don't know Dan Tobias. In all of his writings on this subject, I had never gotten a hint that he was pro-WR. All he seems to be arguing -- rationally and eloquently -- is against unnecessary Wikipedia censorship, a topic which I happen to be pretty keenly interested in myself. Based on the number of times I've come out in support of Dan, you may have gotten the impression that I'm some kind of WR sympathizer or a Dan Tobias sympathizer myself, but I assure you, I am not.

I'm sorry you're vexed by Dan's continued questions on this subject. But it's a contentious subject, so those questions come with the territory. I understand why you feel harassed, but at the same time, from where I sit, it does not look like harassment to me; it looks like precisely as much of a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia as I know you believe your extensive activities to be.

I might also say that from where I sit, your activities look like just as much of a holy crusade, against WR and in support of your friends here, as you accuse Dan's of being. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody was seriously proposing blocking Dan for politely asking his question. As for Cla68-- I too hope he wasn't really banned just for asking a question, and although I've only spent 3 seconds looking at the issue, I'm sure he probably wasn't actually banned for that. Problem users being problematic get banned for their whole editing history, taken in toto--- not for the last straw that breaks the camel's back. --Alecmconroy 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Block log says only 24 hours. The message on his userpage also says 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx for catching me on that. One of these days, my hands are going to start typing block when I mean block and ban when I mean ban. But I'm not there yet. :) --Alecmconroy 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a good, valid reason for this block, given the long, embattled history of the dispute, but honestly I think a more detailed explanation for the block than simply "WP:POINT violation" would have been a good idea. WP:POINT is extremely broad and can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; it would be better if the blocking admin had provided a more detailed reason for the block, so more of us can understand what is going on. --krimpet⟲ 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a rather peculiar block. Lèse majesté is not a blockable offense; neither is asking ill-considered questions, when done in good faith. While Cla68 may well view the matter as something of a personal one, for obvious reasons, the situation seems hardly so urgent or so critical that a few quiet words could not have served just as well as a block. I would suggest that Durova lift the block, as I can't really see any benefit from keeping it in place at this point.

Having said that, this whole mess with the Weiss articles has gone on for long enough, and I entirely agree with the broader effort to put things in some semblance of order. Kirill 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Viridae^Talk 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation was such that a firm hand was amply called for, and more than ample warnings had been given. WP:POINT was the obvious call, but it was also a rather snide remark at Jimbo. I have no regrets for this one, especially because a biography of a living person was involved and the individual was known to be a target of harassment. Add WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. This site's article talk pages are not fora for extended grievances. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova has now threatened another editor with a block for asking a question on Durova's talk page about this block. I think Kirill has it right, and I don't know what Durova is trying to accomplish with this but it's clear this threatened block won't do anything to prevent disruption to the site. Milto LOL pia 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article's talk page to not be drama central, blocking anyone who asks questions (and threatening to block anyone who complains, as JzG did above) is almost certainly going to be exactly what you do not want to do. If the situation involving this article is a long-running disaster... maybe overly aggressive admin action is also playing a role? From the outside looking it, it certainly seems like something to consider. --W.marsh 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The block seems to be attempting to make more of a WP:POINT than the question was. Uncle uncle uncle 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it seems that way, it's because people are taking small parts of the actual situation out of context and attempting to spin them. It's time to stop enabling that behavior. My second block warning wasn't for questioning the block - that would be absurd. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it seems that way, it's because the reason for blocking was poorly explained. Uncle uncle uncle 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in endless discussion here. That block had a better explanation than many others that go unchallenged. As a courtesy to Jimbo I've reduced it to six hours with a request to refocus on solid references and topical discussion. I extend that request to this thread. See WP:NOT#Not a water cooler. If that isn't a policy clause yet it should be. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I was referring to Guy's above comment at 23:09, 20 October 2007, which seemed to be threatening Dtobias with a block for starting this thread. Or at least saying Dtobias deserved one. That really doesn't seem like an attempt to calm things down at all, it was just petty escalation. --W.marsh 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well Guy can address that if he wants. Let's encourage everyone to refocus on properly sourced encyclopedic collaboration at that article. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But the two things are related. Guy is, after all, apparently the point man on this whole thing... if he is doing things you say are absurd (your comment at 01:34, 21 October 2007), it seems like there are some major problems here. --W.marsh 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's let him speak for himself. And more importantly, let's return the focus to encyclopedic collaboration. That was the whole point of his intervention, after all. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy can reply whenever he wants. There's really no "encyclopedic collaboration" in his participation in this thread to focus on though, just an attempt at steamrolling, which is hardly helpful. I'm sorry, but if this is his approach to the dispute... no wonder the whole thing has been a disaster. Ignoring that won't help. --W.marsh 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken virtually no part in the dispute. I did what I thought best to stop the idiocy of endlessly rehashing Bagley's off-wiki allegations. If anybody has anything approaching a reliable source for those allegations (and I do think that if one existed we'd have seen it by now) then they can bring it to the Talk page. What is not acceptable is speculation and repeating the allegations of a very very banned user. Few users are quite as banned as Bagley. Even his website is banned. Cla68 and Dan Tobias are perpetuating Bagley's agenda, for no readily discernible reason. It's gone on for far too long. As I say, if a reliable source comes along then we can talk, but that article's talk page was a BLP nightmare, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why we are still allowing Bagley to dictate the agenda here. Gary Weiss is a biography of a living individual and we had better start treating it as we are supposed to treat all biographies of living individuals, which is to stick to what can be reliable sourced and neutrally stated. That is what I said on the talk page, and I absolutely stand by it. I interpret Cla68 and Dan's continued agitation as "surely we can talk about it a little bit more yet?" to which my answer is: no we can't. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the blocking of Cla68-- there's obviously a lot of history there, and i'd have to do a lot of digging to intelligently speak on it. It doesn't look good to block right after a mere question, but I certainly wouldn't want to go so far as to say it's wrong unless I actually knew what I was talking about in the Cla68 situation (which I don't)

I am however greatly disturbed by the block threats made to Dan T[55] and to G-Dett [56]. Obviously, there could be other explanations, but they really do look like they were threatened with blocks just for questioning/disagreeing with the Cla68 block. Hopefully there's another answer (friendly banter? satire mistaken for seriousness? other factors)-- because if we assumed the block threats were sincere, and really were issued just because of asking too many questions-- that's a big dang misuse of admin status in my eyes. Threatening a block that would violate blocking policy is 95% as bad as actually making the block. --Alecmconroy 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. Bear in mind that there's a lot of history at that article. The long and short of it is we're dealing with the biography of a person who's been harassed in real life, and there's substantial reason to believe that Wikipedia has been abused as a venue to perpetuate that harassment. Obviously neutral Wikipedians don't want that. I have nothing to do with the original issues behind that. A lot of turmoil had taken place at that talk page, with a fairly limited set of players contributing very little of positive subtance and attempting to raise negatives that had appeared in non-reliable sources. Guy had archived the talk page and basically said, This site has policies. Abide by them. We mean it. Jimbo and I agreed. I've got no problem at all with legitimate encyclopedic discussion, but two individuals immediately came along and tested those boundaries. I blocked one of them and nearly blocked the other, mostly because their comments really looked like attempts to push the envelope and engage in drama. They certainly weren't resuming the editorial discussion that ought to have been taking place. So yes, one camel had one straw too many and the other had one straw too few. But there are limits at Wikipedia, and I find it illuminating that rather than actually locate appropriate references and engage in topical discussion the same set of people who'd sidetracked that article talk page have raised so many complaints here and elsewhere. If they want to demonstrate that they're serious about writing an encyclopedia - if they want to establish any credibility - then the thing to do would be take up the gauntlet and improve the article in a legitimate and mature manner. My estimate of several users' worthiness as editors weighs heavily on that. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. Time to stop aiding and abetting the harassment. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Cla68's ongoing reminders about SlimVirgin and her mistakes made two years ago are enough in themselves...much to do about nothing really, yet he has continued to persist on that saga for some time now, even though it is very old news. Acting, for all practical purposes, as a proxy for banned editor Wordbomb, is also getting tiring. I hope he resumes his excellent FA level work and ceases to continue using Wikipedia for purposes that are not congruent with BLP.--MONGO 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My expedition to ASM

I just got back from ASM, where I spent FAR too long trying to understand the situation. After looking over things, I'm officially giving myself a kindergarten-esque gold star for not denouncing the Cla68 block. "Blocked for merely QUESTIONING authority!?!?"-- that's a tempting lure for an open content ideologue like me. :) Why just hearing the phrase makes me want to break out a copy of the bill of rights. :). But I just had a feeling this one wasn't all it seemed, so-- gold star for me.

(I should be clear-- I'm not implying anyone was intentionally being deceptive by describing it as a "Blocked for questioning". At first glance, it did look that way.)

Now, everyone please, in general, remember this, and be nice to me when I don't get it right the first time, eh?

So, because everyone loves a backseat driver-- here's what our problem is. Durova and Mongo have tried to explain to me, here, what the scoop was, with the whole Gary Weiss article. Now for the regulars-- people who are always up to date on the latest controversies-- maybe you guys already all knew. But for me-- to even ascertain for myself the truth of Durova's and Mongo's statements took like, two hours of wading through archives and ASM. Because if you're gonna say "X is just a mouthpiece for Y"-- that means if I care about figuring out whether it's true, I've gotta go try to figure out who the heck Y is and what in the world crazy theory he subscribes to.

So here I am, an hour later. I literally have a piece of paper trying to diagram out the alleged conspiracy, and I still don't think I actually have a good conception of what's going on. And all this work is work I really would have to go through before I could edit intelligently on articles on this subject. And I definitely still don't have it. (You'll note, however, in all the verbosity, I've never once taken a stance on whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion (I hope that's true)).

So, here's our problem. We've forbidden on-wiki discussion of disputes of this sort. THat's fine, and if that's really the way people want to play it, I won't be the one to start it.

But, have you considered that by SV, GW, etc all not having a short statement of THEIR side of things, it forces me to go to the unreliably narrators, try to guess what worldview he subscribes to, try to guess what parts are inspired by reality, what parts are fabricated, what parts are spun-- then try to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing, and on and on and on. It's a gordian knot, and even having looked into it in the first place makes my head hurt.

It doesn't matter, in this case, because I'm nobody. But for the benefit of the other people who DO have to make editing and admin decisions in these cases, I just want to throw this out:

Maybe it would be better for the SANE people to put up their version of events somewhere. A short summary of the whole dispute, saying what parts are true, what parts are lies. You're under no obligation to do that-- if silence is how you want to respond, you deserve support for that too. But just consider,the best antidote for bad information is more information. Having ASM being the only source for someone who wants to understand that dispute--- that's just a bad idea. We might be far better served just talking about all the crazy allegations and publically debunking them, rather than letting them fester in the darkness, deleting references to them.

A statement: "Hi, my name is ____, and I do NOT work for the CIA, and I don't know where the lunatic got the idea that I did" might have gone a long way, and stopped the lunacy from making the frontpage of slashdot, for example.

Anyway, just a friendly suggestion. Take it or leave it. For what it's worth, I'm gonna personally apologize, on behalf of the internet, for all the crap you harassees have had to take. Please, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart-- don't anyone ever accuse me of supporting harassment. I knew it was an ad hominem insult, but I had no idea just how bad an insult it was until tonight. I'm still gonna argue on the same principles I always have-- NPOV should rule, BADSITES is bad, and all that... but just know I have a LOT of sympathy for all that you big-names have gone through. In particular-- I had no idea just how... invasive the attacks on SV were-- psychotically dredging up random trivial spats from college pubs 20 years ago, for example-- . Even assuming they're the tiniest shred of evidence to them all-- WTF is it supposed to show other than somebody has to be psychotic to try to dig up something like that!?

Anyway, all you pro-badsites people... You're still wrong, but you guys definitely have earned a hug. --Alecmconroy 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alec, you may want to look at a website called [O-Smear o-smear.blogspot.com], which is written by a techie who debunks Bagley's claims and also rips his methodology to shreds. The posts tagged "Wikipedia" and "Slim Virgin" and "spyware" are of particular interest. Other blogs respond to Bagley ([Gary Weiss' blog garyweiss.blogspot.com] and [Sam Antar's whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com] (check out the same tags) but I think O-Smear may address your concerns the most comprehensively. --Mantanmoreland 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will look at them-- but let me be clear that after reading ASM, I personally did not have any concerns that myself needed to be addressed. I have a pretty good lunacy detector, and came away quite satisfied that the site was not a reliable narrator, to put it generously. When I asked for debunking stuff, it wasn't for me personally, so much as for the next guy who comes along. :) --Alecmconroy 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alec, well done for 'fessing up here. Yes, it is very complex, and has been running for a long time. Also, please be aware that BADSITES is absolutely not the only reaosn for removing any given link, the main reason links are removed is spam but in this case we also have active offsite harassment and in some cases offsite essays by banned users - banned users are not allowed to contribute to content debates. Especially the banned users I am looking at right now.

Now to the Weiss / SV situation. First and foremost, the only reason Bagley started out on his campaign against SV on ASM was that SV refused to accede to extortion. He said that if SV did not leave him to promote his agenda, he would publish hurtful things. The hurtful things are not his own work, they come in the main from Daniel Brandt, who in turn picked them up form some conspiracy theorist somewhere. The allegations against SV are and always have been baseless. They have been discussed before.

Consensus among those who deal professionally with harassment and stalking is that you do not engage in any way with your attackers. You do not make statements, you do not give them any leverage at all. The corrcet response to the allegations agaist SV is to remove them, inform the people bringing them here that they should refrain from bringing allegations without credible independent sources, and suggest that if they absolutely insist on discussing material in blatantly unreliable sources, they should do so directly with the arbitration committee by email.

Bagley is the latest in a series of increasingly dangerous zealots. Wikipedia's profile is such that these people need to get their mad theories on Wikipedia. The bigger we get, the worse they get. The way we used to deal with this madness two years ago does not work today because there are more registered users (hence the one in a million who will believe an obvious conspiracy delusion becomes three or four individuals), because one or two people keep sidetracking the debate to push another agenda, and because we as a community have not yet realised just how serious this is. We have had to call the police to deal with some incidents, by now, and female admins in particular are expressing significant and well-founded concerns about harassment and stalking.

Wikipedia is not Usenet. We are not obliged to discuss tittle-tattle. And we are absolutely not oblioged to let these people have an indefinite number of kicks at the can, whether they be Scientologists, LaRouchites, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, promoters of bizarre "scientific" theories or people like Bagley employed to advance the agenda of his employer by any means. Soapboxers, vanity merchants, fringe theory proponents - they can go away. We know what they think, and their input is not relevant to building a credible and neutral encyclopaedia.

One thing we do need to do, though, is to start documenting these cases in a way that forestalls the endless idiocy. SV absolutely should not be asked to lend credibility to Bagley by responding, but we, the Wikipedia community, should probably have a very short subpage somewhere that details the allegation, who made it and why, what investigation took place (or none, and why). Then, when each new unsuspecting individual is drawn in by the campaign to build and spread the meme, we can simply point them to that page. Debate can be centralised in that place and clerked to within an inch of it's life. So "Wah! I read that admin X did this Bad Thing!" would be redacted to "User Y expressed an interest in the case and was informed of the steps taken." Further debate - for example if people are dissatisfied with the collective response - belong at ArbCom. And if people are absolutely determined to discuss the allegations at WhackJob.com, they can take it to the mailing list where it won't distract people from building an encyclopaedia. I have written more on this at User:JzG/Harassment links.

Now bear in mind that in any sane society the ravings of obvious loons would simply be dismissed, and we would not be compelled to make any statement on it because when trusted people say they have investigated, then most reasonable people will accept it. Wikipedia has too many people, and the community is too diffuse and contains too many impressionable people, for this to work. Also, the kooks are getting very good at spreading their memes. Which is why I suggest a clerked, carefully monitored system for handling good faith attempts to raise these issues. They have, almost without exception, no merit, but they spread like a plage around the whole project because there is no one place where we can send people to say "there, that is what happened, now please drop it." Guy (Help!) 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously, there's some real pluses and minus to responding to the stuff vs leaving it alone, and I can see really good arguments for both, so, I just threw it out there. Maybe talking about it gives it strength, but maybe ignoring it gives it more strength. That's a question for wiser minds than mine.

One thing I would emphasize, which of course you already know, is that there's two types of harassment. The "namecalling, flamewarring, god that is REALLY REALLY rude" type we see on the internet all the time, and the "criminal harassment". Obviously, I would strongly encourage anyone who feels the second kind to tell law enforcement. If Bagley's threatened her in a criminal way, we (we being the foundation) should do whatever is necessary to see he's brought to justice. Based on his website, I don't get the feeling he's doing anything criminal, but of course, it appears I'm the least informed person on the entire project when it comes to the details of this, and the only people who should be making that assessment are the targest of the harassment . --Alecmconroy 12:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, your various suggestions here are thoughtful and productive. Please know, however, that I don't accept – and am seriously offended by – your insinuations that I have been somehow taken in by Bagley. I edit ME-related articles first, and literature/poetry articles second, and though my real-world interests are much broader I neither understand nor give a sh** about naked shorting, Wall Street scandals or any of it. Nor do I want to learn. I've never edited those articles and never will; nor am I an apologist for harrassers or corporate shills. I am told that Bagley praises me for questioning the banning of Piperdown. Bully for Bagley. If he thinks I'm his girl on the inside, he will be sorely disappointed. I have zero interest in the Bagley-Weiss wars themselves.

I am interested only in one principle involved, and that principle has nothing to do with harassment or linking to attack sites. It has to do with what happens to NPOV when you have "superbanned" users like Bagley. Bagley has been so egregious in his sockpuppeting that admins have taken to shooting on sight. That all sounds well and good, but we've reached a stage where not only Bagley's puppets but Bagley's opinions (and not his theories about intra-Wiki politics but his positions on matters of public interest) in effect have been banned. This presents a problem to my mind. NPOV in article mainspace should not be a reflection of which real-world actors are in the good graces of Wikipedians and which ones (due to megadisruption) are not. This problem is an important one in my view, one with broad implications for other subject-areas in Wikipedia, and it is logically fatuous to define it as part of "Bagley's agenda."

I had this problem in mind when I commented on the Weiss RfC; I wrote that material considered notable by the New York Times should be considered notable by Wikipedia, regardless of our feelings about the actors involved. I have since reflected that weighing in on a specific editorial question regarding an issue I know nothing about (in this case, Gary Weiss's disputes with others in the business world) simply because of the principle involved comes perilously close to making a WP:POINT. That is true no matter how important the principle involved. Hence Durova's threat, high-handed as it seemed to me at the time, in hindsight makes sense.--G-Dett 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

G-dett, I sincerely apologize for giving you the impression that I thought you were somehow 'in league with' or 'taken in' by ASM. I wasn't trying to comment on you at all-- I haven't looked over your actions, I wasn't commenting on them in the slightest. When I refer to being deceived by the overly-simplistic explanation of Cla being blocked just for asking a single question, I do not in the slightest mean to imply someone else deceived me. It was my own first impression that the Cla block, but after a lot of examination, i just realized the situation was really really complicated.

Anyway, please know I wasn't trying to criticize you in the slightest. I was just trying to apologize, because I've argued so strenuously against BADSITES, I realized that even though that principle is, in my opinion, correct, I should have been far more considerate in my arguments, and a make my compassion for the people who have been harassed a little more explicit, rather than assuming it's implied. --Alecmconroy 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alec. Nicely written. And I think you've hit upon an important problem. If you just get some random pages on ED, or look at a few threads on WR, or skim a bit of ASM, they don't seem particularly offensive. Unlike, say, the Time Cube guy, they are not instantly dismissable. It takes research.

Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help. As Guy says, we don't want to place the burden on the targets.

I do wonder if in talking only to traditional harassment experts we might be making a mistake. One other thing that's important for people being harassed is to make people close to you aware of the problem, as they can be a great source of emotional support and pragmatic help. But in a public environment like Wikipedia, the two directives conflict. I wonder if we could find advice from people who handle PR disasters or political mud-slinging could give us useful advice.

Oh, and if you do end up with a diagram, please send me a copy. :-) William Pietri 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Leilani19

I feel as though Leilani19 (talk · contribs) is harrassing me. I have tried to leave multiple contributions of information I know is fact. That person repeatedly slams me with threats saying that I have been reported for vandalism. This is not the case. I feel as thoguh this person is purposely doing this to discredit my information. At one point in time, I accidently deleted a page, I am still fairly new to this website and am still learning the ins and outs. I did not mean to do that on purpose and I filed a report to the proper department. Several occasions, I find my tlak box filled with messages from Clue Bot, in which I write back to defend myself. I cannot take this harrasement anymore. Please help me to fix the problem. I understand how things go as far as celebrities are concerned, and there will be young girls and guys out there who do not want to hear the truth. But that simply does not justify them turning around and falsely accusint me and discrediting my sources and my credibility. (Ryan782) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been adding information to Leland Chapman, but you've not provided a reliable source, something that is mandatory for biographical articles. It doesn't matter if you know it to be true; it doesn't even matter if you are Leland Chapman; information has to have a reliable source that we can verify, otherwise it absolutely positively cannot be in the article. Also you blanked the article (this edit), which is indeed vandalism. And you've chosen to personally attack Leilani9 in this unacceptable edit, a violation of our no personal attacks policy. So you're not being harassed; you've chosen to break Wikipedia's rules repeatedly, despite being asked to stop, and you've chosen to attack those who defend Wikipedia. You're very close to being blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

noticing Personal Attacks in a talk page and etc

I noticed this distasteful conversion in User_talk:Beh-nam#Fly_on_shit. Some admins please review the contributions of all the users involved (especially Dilbar Jan) and take the appropriate measures and etc ...--Pejman47 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

that section alone shows his incivility and NPA violations to be worth at least a 48 hour block to prevent him from excalating he situation further. ThuranX 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The conversation looked like it had stopped. I removed it from the talk page and warned everyone. The lot of them were inappropriate and I've watchlisted all the talk pages in questions. I'll block them and ask for a checkuser if they start up again -- Samir 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ESPECIALLY ME? What do you have against me? All I did was explain to user: beh-nam that the people shown on CNN special "Behind The Viel, part 2" were Tajiks, speaking Persian language. They did not show Pashtuns. This was my argument, while beh-nam (Tajik) was cursing me on my talk page with very offensive words. I did not say one single bad word to him and you say especially me as if I was the bad person. The world would be a very nice place if people kept their personal hate inside them and not exposing it. In fact it would be better if we don't hold on to hate. I am Pashtun and I don't hate anyone.--Dilbar Jan 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you said another user was retarded, called an ethnic group baboons, not to mention these choice phrases: [57] and [58]. So: especially you. I wouldn't be offended if someone decided to indefinitely block you for this alone. If you put up further hate speech, I'll block you myself. -- Samir 16:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And looking back at your edits, there's a tonne more. So I've blocked you indefinitely. -- Samir 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pathoschild's goofs

I've left a detail on the mess created by a botched move by Pathoschild here at Cfd. Someone needs to ascertain whether there is or was a talk page for the moved template before fixing the misdirecting talk page of Template:Documentation(edit talk links history) (a moved template destination name, talk page is redirecting to Template_doc_page_transcluded) linking to the talk of {{Template_doc_page_transcluded }}. If one exists, or existed for template doc page viewed directlyplease advise me ASAP... if one does not, since there was no prior discussion, {{Documentation}} ought be moved back to {{template doc page viewed directly}} as an admin violated established procedures. (Both Template_doc_page_transcluded and template doc page viewed directly sometimes get subst'd when making a combined usage page.) Thanks // FrankB 00:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Signature forgery, or avoiding scrutiny from other editors

I request blocking a sockpuppet for signature forgery and/or avoiding scrutiny from other editors.

• Checkorder2 (talk · contribs)
• Checkorder9 (talk · contribs)

Checkorder2/9 is disputing at Talk:Japanese war crimes.[59] But Checkorder9 uses Checkorder2's signature.[60] This is violated WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors. Although I suspect these are other user's sockpuppet, I believe that Checkorder9 is blocked for the present. --Nightshadow28 01:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef Checkorder9 (talk · contribs) and left a note at User talk:Checkorder2. It is not really disruptive at the moment but if it becomes an issue the account Checkorder2 will simply have the same fate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Azukimonaka Eugenics in Showa Japan

User:Azukimonaka has been carrying on with what has been rather Tendanacious and Disruptive editing on the article on Eugenics in Showa Japan.

The page has probably suffered from breach of the 3RR - see history [61].

User:Flying tiger has been working to improve the article by finding references and supplying further information. He has been accused of innacuracy and anti-Japanese bias. See [62]. This has including deleting sourced content that he deems innacurate[63].

User:Azukimonaka has been active on the Talk Page

However, he is quite obviously not a native English speaker. His sentances are very hard to understand, and he displays repeated signs that he is unable to understand the sentances or meanings of other editors actions.

He contends that permitting see also to related topics of Japanese socialism, facisms and war-time history link Japanese Eugenics to Japanese war-crimes. He also doesn't seem to understand that the article is not only about official legislation.

I have tried to address several of his valid concerns, as well as pointing out that several of his points are based on his misunderstandings of English. I even attempted to breakdown an edit as to why it was being reverted [64].

I think a (temporary) topic ban may be needed.--ZayZayEM 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is an article that relates to Japan. Therefore, an original source is Japanese. They are rejecting an original source though I pointed out the mistake of the translation.

They are advertising the cruelty of the war crime of Japan though I confirmed their edit histories. (I do not criticize them because I understand the reason why they dislike Japan. )

I do not deny the Nanjing slaughter. However, Eugenics of Japan is a topic of the medicine and welfare. Neither the war crime nor the fascism relate.

For instance, it is not the military but the Japanese doctor societies that promoted the Eugenics law of Japan. Moreover, Birth control of Japan was promoted by Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes. They relate even Recreation and Amusement Association established to defend the public peace of Japan to eugenics. (They falsified the source. )

This article is confused by their violent edits.

It was deleted by them though I wrote Eugenics in See also. And, they wrote. Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, Xenophobia in Showa Japan, Reproductive rights, Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period ...etc. Recently, they added the Leprosy quarantine policy of "Korea under Japanese rule". This is a topic besides eugenics. 　

I proposed to make Timeline so that they might understand. I proposed to make them Timeline. However, my proposal was disregarded for the reasons that my English ability was low.

I think the eugenics of Japan to be an article on the medicine. However, they insist that the eugenics of Japan is a war crime of Japan. I think that it is useful to make Timeline to understand this article. Can they agree my proposal?　--Azukimonaka 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is obvious. I worked a lot to translate the obscure sentences added by User:Azukimonaka, meanwhile, it is impossible to do the same with his exclusive japanese sources. His english is far better here than it is in the article.

The main problem is however User:Azukimonaka keeps deleting sources and categories from many weeks. I warned User:Orderinchaos about it on 9 October. [[65]]. Currently , he is accusing me of "falsifying sources" even if I just want to keep in the article a clear reference (with page number) from a well-known history book. He earlier acted the same way on Manchukuo but finally renounced.

We tried to explain him that we do not want to refer to eugenism in Shōwa Japan as "war crime" but simply keep the categories about the military and social context of the era but he keeps arguing this is Japan-bashing. There is simply no way to discuss with him as he has been agressive to me from the start, repeatedly changing my pseudonym and accusing me of being "bad faith" and ignorant of the "basic history" of Japan. --Flying tiger 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic is an event of Japan. Therefore, the first information becomes Japanese.

And, eugenics is a history of medicine. Therefore, the history knowledge of the medicine of Japan is needed. Moreover, the knowledge of the welfare policy of Japan is also necessary.

You like to indict the war crime of Japan. (The east Asian who wants to advertise cruelty in Japan is not unusual. )　

You are groundless though you added Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, and and Xenophobia in Showa Japan etc. Do you relate eugenics to the war crime of Japan based on what grounds though I define eugenics as the medicine policy of Japan?--Azukimonaka 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If Timeline is used, it can explain the relation between the militarism of Japan

and the eugenics of Japan is low. (For instance, compulsory sterilization was done in 1948 though the law of Leprosy was approved in 1905. Flying tiger is being written that sterilization was begun in 1905. )

Could you agree to the description based on the Timeline?　--Azukimonaka 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats of violence

Resolved

• Bushytails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently issued a threat of violence, then restored part of his threat here. Per Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks, "legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning." John254 03:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation was already handled by admin User:Until(1 == 2). If you have lingering concerns, I suggest you speak with him. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef block

Auno3 (talk · contribs)

Do we really need an editor who's running around adding things like "and race traitor" into lead sentence of a biography of a living person? And whose almost every edit is POV-pushing about miscegnation and how awful blacks are? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you give us a few diffs that illustrate his style? You may also want to check:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd)

I see that you've indef blocked the main account already. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference there's also a discussion on this editor here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Human.2C_Human_evolution_and_Dysgenics. For a few highlights of his editing style, see: [66], [67], [68] and [69]. – ornis⚙ 04:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs show that this user is soapboxing, POV pushing, and being exceptionally rude. The attitude isn't compatible with the Wikipedia:Five pillars so we need to show this user to the door, along with all the sockpuppets. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's two fun BLP violations on Heidi Klum: [70] [71]. I dealt with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd) and was fairly lenient, but I think we'd be better off without him. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict x6] These are from the things alrweady linked - I used both the second sockpuppet list of Auno3's representative edits asnd the Fringe theories noticeboard listings in making the decision. However, three edits that seem particularly awful: [72] and [73] from the second suspected sock puppet link will give a flavour without too much of him. Also, this edit adds black people and interracial marriages to Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. He has a lot of similar edits as well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Five pillars. Ditto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, obviously. Man, what a bunch of socks -- we'd need several rangeblocks to take care of all the IPs. Guess it's down to whack-a-mole. Raymond Arritt 04:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given every IP on that list a short ban. Let's see if it helps... Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a couple here that aren't on that list, ( User:69.106.204.128‎ and User:69.107.87.69‎). – ornis⚙ 05:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zapped 'em. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One more User:69.106.230.196. – ornis⚙ 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(RI) User is requesting an ublock[74]. – ornis⚙ 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

cross posted from user talk:ConfuciusOrnis The same person using User:69.106.230.196 has returned as User:69.106.250.135 - I've tagged them as a possible sock of Auno3--Cailil ^talk 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Adam, this block was certainly needed. Scum like this racist idiot just liven up your day, don't they? This is why I think we should have IQ tests before registration :) Moreschi ^Talk 14:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith User

Budlight (talk · contribs) recently tagged two articles I created (both over a month ago) for speedy deletion under G1 ([75] and [76]). This came minutes after I nominated a page he created for speedy under G1 [77]. He's obviously trying to make a point. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this because your page is on my watchlist. It seems quite obvious that Budlight was trying to retaliate by nominating an article you created for CSD. Clearly a violation of WP:POINT. I suggest that a warning be left for this user before any action is taken. Ksy92003(talk) 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning (and removed the other speedy deletion tag). — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can an admin also remind him that I can remove what I want from my talkpage. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I linked him to WP:USER in my last revert. I'll leave a note for him on his talk page. I also left him a warning of a near 3RR violation here. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison (talk · contribs) and I have just left him notes on his talk page about this. Alison has said that if Budlight re-instates the comment, then she will view it as disruptive and act accordingly. Ksy92003(talk) 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see that Budlight just left Sasha a warning for 3RR, which isn't valid because Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Don't readd removed comments allows her to remove comments from her own talk page at will. If this continues, then a block should be in order for disruption. Ksy92003(talk) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are super-stubby, but they have context and notability. Pretty obvious POINTy retaliation to your proposed deletion of his joke (even if a pretty funny joke) Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does cuerden mean anything in Spanish? It sounds like a Spanish word to me. This is killing me, because I speak fluent Spanish.

Anyway, the one thing that kind of made it clear that this was just retaliation was the template that Budlight used: {{db-nonsense}}. This is at least the wrong template to use because it isn't patent nonsense, the text is coherent, and there is meaningful history behind The Four's (best sports bar in the country by SI) so it was even the wrong CSD template to use. It seemed quite obvious to me that this was just a disruption/retaliation move by Budlight. Ksy92003(talk) 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite. (Also, Cuerden is a suburb of Preston, Lancashire. I'm told it's an Anglicisation of the Welsh word for Rowans.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think of cuerden anywhere in the Spanish language. The only way it could possibly be a real word was if there was a verb corder or cordir, which I'm almost 100% certain don't exist. But the "uer" and "den" syllables are quite common in Spanish verbs. Ksy92003(talk) 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

People always say that, or French. I think it's because it's such a little-known place, and similar to words like guerdon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User admits socking in AFD

At this forum, newly registered account Cloud Salad (talk · contribs) states that s/he voted twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan (Warriors). The first !vote was added by an IP (I can't tell which of the IPs it is) and the second was added later in the day by Cloud Salad. In the forum, Cloud Salad posted at 19:30 that s/he had posted in the Wikipedia AFD and then again at 23:37 s/he mentions a vote. What should be done here?

Can we get a bunch of admin eyes at that AFD? It's being meatpuppeted (and now apparently sockpuppeted) out the wahzoo thanks to that post on that forum as a call for help. Thanks, Metros 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see it's been semi-protected. Hut 8.5 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

8rr at Charlize Theron

Resolved

71.99.113.137 (talk · contribs · logs) was recently reported at AIV for a concerted attempt to replace the description of her as "South African American" with "African American". I removed the report and warned the IP for 3RR, as, while silly, it was not in my opinion simple vandalism. I also reverted the IP, my only edit to the article. The IP has continued to revert and is now, I think, up to 8 reversions. Rather than report it at WP:AN3 I thought I would raise it here. I do not feel comfortable blocking the IP as I did edit the article. If somebody else felt like doing so, that would be great. --John 06:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR would probably be the best place to report this, as they specialize in these types of violations. Instructions would be there at the bottom of the page as far as what to report. Ksy92003(talk) 06:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said I thought reporting it here might be quicker for all concerned. WP:AN3 is generally backlogged and this is such an outrageous case. --John 06:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. And yes, good choice to let somebody else handle it. William Pietri 06:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --John 06:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome. William Pietri 06:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna say something, but I got into like four edit conflicts. Anyway, glad this was resolved. I'm not an admin, so I couldn't have handed down any punishment, but I could try to figure out what was going on. Glad this was resolved, in any case. Ksy92003(talk) 07:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that blocks are not punishment, they are prevention. –Crazytales talk/desk 16:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by (apparently) banned user

Resolved

Gettherightuser (talk · contribs) made a legal threat on WP:AN and I noticed he hasn't been blocked yet.[78] He's also saying that he's the reincarnation of a blocked user. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he was blocked yesterday[79]. MaxSem 07:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

I have blocked Mikkalai (talk · contribs) for 48 hours, after a warning for edit warring which was followed by a personal attack and a clear statement of intent to continue edit-warring with Ludvikus (talk · contribs) over the article Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. See my extended reasons at User talk:Mikkalai#Personal_attacks_and_edit_warring.

Mikkalai is an admin, so I would be grateful if other admins could review my actions here. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block - edit warring with a clear statement that it would continue. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the revision histories, you gave Mikkalai a final warning at 19.04 on 20 October and Mikkalai last edited the article at 18.30. You blocked him at 09.35 this morning. This doesn't really sit right. The block appears to be because Mikkalai refused to agree to stop disrupting but since the last warning no further disruption of the article has taken place. This can't be the right way to deal with this situation. Reading the talk page quickly it appears that the other engaged user is also being very disruptive. Have they been blocked? NO it appears not. And the article was protected at 3 am this morning - 6 hours before this block was issued. Since the article is protected I fail to see what disruption this block is supposed to prevent? Frankly this strikes me as a very poor decision given that Mikkalai had over 100,000 contributions to the project last I looked. Sure he can be difficult and uncooperative but how does this block help us build an encyclopaedia? I have unblocked Mikkalai. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, might that be a rash and quickly made decision? Would it not be better to wait until there has been more discussion before defying the block? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps but I took the view that this was manifestly not the right way to deal with this that an unblock was the right way forward.Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, we only ever block users for what we can infer about their future behaviour from their past conduct. Typically an intention to continue edit warring is inferred from recent edit warring, but a statement to that effect serves just as well. Furthermore I find your implication that having a large number of edits excuses such behaviour to be quite disgraceful. How many edits would you say are necessary to excuse wheel warring? --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where am I wheel-warring? I have overturned the block once. That's not a wheelwar that's a difference of opinion. If there is a consensus that I was wrong and someone reblocks I won't unblock again so that's hardly a wheelwar. In all cases we need to consider the impact on the project of any block. Mikkalai is a long term standing editor whose contribution to the project is enormous. Of course we give editors like him more rope - just look how much rudeness and incivility and all round disruption that the arbcom accepts from other well established editors. The edit that he was blocked for took place around 9pm last night and he was blocked aprox 12 hours later without further disrupting the article. Sure we can infer but a quick look at the page history and the protection log tells us that the disruption has ceased and will not resume. Did you also see Mikkalai's request for the page to be protected to end the edit war? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

. You overturned another admin's action without prior discussion: that's wheel-warring according to WP:WHEEL.

You are also wrong about the timing: the edit for which Mikkalai was blocked was made at 04:35 this morning, 7 hours after the page was protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not wheel warring. It's an application of Bold, Revert, Discuss to an admin action. It would become a wheel war if you re-blocked, which I trust you won't do. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I now see what you mean. I still stand by my point. I don't accept that I was wheelwarring and I do not agree with the block as protecting the article has ended the disruption. Blocks for incivility are rarely effective and in this case have no value with someone like Mikkalai who is otherwise an extremely valuable contributor to the project. Especially as the problem is excacabated by his having to deal with an extremely disruptive user who has just returned from a 6m block. You seem to have decided that his being an admin means he deserves blocking more than a non-admin and that's simply not right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know it, Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet. This is Jacob Peters all over again. Are we going to block the troll or the people who correctly reverts him (Mikkalai in this case) ? EconomicsGuy 09:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus is indeed highly disruptive, and is under final warning, and the article is protected. But that does not alter Mikkalai's stated intention to edit war, which as it stands we can expect to resume when the protection is lifted. When other admins have already intervened and issued warnings, it is highly disruptive for an editor to states their intention to continue edit warring, and an editor who has been an admin for more than 3 years really has little excuse. I think it is highly regrettable that Spartaz lifted the block without further discussion. I don't intend to wheel-war, but having come here to discuss my actions, I expected that other admins would extend me the courtesy of discussing the block before lifting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)What was your block preventing? Your message on Mikkalai's talk page says that he has been blocked for personal attacks. If that was the case then why did you say that you would unblock him if he promises not to disrupt the article further? That doesn't make sense unless the reason for the block was the threatened further disruption. Since the article has been protected what benefit does the block achieve? It can't be to prevent personal attacks because you were willing to unblock if the disruption stopped. Secondly, why are you treating him differently because he is an admin? Sure, we all expect admins to behave a bit better then non-admins but imposing different block standards because if this gives admins an unwarranted extra status that we do not have or deserve. This is manifestly wrong - especially in a case where Mikkalai was not acting in his admin capacity. Finally, I thoroughly agree that Mikkalai has serious civility problems but punitive blocks are not the answer.Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, did you actually read what I wrote? When I issued the block, I did indeed say "A block is a preventive measure, so I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring". The threat was that Mikkalai explicitly said "I am at war with this person", which means that the differences are unlikely to be confined to one article. "You also seem to have missed that this was explicitly not a punitive block, which was why I promised to lift it if the threat of edit-warring was withdrawn.

I'm really rather annoyed abut this. I brought the block here for discussion, and rather than discussing it, you promptly overturned it. What on earth is the point of an admin bringing their own action for review if they are supported by one other editor but then promptly reverted without further discussion on a mistaken understanding of he nature of the block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are upset about this. I have had my blocks overturned before and I agree its not always nice but I honestly believe that you made a dud call here. Firstly, if you are not familiar with Mikkalai, he uses very stark language that often reads very aggressively. Stuff that he has done to me in the past has left me fuming and early on in my wiki-career I got blocked after edit warring with him that happened because I was so incensed by the way that he was responding to me that I totally lost my call. I'm certainly not his friend. I do however recognise his value to the project and I have very rarely found his admins actions to be anything other than spot on. Sure he used intemperate language in the heat of the argument - and your adding a templated warning to his talk page was probably not the best way to get his attention - But you surely must have read his own request for the article to be locked to halt the edit war. The article was locked 6 hours before you blocked Mikkalai - did you notice this? - because it was the first thing I noticed when I went to review the block. In this case, what could the block have prevented? by Mikkalai's own words the edit war would have ended at that point. How could a block be anything other than punitive? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite entitled to believe hat I made a dud call, but you should have discussed before overturning.

And yes, of course I noticed that the article was locked before I blocked Mikkalai. The reason he was blocked (rather than warned again) is that his statement that he was "at war" came about 9 hours after the page was protected. I'm sorry, Spartaz, but you really have acted very poorly here, by overturning a block when you were wrong in your understanding of the reasons for it, and wrong in your assessment of the timelines. I have therefore reinstated it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

EconomicsGuy, please take a look at User talk:Ludvikus. Admins Banno, BrownHairedGirl and Until(1 == 2) have all been in contact with Ludvikus over the last few days over this very issue; Banno particularly gives some very sage advice here. Ludvikus is under close attention and will not escape sanction should he continue to edit war or engage in other disruptive behaviour.

We don't accept provocation as a defence here. Yes, we often expect administrators to put up with all sorts of crap from disruptive editors, and maybe sometimes that's unfair, but that's just the way it is. A measure of understanding should of course be extended in this type of situation, but in no way does that go so far as to entirely excuse declaring an intention to edit war. --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I offer no defense against those valid counter arguments. I'm simply puzzled by why an editor who returns from a 6 months block for trolling is only blocked for 24 hours for disruption of an AfD where as an admin is blocked for 48 hours for the intention to disrupt (sorry for the borderline wikilawyering but it puzzles me greatly how this happened.) EconomicsGuy 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The edit in question was made in the heat of the moment but we then had 12 hours of no disruption and the page was protected. Where was the consideration there? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please Spartaz. In response to EconomicsGuy, the purpose of a bloc is to prevent disruption, not to punish. The 24-hour block on Ludvikus solved the problem at AfD; I selected 48 hours for Mikkali because as an experienced editor, Miklalai can have have been in no doubt out the unacceptability of edit-warring. However, I am open to suggestions of the appropriate length of block for Mikkalai if 48 hours is considered excessive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CIVIL? Beg pardon? Exactly what did I do that was uncivil? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to another editor's contribution as "rubbish", above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

o_O That's a very interesting interpretation of incivility. Saying something is Rubbish isn't uncivil in the UK - it simply means that you strongly disagree with the point made. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block, actually. The edit warring, the personal attacks, and the statement of the intent to war more really makes me think a (48 hour) block is indeed justified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bad idea. Mikka is here to build the encyclopaedia, and in my view solves many more problems than he creates; he is trolled by many POV-pushers as a result. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know Ludvikus, but if EconomicsGuy's statement (Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet.) is correct, then I would say it makes complete sense to me to unblock Mikkalai and perhaps discuss Ludvikus's recent edits instead. --Aminz 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think Mikkalai shouldn't have reverted BrownHairedGirl's edit-warring notice without any explanation. Instead he could have discussed the situation with BrownHairedGirl. --Aminz 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - I'm certainly not defending Mikkalai's civility here as he could certainly benefit from improving his interaction with other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow grumpy old bastard I can quite see where Mikka comes from on this, and my experience with him is that he will always give a straight answer to a straight question. Warnings to admins are rarely a great idea. Requests to clarify or reminders that they may be getitng a bit heated, with an offer to help if needed, are much more likely to be productive. Unlike many of busy admins, Mikka is a prolific editor of content. We absolutely do not need to lose people like him. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We wouldnt lose people like that if they didn't go around edit warring and making statements to the effect that they will continue to do so. Edit warring is inexcusable in EVERY situation and most certainly inexcusable in an admin. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tone it down a notch. El_C 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And while you're toning it down, you take a look at Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user Mikka was talking about reverting, you'll find masterpieces like this: [80]. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I make it no consensus that this block should stand. BrownHairedGirl says that she reinstated it. Since I'm accused of wheelwarring for my actions, would anyone care to comment on whether reinstating the block is a wheelwar and whether it reflects the consensus on this page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Block reinstated

As noted above, I have reinstated the block, because it has become clear through discussion that the Spartaz (who lifted the block) had misunderstood the reasons for the block and the timing of the actions leading to the block, and had not even seen that at the time of the block I closed my comments to Mikkalai with a promise to immediately lift the block if Mikkalai withdrew the satement of intent to edit-war.

I'm going to leave it that. I think I have said what needs to be said, and I will leave it to others to see if they can reach a consensus on where to take this situation. However, I stand by my promise to Mikkalai that "I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring", and invite any other admin to lift the block if they notice such an assurance before I do ... or, of course, if there is a consensus here to lift it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's not good, since, technically, that does count as Wheelwarring, which, itself, greatly escalates this incident. Please reconsider. El_C 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I most strongly disagree with this action. Its wheelwarring and there is no consensus that the block was correct. Please reverse yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The re-block was completely unnecessary; I've unblocked Mikkalai, per consensus, and per the fact that he stopped hours ago, and is discussing on the talkpage. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What consensus????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, I will lift my re-block if you also agree to reverse your lifting of the block, since your initial lifting of the block was based on a failure to understand the reasons for which it was applied. I came here to seek a review of my actions and to seek a consensus, not to invite the unilateral overturning of my actions by admin who didn't fully read the extended explanation which I provided for the block, despite the fact that at the time of overturning the only other commentator supported the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to try to make an encyclopedia better, no matter what rules there are? Mikkalai cares for the encyclopedia, and actually writes it, we need more admins like that. Blocking him, especially for 48 hours, isn't going to solve anything. And what's the point of me reblocking him so you'll unblock him?! Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if you have issues with my actions you take them out on me and not on Mikkalai. Your original block was harsh and isn't supported by a clear consensus in the discussion. Reblocking was pointy, petty and wheelwarring - which is staggering given that you had criticised me for wheelwarring shortly before it. I suggest that you go and do something else before this gets even more out of hand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, it really would be a very good idea for you to try and do some basic reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines before participating in discussions on issues like this ... as well as trying to read a blocking admins's reasons before you overturn a block. I'm sorry if that's difficult for you, but reading is kinda crucial around here.

I'm not taking out on Mikkalai my genuine frustration and disappointment at your failure to read before acting or or even to understand why it is a good thing to read before acting. Mikkalai was blocked for his clear statement of intent to be "at war" with another editor, when the other editor was already under warning and the page concerned had already been protected. When you have done your reading, please can you kindly tell us all where exactly in any guideline or policy it says that edit-warring is acceptable behaviour from someone who makes good contributions elsewhere?

It'd be good to know what you come up with, for future reference. Is there a quota of acceptable edit wars for those who you think of as good editors, or is there some threshold at which disruptiveness is given a free license? I look forward to the links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

o_O That's called playing the man not the ball where I come from. If I wanted to continue this argument I might also say that you can start yourself with reading up on WP:DTTR, WP:CIVIL, WP:WHEEL and WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK since we don't do punitive blocks. I'm still very confused. Did you block Mikkalai for being uncivil or for threatening to edit war in an article that was locked? If its the latter, the threat is really meaningless given that Mikkalai had already said that he wouldn't mind the article being locked in the wrong version . Prolific good faith editors have always been given more latitude then the policies strictly allow. I don't think this argument is healthy so I'm going to step out. Perhaps I was wrong to unblock but can you honestly say that your reblock was correct given that at that point the count was 3 in favour of your block and 3 against? Feel free to have the last word but please try and address that last question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The ball here is the admin who unblocked without taking the time and trouble to actually read the blocking reasons, or to check the facts before making a whole series of demonstrably false assertions about the course of events. After all this time, you are still asking questions about why Mikkalai was blocked, the answers to which are clearly set out in the detailed reasons I gave for the block. If you haven't read and understood those, five hours after you impetuously lifted the block, please don't waste time citing anything at anyone else. Read before acting, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Your block was challenged, you need to justify it, not simply re-impose it. Several people have suggested that why is unliekly to help. You have not addressed those concerns. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. If you re-read the discussion, you'll see that most of the points raised in objection were simply wrong. It was alleged that block was punitive, when it was explicitly preventive; it was claimed that the page was protected after the threat to editwar, when the protection had taken place 9 hours before the threat; I was told that the block was lifted because I should have promised Mikkalai not lift the block if the war-threat was withdrawn, which I had done. And so on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you read it you'll see that your block was widely reckoned to be wrong. And reinstating it was wheel warring - something which you know to be wrong, even if you assume that only people reversing your actions are doing it. So that's two mistakes. I recommend you stop at that. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This was not a situation that required blocks, and nor was it a situation that required wheel-warring - and yes, BrownHairedGirl, wheel-warring is exactly what you did. Nor am I seeing an explicit promise to continue edit-warring from Mikka, or even an implicit one. Blocking by rote is unlikely to help matters in any situation. A more holistic approach is needed sometimes. Moreschi ^Talk 14:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus was being a disruptive menace, and is in the last-chance saloon; I and a few other admins have been trying to deal with the dispute by acting even-handedly. Edit-warring is always deplored, and nobody here has provided a plausible explanation of how or why it is acceptable for an admin to announce an intention to proceed with it. However, I'm not going to argue this any longer; someone else can take the trouble of dealing with these two edit warriors, and take whatever action they feel like. On the basis of what I have read here, and the jibe about blocking-by-rote, I have to wonder whether that will bear any resemblance to policy or guidelines, but if some admins want to make things up as they go along, I'll leave them to it. Have fun with Ludvikus and Mikkalai! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring is always deplored as well, you know. You are in no position to lecture anyone about policies and guidelines, particularly as they related to admin actions, so let's cut the hypocrisy, shall we? Moreschi ^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's see. I engage with the parties to a conflict follow policy and guidelines, apply a block, set out the reasoning at unusual length, go the extra mile by asking for comments at ANI, and then someone who didn't even bother reading what I had written (let alone do some of the more onerous work of actually checking the timelines before pronuncing on them) unblocks in the face despite the balance of views at that point being 2:1 in favour of the block ... and I end up getting called a hypocrite because I insisted that an unblock should be done on the basis of a consensus? Thanks a lot, pal. Now, are you going to deal with that edit war, or did you just pop in to criticise after the fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in asking for a review if you're not prepared to receive criticism? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I expected to receive informed criticism, or . The first section of this review consisted mostly of one verbose editor who wouldn't read and who acted on that basis, and I object strongly to that. There were several more thoughtful contributions too, on both sides, which were welcome. I accept that that there has later appeared to be an emerging consensus that prolific editors should be allowed to edit war, which I accept, even though I think it is a very unwise approach. What I don't accept is the sniping, which is why I would be delighted to now leave this whole situation for someone else to sort out, safe in the knowledge that there is no penalty for inaction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the biggest pile of BS I've seen outside of a really big barn. You didn't just insist upon the supposed incorrectness of the unblock. You yourself darn well reinstated your original block, which you are not allowed to do under any circumstances. Have you actually read Wikipedia:Wheel war? If not, I highly recommend that you do so. Oh, and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being mysteriously "wrong" apriori doesn't look good either. Moreschi ^Talk 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The principle of fairness doesn't always work on Wikipedia, sometimes, to keep the content contributors happy, you have to be sensible, but unfair. Blocking an excellent contributor such as Mikkalai just to be fair to someone who's being extremely disruptive, probably is fair, but it's completely devoid of any application of common sense. Nick 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just fairness, it's also a matter of actually resolving the situation and calming the was which make some areas of wikipedia into no-go zones for anyone but the most battle-hardened. I don't see how it helps to defuse a content dispute for an editor to declare war on another editor/. There are plenty of content contributors who add a lot of content to to the encyclopedia and don't feel entitled to go around stoking conflicts, and their ability to work effectively is undermined if others appear to be given a licence to stoke conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think the block was justified, and that the unblock was a little confusing. 1 != 2 15:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

focus on the main block

Rather than arguing about wheel-warring, we should first resolve the main issue: should the block on Mikkalai be lifted early? The reasons for the block are listed here. I see opinions in both directions (lift vs. let stand) above; it should be possible to reach a consensus, possibly by compromising on a shorter block length. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it should be lifted, and then we should talk to Mikka about what the problem is. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A block because of promised action ("war") until confirmation of good conduct is obtained, is a correct use of a block. To unblock isn't wheeling, but was rash, especially given that 1/ someone else had endorsed so far and 2/ the matter was brought for discussion. The fact that uses "stark" language is his/her lookout... if he states, as an admin, he is "at war", he must expect this will be taken as such unless confirmed otherwise. Editors and admins are not expected to be perfect, but their general judgement is expected to be good.

That said, BrownHairedGirl was deeply incorrect to reinstate. The fact that in her perception and view, "it had become clear" he was in error is not the same as consensus (if consensus had existed, others would have acted too). That reinstatement is a canonical example of a wheel, though not the worst degree of it.

So now we have two issues,:

1. An administrator who has stated as hyperbole that they are "at war" (but is also a "prolific creator" of good content), who knows well that policy prohibits disruptive approaches and that this will be taken as provocation, declaration or incitement, and whose words were reasonably and predictably taken at face value, and
2. An administrator who acted on reasonable grounds, sought additional eyeballs when appropriate, and then due to feeling others had not read the matter and were in clear obvious error, has wrongly wheeled by reinstating their block when reversed.

That is where it stands. The concerns are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future? I think that is one of the first things that needs to happen to resolve this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• An admin has no need to promise good conduct before being allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor. Ludvikus is the problem here, as a look at the history of the dispute will immediately establish beyond any possible doubt, and right now I imagine he's laughing up his sleeve. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find widespread disagreement with the notion that such statements are a necessary, desirable, acceptable or essential aspect of being "allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor". Administrators have to deal with far, far more disruptive editors than Ludvikus. I've never found such wording to be other than inflammatory and unhelpful. The purpose of blocks is to prevent disruptive conduct. It is hard to argue that words which inflame a situation (are likely to cause a reaction, will probably provoke), won't be perceived reasonably as "disruptive" by many admins. Invariably the best course for any experienced editor is to be WP:CIVIL and calm as they do their necessary actions. So you are right that no promise is needed before controlling a disruptive editor. But the question wasn't that at all. It was: "The concerns [of others] are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future?" FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Leonard Peltier article was inadvertabtly vandalized.

I think someone official should send a polite welcome to User:75.107.4.10 I reverted a huge amount of original research made from that IP address. I think its just a case of someone being unfamiliar with wiki policy. : Danny Weintraub  : Albion moonlight 10:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Punk

I'm taking heavy-handed action against pro-motional links which for long have accompanied the entry. ^[81] El_C 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, do just that. 90% of those are promotional, not reliable sources. Nuke away. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Just noting that I was met with limited opposition. ^[82][83] El_C 11:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I do not wish to furthur my involvement in this debate, I give reasoing for my original decision to revert here. [[Guest9999 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]

First person shooter and linking to sites with abandonware and dealing with unmovable editors

I'm pulling my hair out at this. Short history: About a year ago, a lot of extra external links were added to First person shooter, most would be considered fan sites. An anon user (User:68.54.56.198) going by "Advocate" advances the link to firstpersonshooter.net ("FPS.net" for purposes of discussion, more about it in a bit) to the top of the list citing its a better resource; later we come to learn he's the owner of it. In July of this year, most of those links including FPS.net were removed by someone generally cleaning up the article. The anon IP comes back and keeps adding at least his link back; eventually he runs into a 3RR situation. I tried to open dialog with users to discuss the validity of the links noting that he was blocked at the start of this, and waited after the block to get a reply. Note that in trying to remove the block, the anon engaged in some uncivil attacks of the editors.

So shortly after the block is over , the anon returns add continues to readd the links, and while not directly addressing the discussion opened up, he states that since the link had existed for a year, it has received the consensus it needed to stay on the page and that those editing it away were vandals; we have pointed out WP:CCC to him but he dismisses it over "millions of readers" having consensus over a handful of editors. He very obviously states its his site and thus eventually runs into COI violations, being blocked again and also running into additional uncivilness in the unblock. Rinse, wash, repeat, the block expires, he returns and adds the link again and now runs into uncivilness, leaving the IP presently blocked indefinitely.

Fast-forward to yesterday where User:HavenBastion appears and within a hour of creation, posts the same arguments that the anon is using in the Talk:first-person shooter as shown here. It's shown that its sockpuppetry (shown at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/68.54.56.198) but then is later determined that text at the front page of FPS.net suggests that there also may be meatpuppetry going on (with a "news" post saying that people are WP are removing his site from the fps page and general bitterness against it towards WP). The page first person shooter has been semi-protected as to prevent changes, but HavenBastion is trying to remove to the protection so he can add the link back again.

I've been trying to deal with this assuming good faith, but I don't believe this user is going to give at any point and I'm getting to the end of my rope as well as other editors. In that regard, I have been trying to identify strong reasons why the site can't be included. So, about the site:

• .198/HavenBastion claims it is the most complete list of FPS games. That may be true; it's got 1600+ titles vs 600+ in an FPS category on WP. However, unlike, say, IMDB or MobyGames, the site includes relatively basic details, and despite quantity, it lacks quality to be a good resource. But that's an objective argument and it could be pushed either way.
• It's a fan site; the page strongly implies that the owner is tracking games he has or wants. Again, an objective argument and could be pushed either way
• It's a conflict of interest, which is absolutely true, but the owner refused to back down, saying that all other WP guidelines be put aside because its a useful resource.
• The site contains abandonware as well as long sections of text copied verbatim from other gaming sites. While the owner does state that he will deal with requests for removing it, discussions at WP:EL and WP:C suggests that WP has to keep its nose clean of any accessory to copyvios, and thus should not link to it; Of course, Home of the Underdogs is an exception that unfortunately makes this a tricky argument, though I do note that in that case, we are talking about a notable web site and linking to it out of necessity from the page that talks about it as a website but in no other situation, as opposed to linking via external links to a relatively unknown website to talk about a genre of video games. The owner brings up that abandonware has yet to be proven illegal and several other similar arguments per abandonware and that linking to it outside of a specific game sense would be just like how Home of the Underdogs is linked in.

I really don't know what to do at this point without no longer assuming good faith. I'm trying to determine if there's a line that basically says "no this link can't be added" (based on either the link contents or the user's behavior); if that line exists, great, we draw it, end of story, but if not, I'm willing to back down and add it, but my gut still tells me FPS.net should not be added just out of general failure to meet standards for external links. --MASEM 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you summarize the above report, please? El_C 12:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:HavenBastion (previous of User:68.54.56.198) owns firstpersonshooter.net and insists on adding it back in after it was removed in general cleaning; he has been cited and blocked for 3RR, COI and uncivilness but has not given up (creating the account to continue on) and is possibly engaging in sock/meatpuppetry. The site would seem to fail several criteria for External Links, particularly in that it has abandonware and thus a possible copyvio, but HavenBastion continues to state that his site is useful and all other Wiki policies should be ignored or changed to meet the inclusion of his site. I've assumed AGF but have reached my limits of dealing with the user.

(Is this the summary you wanted, or a summary of the previous blocks on the user?) --MASEM 13:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of both editors refusing to accept Wikipedia policy. I've reported them to SSP, if anyone cares - they are obviously the same person. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've pissed him off :) so you can add WP:CIVIL to his list of transgressions. Add a touch of threatening to be disruptive and one has a recipe for ban soup! ---- WebHamster 14:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. All the more evidence (WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:NPA) to indef you, my pretty! He he he! =) NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need lists of sites? If the sites were not used for the development of the article, they're all tails tacked onto the Manx cat. If there is an insoluble dispute with which fanbois get tops, then the answer seems to me to be to resort to one of our oldest principles, one of the principles that Wikipedia has lately been less mindful of: Wikipedia is NOT a venue for advertising or promotion. We do not accept money for advertising, and therefore we won't do it for free, either. Since all of the mentions are, effectively, personal endorsements of a site, and since few of them are necessary for understanding the topic, I would recommend a very, very simple solution: no links to external sites that aren't directly contributory for the content or concepts of what a first person shooter is. What is the gain of a list of links? External jumps. What is the loss to excising them? None. Thus, chop 'em off and leave 'em off and explain to the troublesome person that no claims about the virtues or vices of his site are necessary: Wikipedia does not advertise. Geogre 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Geogre speaks wisely, as ever. Wikipedia is not a link farm, either. I have added fps.net to the local blacklist. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since what The Geogre said is basically what we've been trying to tell the vandal in the first place. Also, what exactly does the black-list do? Does it deny edits containing that link, or does it remove the link if it is added? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot now add a link to that site to en.wp - and I would advise you to go to meta:talk:spam blacklist and use the tools there to see if he's spammed it to other projects. Since he's also gone spectacuylarly apeshit on his talk page, I've blocked that account as well. He may be right when he asserts that we cannot prevent him from linking his site without permanently protecting that article, but I suspect he is wrong. Let's find out. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

you've blocked "firstpersonshooters dot net", rather than FPS.net right? The second is an unconnected (as far as I can see) site? (and note it's shooters not shooter--Fredrick day 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over and checked the blacklist (at WP:SBL) and yes, Guy has blocked not only firstpersonshooters (dot) net, but also firstpersonshooters (dot) org, which is an affiliated wiki. Good job! Oh yes, and he indef blocked Haven too. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

His comment, "I'd assassinate you if I could." is also way outside the bounds of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I left a note on his talk page explaining that. Of course, the message will be cheerfully disregarded and he'll come back and attack me for it, so I'm not sure how it'll help the situation at all. I've only been an admin for six weeks and I'm already getting cynical. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NewLabourNewLies

Resolved

NewLabourNewLies (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Seems to be on a one person campaign to add many articles to the category abnormal psychology, as a quick check of his/her contributions will show.. He has shot well past 3rr on transgender, and has expanded his horizons to include Sado-masochism, pedophilia, transexualism, and Kathoey. I;m not here to debate the appropriateness of the categorization, but to point out that this is going on despite discussion or consensus, and is causing many editors of those articles distress and anger. There are several comments and warnings on his/her talk page; I think it is now time for stronger action. Could an admin please reign him in? Jeffpw 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• That should be username blocked. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done username blocked and requested only to request unblock for name change once they are ready to agree to play nicely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, on behalf of innumerable editors, thank you so very much! Jeffpw 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, maybe not done entirely. This is copied from the LGBT project page: While working my way through this, I happened upon Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal, which points to User:BiasThug, a suspected sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71... The claims of bullying in User talk:BiasThug and User talk:FisherQueen make me suspect that it may be the same editor. I think that this will need further investigation by someone more familiar with the editing style of DavidYork71. Not sure where to report this but I'm sure it needs reporting to somewhere... This time I'm going to bed and not getting up again until the morning. I trust someone else will sort this out while I'm asleep. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• The username "NewLabourNewLies" is politically loaded. It refers to the British political party called the Labour Party. Anthony Appleyard 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Since 99% of the administrators here at th present seem to be contemplating the collective Wik navel at the above Mikkalai block thread, I took the trouble to tag all suspected socks as such. No charge, and feel free to revert. Jeffpw 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Selective undelete

In the selective undelete, a useful new feature appeared "invert the selection". This useful feature has disappeared again. Please, what happened? When will it be back? Anthony Appleyard 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me on Opera 9. MaxSem 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still around. Try clearing your cache. east.718 at 14:56, 10/21/2007

What browser are you using? This is implemented in the new Sysop.js linked to Common.js, which was changed to make disabling Sysop.js possible. It may be related. — Edokter • Talk • 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Should work now, have updated Sysop.js. _→AzaToth 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Figure out Ryan's afternoon

I woke up this morning with a pretty bad hangover and I need to stay in today - so here's a one time offer: The first person who gives me an admin task that they think is backlogged will get three solid hours of my effort in that area, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I'm going out to lunch, I'll check back when I get back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• SSP has been backlogged for ages. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, three hours of sockpuppets to sort out. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Ryan Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bah, I showed up too late to suggest CAT:CSD. Damn. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you send a case of strong liquor to Ryan if you want your backlog(s) to be dealt with... LessHeard vanU 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another block review

I have indef blocked Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis of a report to WP:AIV, and my review of the diffs provided. Per my comment when placing the notice on User talk:Beh-nam I recognise that the tariff may be inappropriate, and I am open to any admin who wishes to investigate further to vary or lift the block as deemed fit. I also concede that the original report may be motivated by reasons that are unencyclopedic and I therefore blocked on the basis of the incivility as evidenced by the language. LessHeard vanU 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this thread above. User:Beh-nam, User:Aspandyar Agha and User:Dilbar Jan have been participating in adolescent insults to each other on various talk pages, and calling each other sockpuppets of some User:NisarKand. I should have delved deeper into it last night as I thought it was just restricted to one particular spat, but it looks like it is a bigger Tajik vs. Pathan issue. -- Samir 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I had dealings with Beh-nam some months ago and always found him to be a good-faith contributor. Please be aware that the person who placed that report is apparently NisarKand (talk · contribs), one of the worst spreaders of ethnic hatred and long-time sockpuppeter. NisarKand is indeed a serious problem. Dealing with him can be exasperating; I don't think anything Beh-nam may have done while dealing with NisarKand ought to be held against him. I'll look further into this; might recommend unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse the indef blocking of Beh-nam, for this edit alone. The problem vandal NisarKand is irrelevant to this issue, which is Beh-nam's conduct, and there is no justification for that kind of hateful speech. Neil ☎ 17:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Still skeptical. A one-off outburst under the kind of constant provocation caused by the NisarKand socks is not necessarily grounds for indef-blocking. I notice Beh-nam was doing some useful work in pinning down copyvio image uploads which Nisar was trying to hide behind a multi-sock smokescreen, as usual. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing some useful work does not give anyone a pass for that kind of racism and intolerance. I saw a thread about this further up one of the Admin Noticeboard pages recently. Of particular note is [84] - the history of User talk:Sodaba shows that Beh-nam did not make a "one-off outburst" - he made five edits over 17 minutes honing and adding to his name-calling and bigotry - this was not a one-off edit made in a fit of passion, this was a carefully constructed and considered piece of hatemongering. Neil ☎ 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed User:Dilbar Jan's contributions more thoroughly and there are heaps of hateful ethnic commentary. I've blocked him indefinitely. -- Samir 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello dear Friends

Beh-Nam is not NisarKand because Beh-Nam is a Tajik and NisarKand an Awghan, an ethnic Pashtune. Dear Admins, plz check that out also his IPs. They are two different User. While NisarKand and DilbarJan are one and the same User and a nationalistic one but Beh-Nam has nothing to do with such activities. DilbarJan(/NisarKand) claimed he would helping Taliban but since Beh-Nam is a Persian and the Taliban were looking for cleansing Tajiks who could he be NisarKand self since Dilbar is allready NisarKand!? Plz dear Admins, unblock him. Beh-Nam is for a long time on Wikipedia and he didn´t do sth bad either against any nations nor against any User or any articles. The admins of Wikipedia now banned two or three of Tajiks who were one o the important ones here at least they were the sole Tajiks who were active. Plz Admins, ban DilbarJan who is writing articles from his nationalistic view. With best regards.

--Aspandyar Agha 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)