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

Meleniumshane90 asking for unblock

I wasn't going to post this here, but this user has severely irked me. He has resorted to legal threats on several occasions (including, "if you change the format of this page, your account will be restricted"). I tried to post a note on his page, but he characteristically just removed it. I ask someone to please handle this unblock (you may wish to see my previous comment: [1] as well). The Evil Spartan 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock. It was posted without a reasoning anyway. I don't see "your account will be restricted" as a legal threat, though. - Philippe | Talk 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Further modifications to the format of this page will result in an immediate contact with Wikipedia officials. This is the final warning, harassment is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and I have already requested for assistance from the service department. Seems pretty clear cut to me. The Evil Spartan 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like "I'm going to tell on you!" than a legal threat to me. — Coren ^(talk) 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I read it too. Kind of "third-grade" fingerpointing. Now, had it said "modify this and I sue you!" then I'd think differently. - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a legal threat. Such would assume an attempt to coerce action through a government judicial system. But the block log says he was trying to harass other users so the block was based on that not a legal threat. I would assume there's more to it that the one statement quoted above, right? - JodyB _talk 13:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After delving a little deeper into this user's contributions, it seems the core problem is an understanding of the WP:EL policy. He's not a brand new user but he has been around enough to know better. Another issue is that some are reverting his talk page where he has removed previous comments and warnings. Such removal of warnings is specifically within guidelines. I'm wondering if there would be an objection to some additional interaction with this user with a view toward lifting the indef block? I will post at the blocking admins page. - JodyB _talk 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other user who has been the ire of Meleniumshane90's anger of late. I was not aware that one could remove warnings from their own user page unless either they were archived, or they were vandalism themselves. For that, I apologize. As for the "edit warring" regarding the external links, I tried to talk to him. He insisted I was "spamming" and restored the links. I am certain he does not have an understanding of the guidelines regarding external links. I feel he may be willing to listen to reason. I have indicated that I am more than willing to converse with him in that regard. I realize I'm heavy-handed. I am endeavoring to be more understanding. --Mhking 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up: I have spoken to the blocking admin and we agree that he can be unblocked if he agrees to certain rules which I have outlined at his talk page. I am waiting for his reply. - JodyB _talk 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my thread further on down. He's currently block evading, still edit warring to remove unblock-declined requests, resorting (albeit false) threats, and on top, he has refused to abide by those conditions. I suggest you actually lock up his talk page, as he's refused to let the unblock-declined requests stand. The Evil Spartan 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: His actions continue on his talk page; he has yet again removed the decline notice from his talk page. I have not contacted him, nor done anything toward him since JodyB's notice earlier today. I do not intend to do so until and unless he contacts me overtly. However, if the links on Celebration, Florida are replaced, I'll remove them per WP:EL. And on another note of his, I have to take great umbrage at his characterization of me as someone who does "not like church-community relations." Nothing I've said has indicated such, and furthermore, he has NOT contacted me to negotiate this amenably; he has only made accusations and threats in my direction. (time to get off my soapbox; my apologies for rambling and ranting, but he really irks me!) --Mhking 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both The Evil Spartan and Mhking for your comments above. I have attempted to assist this user and have been been rebuffed. I am therefore washing my hands of him and leaving him blocked indef. - JodyB _talk 11:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mhking, I'm a regular church-goer, and at that to an evangelical church. So it's not you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62

Sum up: In Catalan Countries there was an edit warring between Casaforra (talk · contribs) and Maurice27 (talk · contribs). Maurice27 broke 3RR. Casaforra didn't. Maurice27 has been blocked several times, for all possible reasons, including because of 3RR (06:29, 10 April 2007). Casaforra had never been blocked nor even warned of any uncivil action. Physchim62 (talk · contribs) shares POV with Maurice27. Result: Maurice27 hasn't been blocked (reason: he didn't make any contribution during the last 20 hours before reporting 3RR break. Remark: During this 20 hours the article was with Maurice27's version, so he had of course no reason to continue with the war). Casaforra has been blocked for one week.

Request:

• Unblock Casaforra: first time of breaking 3RR block is just for 24 hours. 1 week is complitely disproportionate for a user with not even one warning in his expedient.
• If Casaforra is not unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked for at least the same time as Casaforra. If Casaforra is unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked at least the same time as Casaforra has been blocked.

Explanation: I consider a great miuse of administrative powers this biased way to block users by Physchim62. Why now Maurice27 is not blocked and Casaforra is? they did the same, just with two differences: Maurice27 did break 3RR, and Casaforra didn't (I know you can be blocked even without breaking it strictly, but he was even not warned). And the second difference: as I explained here, people who wanted to remove Maurice27's template, respected him when he added it and we discussed in Talk page. After 17 days (10-27 November) without any answer from Maurice27 (even if he made several contributions during those days in other articles), the template was removed. Then he decided to continue the discussion but he didn't respect the status quo as we did, but he started an edit warring, and Casaforra just asked him to reach the consensus he didn't search during this 17 days. I don't say Casaforra is innocent, but I see at least Maurice27 as guilty as Casaforra; one is blocked but not the other.

I wonder: if Casaforra can not revert Maurice27, should we always wait 17 days to remove the template and then Maurice27 gives us the grace to (after reverting) discuss?

Let's remark Physchim62 was already accused of miuse of administrative powers in the request for arbitration that he opened precisely against Casaforra and other people against his POV, and the result was complitely opposite as he expected: Maurice27 (as I said, a user sharing his POV) was banned during one month.

I know this is not the place to take any decision against Physchim62. Right now I am just interested in solving the injustice between Maurice27 and Casaforra. However, I would like to know which is the appropiate place to make an official complaint against Physchim62 in case I decide to do it. Thank you very much, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Xtv's complaint. When the 3RR violation was reviewed by administrators, they blocked Maurice27 for a very short period of time but did not take any action against Casaforra. Physchim62 decided to jump in by blocking him without giving him a warning -as required, even after having said that he would not intervene in Catalonia related articles given his past involvements in those subjects. Please review [2], [3], [4], [5], to review Physchim62's protection of Maurice27, his spurious accusation against users who have not violated any rules but happen to disagree with his particular POV, as well as the decision of the arbitrators (to block Maurice27). Please also note that this is issue is relevant, since after after his failure to obtain his desired result in Arbitration, now Physchim62 presented is candidature as an arbitrator himself. [6].

--the Dúnadan 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't see any items in Casaforra's block log. Should the IP block show up there? spryde | talk 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I cannot see anybody's block logs (whatsoever user). Is there a glitch in the system? (Casaforra was blocked according to: this.) --the Dúnadan 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP block will not appear in an affected editor's block log, which is why there's a separate unblock request for autoblocks. However, it is odd that Casaforra's block log is empty. I checked some users I blocked yesterday, and there block logs have entries, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

That aside, this edit warring block does look appropriate. One week is indeed long for a first edit warring block (I believe it's general practice to start at 24 hours), and Physchim62 probably should have recused him/herself from making any blocks in that case, considering his/her involvement in the article in question. However, I think it would be best to wait for him/her to comment before taking any action. Natalie 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after having looked at Physchim62's log of blocks, I don't see a block of Casaforra. The block log appears to be functioning perfectly fine, so I have no idea what's going on here, or if Casaforra is even blocked. Natalie 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra told he is blocked, and in his talk page says so. As I told, I agree with Natalie, a block might (might not) be appropiate. My complaint is because it's far too long, because there is a discrimination respect to Maurice27 and because Physchim62 should have recused himself of this action. There are many other admins who can dare with it (and who, by the way, decided just to warn him, not to block him, since it was his first time, as you can see in 3RR page). I already asked Physchim62 an answer. So, let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Casaforra is, per the IPblocklog, blocked for a 1 week period with email disabled and account creation disabled. Email disabled seems quite odd. Why it shows in Ipblocklog but not the regular one is beyond my comprehension. The timestamp as I view it is 17:21, 29 November 2007. Prior to this, User:LaraLove had blocked Maurice27 for 1 week, then unblocked 3 minutes later. There is an inconsistency here that should be addressed, with comments needed from both LaraLove and Psychim62. I'll go notify Lara, and confirm that Psychim has been notified. I will say off the hand that edit warring to prevent a maintenance tag from being on article is a worse sin than edit warring to put it on, at least in my eyes. The process is tag - then discuss - then fix - then remove tag. Edit warring to take a tag off is attempting to skip the discuss and fix steps. GRBerry 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also note that "Admin X is biased in matter Y" is a standard, usually invalid, complaint made by partisans when someone on their side gets sanctioned. It will be ignored unless evidence is presented or already known of by reviewers. GRBerry 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is not the place to discuss the nuances of the discussion and the appropriateness of the tag, but rather the inappropriate administrative actions of Physchim62. However, I guess it needs to be noted that Pshychim62 does have a particular POV regarding Catalan-related articles and has [mis]used his administrative tools to protect or punish users accordingly on previous occasions, and that is why I provided links above to be reviewed. Please read them, I know some of the pages related to Evidence are quite long, but they merit the attention of administrators. This is not the first time that this issue has been brought up. It hardly matters whether a user from my, their, our side gets unfairly sanctioned but the fact that he was unfairly sanctioned is what must be addressed. I guess if an impartial administrator had blocked a user for the first time, then the issue can be dealt directly with the administrator. But Physhcim62 has been historically involved in the discussions with a very particular POV, and that several users have complained about his inappropriate leniency towards Maurice27 (who has been blocked eight times) and his rapid blockage of users (like Benimerin), and therefore this issue needs to be brought up to the attention of other administrators.--the Dúnadan 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, GRBerry, we are here to assume good faith, and if someone posts something about administrator abuse, we need to take it seriously and look into it. Dunadan's claims so far, if correct, are a serious problem. The Evil Spartan 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up on that point; I missed Dunadan's sets of links. GRBerry 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again reserving judgment until the actual administrator's have commented, I would venture that it's a good general rule to avoid using admin tools for incidents in which one has been involved, except when the need for tools is beyond obvious. In other words, an admin's active involvement in an article should not be a problem in the case of simple, obvious vandalism. But edit wars are complex and the "fair" thing is often quite nuanced. In that case I think if the administrator has been directly involved, recusing themself can do no harm. Natalie 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from LaraLove

The block of mine in question, where I blocked Maurice27 (talk · contribs · block log) for one week then unblocked 3 minutes later, was my first 3RR report block, I believe. I reviewed the edits and Maurice's block log and decided one week was a reasonable block considering previous blocks and that he'd just come off a one month ArbCom ban. After I blocked him, I realized he hadn't edited in several hours. I spoke with other admins in IRC for their opinion and was told that because blocks are not punitive and he'd not edited the article in ~20 hours, I should not block. There was also discussion about what previous blocks should be factored in when determining time. Regardless, I immediately unblocked and placed a warning on his talk page. That was the extent of my involvement. Lara❤Love 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see there is now a further problem with this admin. listed below at [7] 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Physchim62

Well, this really does seem to the open season on attacking me, doesn't it. Nobody bothers to ask themselves if this is a reasonable "question" to be asked in ArbCom elections, or whether the other parties are abiding by the ArbCom encouragement. I have already explained the circumstances behind by block of Casaforra here. I note that the unblock request was refused by an uninvolved admin here. I would be grateful if uninvolved admins could look at the actions of Dúnadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if they merit further action, as it would obviously be too contraversial should I take action myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell me Physchim62, what rules have me and Xtv violated? On what merit do you label us as vandals and want to take actions, other than us disagreeing with your POV? Please, I urge uninvolved administrators to review my contributions as well as Xtv's. Please do, and please review the links I provided above, so that we can end his spurious and senseless accusations from a partial administrator against us. And while at it, please review Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After a serious impartial look at our contributions, tell me, does it really make sense, as an administrator, to block Casaforra but not Maurice27? --the Dúnadan 23:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

May I ask to the Dúnadan something?. I keep wondering why does my name keep appearing in every one of your complains if 3, I repeat, 3 admins here above have not expressed any problem about my acting in the article Catalan Countries (apart the 3RR).

I have nothing to do with this "complain" from Xtv and yourself. Therefore I EXIGE that you quit this attitude! I find your obsession against Physchim62 (doubting his good faith) and myself (calling me vandal) completely out of place.

I ask the admins involved in this "incident" (to call it somehow), to seriously take a look at all 3 users asking for the head of Physhim62 (Xtv, Dúnadan and Casaforra). I can't understand how a bunch of users who's only meaning in wikipedia is to get other users blocked at all cost and which are not caring about other users' rights or opinion, are getting free of warnings by whom are supposed to take care of wikipedia (apart Physchim of course).

Casaforra felt in his own trap. He acted incorrectly, negliged wikipedia rules, and got blocked. PERIOD. There are no secondary or obscure intentions. Physchim acted in a pristine manner, just as he has done with me in the past. Doubting that, is only possible in someone without good faith.

I sincerely hope this complain, brings new admins to take care of these users. After a RfA, reporting an admin and a continuous fight for almost 6 months, I think it is enough! These users are trespassing all limits. --Maurice27 07:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care much about all this process ridden brouhaha, and so I don't have (nor want to have) an opinion about Casaforra's block, but as an editor who is familiar with all these topics and all these editors, I think by now it is quite obvious for unrelated administrators that, from the initial Casaforra's issue, a certain "off with Physchim's head" bloodthirst has erupted, and that looks like it is related with past grudges that Dúnadan bears about Physchim. I think this should be noted as well. Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like other editors involved in the dispute are upset, which is understandable. That's precisely why administrators are supposed to avoid blocking users they are in conflict with. I really don't think Psyschim has provided an adequate justification for doing so, and should reconsider in the future. Natalie 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say that Cassaforra is still blocked being his fault his very first fault and without being warned, and then he can not give here his oppinon on the matter, while the user with whom he had the war and who actually broke 3RR, can contribute here giving his oppinion.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I am extremely annoyed to find that the User:CommonsDelinker has been used to change an image I placed on my personal user page IE:- Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Ulster_banner.svg and draw me into an apparent edit war that is spilling over from the English Wikipedia onto Wikimedia Commons.

The image name change has been done, via Wikimedia Commons, under the claim that the 1st image is an exact duplicate of the 2nd image. This is incorrect as the 1st image has been uploaded since 28 November 2005, by User:Dbenbenn who is a Wiki Commons Bureaucrat, whilst the second has been created by a new user:- User:FalseXflag downloading the first image and re-uploading it, with a different name, two days ago on 28 November 2007, which technically makes the 2nd image the duplicated copy. It appears that the uploader is involved in an edit war over the name/purpose of the image for his own personal POV reasons on the English wikipedia.

To use User:CommonsDelinker to then change multiple user pages is a form of vandalism, as now many users with different political points of view around the world have been summarily forced to have this change of name forced on them.

To also claim that the delete tag should be removed from Image:Ulster_banner.svg on the grounds that the image was linked to hundreds of articles and templates, is also offensive, had the delinker not been used then the image would not exist on those articles/templates as claimed, having only existed under that name two days ago. It should also be noted that many articles/templates have not been able to be changed, as the 1st image is used in many other countries version of Wikipedia. They were listed on the 1st image page, though an edit by User:Siebrand removed the list from view, though it still visible in the edit history here:- Edit history Image:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland.svg. An attempt has been made to take a back door approach to having the image name changed, when it was opposed by other editors on the English Wikipedia; See:- Talk Page - Flag of Northern Ireland and Image Talk page - Ulster banner.

As a Yorkshireman I consider myself to be neutral over the name or correct affiliation of the image, however I am aware that whilst living in Northern Ireland in the early 60s, and then working in the ambulance service there in the early 70s, the flag was flown on NI Government buildings. My usage of this particular image is to show the Flag that was in use at the time I worked there, I do not wish it to be seen as a link or an affiliation with any particular political party or group, of which I have none!

I am also concerned over the timing of the sudden appearance of the 'New User' User:FalseXflag, who re-uploaded the original image with the new name having only done 3 edit contributions then disappearing to be followed up by other anon editors; See:- Revision history of "Image:Ulster banner.svg" which brings to mind sock-puppet editing!

I have also noted that User:Fennessy has now edited my user page to undo my revert of the User:CommonsDelinker's change of image, in addition to changing many other articles and user pages, despite the fact no consensus to do so has been agreed. This again I consider to be vandalism of my user page, as may the other editors whose pages he has edited. Some may consider it to be a form of bullying to have another editors POV forced on them!

I placed a request on User:Fennessy's Talk page not to edit my user page and advised him I consider it to be vandalism to which I have received this offensive and uncalled for remark, that I consider to be in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  :-

Well you can "consider" it vandalism all you want, but it wasn't. I was doing you a favor by putting in the new location of an image thats about to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Fennessy 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To claim that the image is to be deleted is false information, no consensus has been made on Wikimedia Commons that such an action is to take place at this time. User:Padraig has used the system to have his second upload of the original image semi protected, whilst they go about deleting all links to the first. However they will probably find it impossible to delete the foreign language Wikipedia links. which will in all probability require the image to be retained.

I get the impression that User:Fennessy and User:padraig are Wikipedia:Gaming the system and request that their actions in this situation be looked at a little closer.

There is no actual need to rename the image. Over time flags and Icons come and go are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then wikipedia would grind to a halt. The actions of these two users is irrational and disrupting editors from getting on with good editing of this website, and falls within Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Richard Harvey 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take this to WP:AE per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles Will ^(talk) 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Will! However this was placed here at the suggestion of Admin Andrwsc see:- [8] To be honest I don't want to be dragged into an edit war by Trolls, so I think I will leave it up to those with more experience to deal with the editor(s) concerned. I just want to be left alone to get on with proper editing. Richard Harvey 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being trolls, please remember WP:NPA, as for the Ulster banner, I am sure you did see this flag being flown from Government buildings during the sixties, so did I as I was born in Northern Ireland, that was because between 1953-72 it was the Governmental banner of Northern Ireland used to represent the government, but it wasn't a national flag during that period and had no civic status, throughout that period the Union Flag remained the National flag of northern Ireland. This banner along with the government it represented ceased to existed with the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As for the need to rename the flag, the flag was incorrectly titled as it give the impression that it was the Flag of northern Ireland today which it is not and never was, wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should present facts.--Padraig 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into yet another battleground for that flag, shall we? I think the salient issues of this incident are that:

1. No discussion was made on commons about the image rename, as I suggested here. Clearly, this image is high-use, and contentious, so such a discussion was most certainly the right thing to do. This is not a simple housekeeping matter.
2. The emergence of an apparent sockpuppet (Commons:User:FalseXflag) with respect to Ulster Banner edits triggers some alarm bells.
3. The involvement of Meta:User:CommonsDelinker and Commons:User:Siebrand to quickly "bull" this change through the system before any discussion. Siebrand's talk page already has some complaints from other wikis arising from the ramifications of the change. Perhaps User:Richard Harvey's suggestion to use a name like Image:Flag of Northern Ireland (1953-1972).svg would have alleviated those problems, but since widespread edits were made without discussion, we won't know.

Now, given that much of this incident took place off en.wiki, I'm not sure what the correct response for en.wiki administrators should be, but I still assert that a discussion on Commons:Image talk:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is the best course of action. Andrwsc 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar username

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked sockpuppet vandal -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A user created the username Jmlk007 a few minutes ago. This username is very similar to Jmlk17, an established editor and admin. I'm going to assume good faith that Jmlk007 didn't have intent to mimic Jmlk17, but I wanted a second opinion as to whether it be suggested that he change his username. Useight 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let it be IMO. I don't think it's that close. --Haemo 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's easy to see the difference between the two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The "00" in lieu of the "1" doesn't make it different enough in my eyes to call him not a Jmlk imp. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His image uploads (if he is male) are a bit more worrying than his name. Gracenotes^T § 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I listed the uploads as possibly unfree images. Usernames like JimboSmith are acceptable because Jimbo is common enough. Jmlk is unique enough that I think that this username is too similar. WODUP 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I must admit I've never seen another "Jmlk" anywhere, but I suppose there is a first time for everything! :) Jmlk17 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jmlk007 is a sockpuppet of a vandal who has been vandalising HINDRAF-related articles with tor proxies for several days (see histories). Another sockpuppet was Keling Paria (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jinxmchue

User:67.135.49.177, an admitted IP of User:Jinxmchue was blocked by User:Adam Cuerden at 20:17, 30 November 2007 for 31 hours for edit warring (and a 3RR violation). McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours, and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter. Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing. When he was warned by admin FeloniousMonk that he was evading his block, McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not. I have re-blocked him for block evasion, reinstating the original 31-hour block. I am posting this for revue; if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit. Guettarda 05:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last contribution to Wikipedia, aside from cleaning up my user space. I believe that Jinx truly believed that his block had expired. His dynamic address probably changed on him, so when he logged out to see if he was still blocked, it appeared that he wasn't. If WP:AGF means anything at all, his block should be adjusted to expire at the original time. But I don't have any good faith left for WP:AGF after the lack of it shown to me by a good number of established editors this evening. If anyone is looking for me, you can find me at Wikinfo, where I will be adapting Wikipedia articles to expand and improve that encyclopedia, without all of the bullshit politics, personal attacks, and faux NPOV. It was fun while it lasted, but time to move on. - Crockspot 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid argument about resetting the block timer. I agree that it shouldn't have been done.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a really bad argument about resetting the block timer, CS. Why give benefit of a doubt to a user that has clearly expressed 0 interest in AGF or working towards a consensus. This is textbook block evading and he should be treated like every other user who evades a block. Have fun at Wikinfo, where all the other lost souls who can't work towards consensus edit to push the POV they try so hard to interject here. Cheers!!! Baegis 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

lol! "Consensus" meaning I have to submit to your POV warriors agenda even when it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. If I don't, you gang up on me to undermine the 3-revert rule, falsely accuse me of edit-warring, sockpuppetry and Wikilawyering, block me and only me for allegedly edit-warring (even though others are just as guilty of it), and have two admins who are intimately involved in the conflict (gosh, no conflict of interest there, guys), share the same POV, and are probably friends to tag-team me to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed. I gotta tell you, Monk's rejection of my unblock request for Guettarda's block was really beyond the pale. A neutral admin should've been the one reviewing the block. Monk simply saw my name attached to the request and mindlessly rejected it because of his obvious bias against me. So much for neutrality and fairness being required for admins. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. Jinxmchue should have AGF'd FeloniousMonks comment and discussed at his talkpage, not deleted the warning and continued editing. Also, the ip commented on their talkpage subsequent to the block/notice and would therefore be aware of the tariff - 31 hours is a day plus 7 hours. It appears that violation of the block was intended. LessHeard vanU 12:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "oops I lost track of time" defense, AKA the "DNS/DHCP warped time" defense is absurd. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't lose track of time. I never made any such assertion and I would thank you not to pretend as if I did. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no binding policy against simply deleting material from one's talk page and no binding policy that says admins warnings must be retained. I read the warning, took note of it and deleted it - all well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor. Is archiving preferred? Yes. Was my deleting uncivil? Maybe, but if it was, it was far less uncivil than FeloniousMonk's behavior towards me. As far as my alleged violation of the block, here's what I sent to Guettarda (which he promptly ignored):

14:17, November 30, 2007 Adam Cuerden (Talk | contribs) blocked "67.135.49.177 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours‎ (Edit warring)

14:17 plus 31 hours = 21:17 on December 1

Other than responding to serious, baseless accusations by Monk, my first non-user talk edit was this:

22:24, December 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:D. James Kennedy‎ (→Verification of content needed for refs 28 and 29 - new section)

I don't know if they're counting the user talk page edits I made to respond to FM's baseless accusations (which he refuses to back up). The block was never explained and I had thought that if you are blocked, you could still edit other people's discussion pages. If I am wrong, then I apologize, however I will not apologize for confronting MF's serious charges instead of letting him make them while I could not respond to them. If I'm not wrong, then I am owed an apology for a wrongful block. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The block is over, so this is mostly academic, but Guettarda's given reasons do not justify the re-block. To wit:

• "McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours" - Yes, I did - editing MY USER PAGES (e.g. reverting vandalism), the editing of which is NOT prohibited when blocked. I also responded to serious accusations made against me by your buddy FeloniousMonk on someone else's talk page. As explained above, I didn't think posting on other people's user pages was prohibited and I offered an apology if I was wrong. However, what I was responding to was extremely serious. You'll excuse me if I don't sit around doing nothing while people smear me by resorting to personal attacks and baseless accusations.
• "and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter" - So. Fricking. What. There is no prohibition of returning to certain articles after a block, and I returned to said articles well after the original block had passed (see above and the second email I sent you, though you probably deleted that without reading it).
• "Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing." - As I have explained in both points above, I edited user pages only and my first non-user page edit (to Talk:D_James_Kennedy) was made AFTER the original block had passed.
• "McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not" - I was not and I had read the warning. Deleting it, while not "preferred," was still within the rights afforded to me on Wikipedia.
• "if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit." - Yeah, fat chance of that when your buddy FM responds to unblock requests regarding blocks you made. 67.135.49.177 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No missing white females

Will someone please delete this useless and utterly ridiculous redirect and warn Guroadrunner (talk · contribs) about his behavior creating these kinds of redirects? Thank you. — Save_Us_229 10:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Active cultures redirecting to the article Yoghurt is also another inappropriate redirect created by this user. — Save_Us_229 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that that one is so inappropriate. Google reveals a very large number of references to yoghurt cultures as "active cultures". --Stormie 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question of Editing

I have a problem at the Applied kinesiology article. A user is repeatedly violating WP:CCC. He is editing consensus, and when I revert, instead of bringing it to the talk page, as per WP:CCC (chart) he just unreverts my revert. I have cautioned him several times on the Applied kinesiology page and the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page. His edits are on the same topic. On the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page he complied. On the Applied kinesiology page he continues to revert without bring it to the talk page and achieving consensus or agreement (as per WP:CCC chart.) --Anthon01 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a new user I have been giving Anthon01 quite a bit of slack, but his deletions of extremely well-sourced material, even his deletions of a whole paragraph, is now bordering on vandalism. He seems to think that if he doesn't like new or existing content, he has a right to revert. I think he needs to provide some justification on the talk page first. We need to discuss it. I am trying to get him to use the talk page for discussing his concerns, but instead he edit wars and uses edit summaries. The talk page is where collaboration occurs, not in edit summaries. He seems to think that the CCC chart is the absolute and only method for dispute resolution here, but it isn't. It cannot replace discussion on talk pages. I need more than complaints. I need specific objections to precise wording and why he deletes absolutely impeccable references. Deleting references is quite destructive, especially in this case. -- Fyslee / talk 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus can change" doesn't mean "I disagree with the previus consensus and therefore can change anything I want to." It means, discuss coming up with a new consensus before arbitrary and unilateral edits. Corvus cornix_talk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that Anthon01 has been blocked temporarily for violating 3RR on the page in question, so may not be able to comment here. For what it's worth, consensus certainly can change, but the history of that article and the 3RR violation on Anthon01's part suggest that it hasn't changed yet. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external harassment

Sfacets (talk · contribs) has added a link to his user page that goes to a webpage dedicated to harassing an individual who is also a WP editor. When he added it he made it clear that he knew the target of the harassment would dislike the link.[9] I brought the issue up on Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Case study as a test of how that proposal would work in practice. As a result, JzG removed the link from the user page and initiated a discussion on the user's talk page. Sfacets repeatedly restored the link, insisting he needs it for "reference", but without giving any encyclopedic reason. As suggested by Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, I'm bringing this issue here to seek a consensus to remove the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the user can provide a compelling reason why they need this link on Wikipedia, it strikes me as being rather problematic. I notice they refused to provide such a reason, earlier. Is there some reason this needs to be on the top revision, in particular? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A refusal to provide a reason is good enough grounds to take action against that editor and the link. We try to do everything here collaboratively, and a refusal to collaborate makes NPOV editing impossible and thus the editor excludes themselves from our fellowship. Such a wish should be respected, IOW block the sucker. -- Fyslee / talk 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clearly to fall under WP:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F as "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors". That policy notes that latitude is given regular participants, but I think latitude stops when an explanation is requested and refused, per Luna Santin's link. There are many alternative ways the editor might keep this material for reference. (All the browsers I know offer bookmarking, for instance.) I'd support removing the link, unless there is clear & compelling reason for it to remain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that [10] is also an attack page (a superset of the other) and can be found elsewhere on the 'pedia with a linksearch. I'm going a-hunting now. — Coren ^(talk) 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

... and indeed, there seems to be way to many links to the "guru"'s site. POV warrior, anyone? — Coren ^(talk) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he not only links to the ugly attacks on me (and others) by his co-religionists, but he adds links to words from the attack and adds a link to my place of work. --Simon D M 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simon, if you have a diff for that then we may be looking at harassment, in which case he is in deep trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff: [11] --Simon D M 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, he;s really helping his case here [12], especially with the added spice of threats [13]. I wonder if our friend might need a short break from the stress of dealing with those who do not subscribe to his minority POV? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was just blocked for the game-playing on his userpage. I'd say the matter is closed, unless and until he starts trying to reinsert the link after his block expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block, given his apparent unwillingness to follow our behavioral guidelines. He still readded the link even when we addressed it as being disruptive, and he wouldn't give us his rationale as to why the link should be kept. Maser ^(Talk!) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what else we could have done, here. Tried the easy way. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I confidently expect further problems when the block expires, staring with reverting the removal of links to his guru's website. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicide claim - Cause for concern?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

The authorities have been called. Everything that could be done was. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block of Hesperian

Physchim62 (talk · contribs) has blocked an admin Hesperian (talk · contribs) with which he has a disagreement over the nomination of a number of templates. This needs to be reviewed because to me Physchim62 has misused his admin tools in blocking another editor. Physchim62 closed this tfd attacking the nominator Hesperian responded and was block with the explanation that Hesperian was uncivil.

I'll leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to decide whether this action was/is justifiable. Gnangarra 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(moving comment from Hesperian's talk page) This block is completely unjustified. If anything, User:Physchim62 should be blocked for his comments in closing the TfD in question. He was the first person to comment on the other user (Hesperian), and in commenting on User:Hesperian, i feel that Physchim62 personally attacked him, violating WP:NPA. Although, Hesperians comments did comment on User:Physchim61, and at times avoided the topic at hand, he did not violate WP:NPA. Twenty Years 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Hesperian. The diff cited for the block [14] does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion. I think both Psychim and Hesperian could have handled the situation more calmly, but I cannot see any basis for a block. WjBscribe 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is the third contested and then reversed block for this admin in the past few weeks. There was deeceevoice's year-long block, There is this complaint about "Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62" and now this. I'm tangentially involved in all of this so can a user or admin with a more neutral perspective than I respond to what I'm just starting to see as a pattern? I'm sorry to get up in Physchim62's business, but I thought I should say something in case others hadn't noticed that this keeps happening over and over. Maybe, it is just a coiencidence? futurebird 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the block log of Deeceevoice, you wont see Physchim62 there at all. It seems he just brought the matter to ANI for discussion. Just saying. Jeffpw 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't really know how to look at those sorts of things. So it's not that much of a "pattern" nevermind. futurebird 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Two instances of this sort within the last few days seems enough to warrant some further action. He's apparently editing, but has not responded, at least on-wiki. . DGG (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a pattern of blocking, but a pattern of using admin powers when there is conflict of interest.[15], [16]. --the Dúnadan 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what Physchim62 says. futurebird 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a block of one week would be acceptable. His actions cannot go unpunished, not only has he blocked a quality admin, in a situation where he has COI, he has messed up with a few other blocks. Its simply poor form. Needs some sort of official sanction. Twenty Years 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Um, if I remember correctly, aren't admins allowed to unblock themselves? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They have the capability to do so, which is somewhat different. BLACKKITE 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at Hesperian's actions a little bit here:

1. He nominates over two hundred templates for deletion, citing accessibility problems which he has never bothered to discuss with anyone else. He does not bother to discuss with, or even notify, the appropriate WikiProjects or project pages.
2. In placing the TfD notice, he breaks over five thousand mainspace pages.
3. When two admins vote "speedy keep", his reply is to ask them if they have actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, nothing more. [17]
4. When the discussion was closed as a speedy keep on the basis of it's disruptive nature, he then goes onto suggest that I had not read Wikipedia:Speedy keep myself, and that I was abusing my admin powers. [18]
5. He has yet to engage in the slightest discussion as to what the accessibilty problems might be, and how they could be resolved on other areas of Wikipedia which also use <span class="abbr">.

He's lucky that he is such an experienced user: a newby might have been indefinitely blocked for that sort of trolling, as users of this page know full well. I am upset that this block has been lifted, as the reversion doesn't get us any closer to determining whether there are actually problems with the use of the abbr class. Neither did any of Hesperian's actions to date. Admins and experienced users are not immune from blocks when they act disruptively. Physchim62 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gnagarra above: I'm at a loss to see how my TFD close statement was "attacking" Hesperian, while his message on my talk page didn't attack me. Perhaps you are getting your disputes mixed up, and you are still thinking about the discussion we had this summer over Template:PD-Australia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim nope I didnt get anything mixed up you blocked Hesperian for responding to your statement of accusation about Hesperians bad faith, incivility, ignorance and point making. I brought it here because when you block without warning a trusted editor(admin) with 30,000 plus edits it's normal to notify ANI of your actions and get the situation reviewed by independent admins, even if you dont have a conflict of interest. Gnangarra 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at his actions:

OK, he is free to nominate stuff (yes, including templates) for deletion if he so chooses. Did he mean to "break" over 5000 mainspace pages? i doubt that very much, an experienced user like yourself should AGF and realise he probably didnt. Asking if someone has read speedy keep is not a personal attack. When User:Physchim62 (thats you, right?) closed the discussion? he asked you if you had read speedy keep? thats not a personal attack. So in 100% of his actions, he has not done a single thing wrong.

Now, lets look at your actions:

This comment when you closed the TfD appears to be a blaitant personal attack on a quality admin. After discussions with Hesperian, where he again made no personal attack (as said by WjB) you completely avoid that you have a Conflict of interest and block him for 24 hours because he was alledged to have made a personal attack on you, which WjB (the unblocking admin) could not find. Twenty Years 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, this is not the sort of obviously inappropriate action that would justify you blocking someone you're in conflict with. Was it so necessary to block immediately that you couldn't have brought the issue to a wider audience before acting, or at the very least immediately after acting? Natalie 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What Twenty years and Natalie said. The initial block was out of line and against blocking policy viz. you don't block someone you're in dispute with. And to suggest you'd apply an indefinite block if it was a newbie makes me think Physchim62 is heavy handed and misusing his admin powers. —Moondyne 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hesperian

Physchim62 has told a series of falsehoods here. I may have nominated a great many templates, but I actually only tagged one for deletion. That it was transcluded in a great many pages is not my fault. It is also not true that I notified nobody. The TfD tag for which I am being criticised serves a notification function. Also, I notified the creator of the templates, Bryan Derksen, immediately upon nominating the article. We had a constructive and civil discussion on his talk page. If you have a look at Bryan's talk page, you'll see that after the TfD was closed not in my favour, I followed up with a compromise that he described as "an excellent solution". Surely it is clear from that discussion that I was acting in good faith throughout.

Physchim62 was involved in the rollout of the nominated templates.[19] Clearly he had a stake in these templates, and their nomination for deletion pissed him off. Instead of adding his opinion to the TfD discussion, he elected to prematurely close the discussion as "speedy keep", even though he was an involved party, and an angry one at that, and even though the discussion clearly didn't meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Furthermore his closure notice was insulting, and contained the same falsehoods he's claiming here.

He should never have misused his administrative authority in prematurely closing that TfD. Such behaviour must be challenged, and challenge it I did. In response to that I was blocked for 24 hours. In the opinion of WjBscribe, who unblocked me, "this was an absurd block and I have unblocked. The diff cited for the block does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion."

Physchim62 has perpetrated some serious policy violations and injustices here: a biased and insulting TfD closure; followed by a block on someone with whom he is in dispute, without any basis in policy; followed by the indefensible assertion above that I am "trolling". It galls me to be the victim of such injustices, and to have no recourse that actually serves the encyclopaedia.

Hesperian 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I copy from PhysChem's talkpage, as I am sure he would have wanted it here also: " For technical reasons, I'm unlikely to comment again before 12:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)" DGG (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very serious policy violation, from the discussions above, this appears not to be the first time that there has beeen issues with his use of his admin tools. There must be some sort of sanction against this user, to let him get away with this would be to support his actions. Twenty Years 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find particularly disturbing is the fact that regardless of whether Hesperian may have broken the template, it seems he was never warned or told about it, at least not by Physchim62. I mean, if there was some history of template AFDs, maybe, but I find that defense for the block terrible. It is not obvious how the template code works. That could easily be fixed or at least a warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't break the template. I merely added the {{tfd}} template to it. It is standard operating procedure to do so. In doing so, I apparently made the layout of about 5000 ChemBoxes unattractive. Physchim62's accusation of "disruption" rests solely upon this.

I might add that User:Beetstra removed the tfd template with edit summary "Removing TfD-notice, this is disrupting a huge number of pages about chemicals, I will leave the discussion open" 17 hours before Physchim62 prematurely closed the debate, so the assertion that he closed it because I was disrupting chemistry pages is yet another falsehood.

Hesperian 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. That makes me feel much better<sarcasm>. Ok, if the tfd broke it (and I can understand how it might) all that would mean is that someone should move it into the noinclude section (which would then be a notification fight). That's still not a reason to block. Physchim62, you are not exactly encouraging me personally here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian was editing disruptively. He has still shown no signs of actually wishing to enlighten users about the "accessibility problems" in a more appropriate forum. Instead he simply attacks the admin who is trying to avoid future disruption. This merits a short block whoever he is—we have blocked sitting arbitrators before now, after all. I would not indefinitely block a newby user in such cases, in fact I probably wouldn't WP:BITE at all in the case of a newby, but this is a user who has delighted in telling me how much experience of wikipedia he has. On the other hand, I seen newbies indef blocked for less, without any of the self-appointed guardians on this page so much as batting an eyelid. I was not "in a dispute" with Hesperian, any more than I am "in a dispute" with any other editor who is acting disruptively. The block has been undone, fine, I shaln't reimpose it. Now can we get back to wring an encyclopedia? Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has now lasted longer than the block would have done :P Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But your block of Hesperian cites "personal attacks" and a diff showing a conversation with you on your talk page. If the personal attack and dispute did not involve you, then who did it involve? Are you saying your block summary is incorrect? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have in this discussion completely avoided the point that you failed to communicate with the parties concerned and used blocking as a first rather than last resort on an experienced contributor who was acting in good faith. Communication and good faith are vital and non-optional pillars of Wikipedia and far more important than the attractiveness or otherwise of a particular template. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Hesperian "edited disruptively". I also see nothing in this diff (as cited in the block log) that warranted blocking as an instant and immediate response, and I agree with WjBscribe's handling of the matter. As a matter of incident I have in fact done more than bat an eyelid at what I believe to be unfair or ill-conceived blocks against well-meaning newbies, and it is extremely insulting of you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow hypocritical. After seeing your heavy-handed participation in a copyright dispute (over the content of a template) a number of months ago and your threats to block people for merely disagreeing with you at that time, I see a similar pattern here and it concerns me. Orderinchaos 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to give my statement here about the situation. I noticed the TfD when I was looking at one of the chemicals, and it was disrupting the page quite a lot (warping the chembox). When I read the TfD reason, the main feeling that I got was "I don't like them" (nomination by Hesperian: "As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R- and S-phrases look really cool."). There is no discussion that suggests misuse, unhelpful, or whatever, only its apparent lack of function. Also, there was no notification of the projects or contributors (As far as I found, and although it is not a requirement, see WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page; see also below).

Now, WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page suggests "If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead." .. this templates are in heavy use, and when some transclusions would have been checked, it would have shown where and what effect the transcusions have. That also suggest to use the <noinclude> tags, when necessary, though that is suggested for substing. That is not hiding (as suggested by Hesperian), that is why (as I mentioned above) it is suggested to "consider adding {{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. — ~~~~}} on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion".

When speedy keep is suggested (I was the first to suggest that), the response is "Did you ever actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep?". I must concur, before this TfD, and before suggesting speedy keep, I did not, but the tone that is notifying me that I actually should have is not assuming good faith.

As such, I would call this TfD disrupive, and I do fully back up the somewhat hostile tone in the closure of the TfD by Physchim62; the TfD was disruptive and based merely on "I don't like it", which is in no way a reason for deletion. So if I now re-read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, it DOES apply: "The nomination was unquestionably ... disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". Moreover, the remark "It is pretty obvious from the hostile tone of your response, together with the fact that you're deeply involved in chemistry articles, that you didn't like the nomination, and decided to speedy close the discussion instead of just saying your piece and waiting for an unbiased closure. That is a misuse of your administrative privileges." is then a personal attack, an accusation of 'misuse of administrative privileges' (there are 7 keeps (one with option 'rework' and not counting Physchim62's closure) and only the nominator's delete, also a reason for speedy keep, so I do not see any misuse of administrative privileges here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad block, for the reasons set forth by WJBScribe. It's generally a very bad idea to block an established good-faith editor with the justification that they've attacked you. Especially without warning and on the basis of some very borderline "attacks". If I blocked everyone who commented toward me with the level of brusqueness that Hesperian used, I'd get carpal tunnel.

If you're the target of personal attacks, bring it here. If the attacks are egregious enough, another admin will take care of it. In this case, it could have been better handled with a simple statement to Hesperian and disengagement. Blocking an established good-faith account without warning for personal attacks directed against the blocking admin, without even submitting the block here for review, is a really bad idea. Anyhow, the unblock was swift and appropriate, so we probably ought to just move on. If there is really a pattern here (which I'm not seeing just yet), then WP:RfC is probably the way to go. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This TfD started with a disruption (as was pointed out by a couple of editors) on a reason which assumes bad faith on the creators and users of the template ("... really cool."), followed by a couple of bad faith remarks ("Did you actually read speedy keep") and ended in a personal attack of one administrator to another on misuse of administrative privileges ("That is a misuse of your administrative privileges.". But I did, in the above statement, not discuss the block, or how the block was applied. My statement here states my thoughts about the nomination and the following remarks by Hesperian, as I feel that this whole situation was out of line, not only the (discussable) block, as this discussion now suggests! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well that explains why we're not on the same wavelength. Saying "That is a misuse of your administrative privileges" is not a personal attack - certainly not one warranting a block from the admin who was accused of misuing said privileges. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't KNOW about the accessibility problems until halfway through the deletion debate. He thought it was just a useless template, and wasn't aware of this purpose - it was only when this was pointed out that he pointed out that it causes inaccessibility (q.e.d., he himself was not able to easily access the information contained within). —Random832 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep often causes drama, and I would even say it should probably never be used when the nomination is made in good faith (good faith = the user really thinks it should be deleted, even if his reasoning is misguided). What harm would waiting five days have done, as compared to the insult of having your nomination "speedy kept", the block, and all the other drama this has caused (e.g. this thread)?—Random832 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Performing a speedy keep is not a misuse of administrative privilages, nor an insult (thats why we have that guideline), and if you are then accused of misuse of your administrative priviliges .. that is at the least not nice (and it is a comment on the contributor, not on the content). I can understand that Hesperian did not know how the templates were used, and did not see the use of them. Still, I think it should be common practice to at least see where the template was used (Special:Whatlinkshere), and there it could be seen it was used quite a lot (though it is after the latest changes difficult to check). And then also one could check how it got used in the pages and what the effect of deleting all the templates would be (and maybe even after the TfD having a look what happened to the pages the TfD'd templates were transcluded upon, though WP:TFD does not suggest that, it only suggests some alternatives for some cases). Not being aware of the purpose is not a reason to delete, and as I read the nomination, the main reason was "Don't see the use, don't like it"; that could have been a good reason to contact the creator first (I now see that the creator was notified after the TfD, did not see that when I wrote the above statement).

When pointed out that the TfD was disruptive (and I believe that that disruption was unintentionally), Hesperian reacted with a remark where my (and that of Rifleman_82) speedy keep was questioned in a way which did not exactly assume good faith. Although I indeed did not read the document beforehand (I don't know about Rifleman_82), closer examination shows that the speedy keep (in my opinion) was actually appropriate, since the TfD did disrupt (I removed the notice from the template, though I might better have moved it to the talkpage, mea culpa), and when it was speedy closed, there were 7 votes against the nominator; for the latter, if not a speedy keep, then at least WP:SNOW. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Block on 203.109.223.1

Submitting a block I've made for community review. 203.109.223.1 (talk · contribs) doesn't have any contribs or deleted contribs as of this writing, but I've hardblocked it following some recent events. Bactoid was recently blocked by Moreschi as a suspected troll. Bactoid claimed the account had been compromised by roommates and was back under control. After brief discussion, Nat, Jpgordon, Moreschi, and myself developed consensus to unblock Bactoid with the understanding he would fly "straight as an arrow," and that any further problems would lead to an immediate reblock -- in particular, because the "compromised" account added itself into the running for Arbitration Committee while compromised, displaying knowledge of the elections, and of technique for page (and subpage) creation in the Wikipedia namespace, templates, and transclusion.

Bactoid on Wikipedia is Bacta on freenode; recently a user joined several Wikimedia IRC channels impersonating Jimbo Wales as "JWales," including channels such as #wikimedia, #wikimedia-ops, and #wikimedia-stewards. Moments after this user departed WMF channels, they changed nicks to Bacta (a registered nick, requiring identification with a password). This user's IP address was 203.109.223.1. From memory, similar incidents have come up in recent days. Once again, Bacta reported that roommates are to blame. As much as I might like to, I cannot post logs from WMF channels due to channel policies; it is worth pointing out, however, that Bacta has been removed (or autoremoved) from #wikipedia on multiple occassions, following disruption. It took this last incident for me to put things together.

A checkuser contacted me, while I was looking into this, and let me know that the IP in question does belong to User:Bactoid, and that it is not shared whatsoever. Bactoid's recent unblock request confirms at least the first point.

Judging from Bactoid's story, it seems that his roommates have free access, at will, to all of his computer(s) and account(s) in all forums and websites I know of. It appears these roommates also have fairly intimate knowledge of Wikipedia and IRC norms that go far beyond what the average newcomer might know of. The question begs itself, how many times can we allow the "my brother did it" excuse? Either Bactoid himself is the source of the disruption, or Bactoid is unable to secure his accounts.

Further complicating matters, it's come to my attention that another, very similar account, was indefinitely blocked shortly before Bactoid began contributing, see Bacta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that this appears to be a (slowly) dynamic IP, it may be hard to tell if other accounts might be involved. Moreschi previously believed the Bactoid account was problematic; based on a willingness to assume good faith, this user was given one last chance. Based on prior problems, and the uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia displayed on multiple occassions in the past month, I made a judgement call.

Currently I have discussed this with multiple administrators, including bainer, lucasbfr, Deskana, SQL, Nat, and AzaTht. There was lengthy discussion in #wikipedia-en-unblock, some have told me logs from this channel are considered public, but I will confirm this before distributing any. Bainer wanted me to mention he might favor a shorter block.

There are certainly reasons this block might be controversial. Some might call it an IRC block. Bactoid's account has made some helpful edits. Obviously, I believe I've made the right decision, but I do not presume to assume that will be a final decision, and I do not wish to hide. In any case, I submit this block for community review. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A decision to block on IRC is probably Bad Mojo, but evidence on IRC of disruption on Wiki is not necessarily bad. From what you say here, this looks like a good block. I would recommend posting the technical bits of the IRC logs to keep an on-wiki trace (channel enter/leave, etc). Not quoting anyone shouldn't be a problem, and the CU can confirm on-wiki. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can not see anything on wiki to justify this block. I have reblocked AO ACB pending something on wiki. Nathan 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I favour a shorter block on the IP is because WHOIS and RDNS indicate that it's part of a /12 block allocated to an ISP, resolving to a dynamic DSL service, and long blocks should typically not be made on non-static IP addresses. --bainer (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the reasoning behind blocking AO ACB. Either we hardblock the IP to prevent disruption coming from it, or we block the named account because we don't believe the story, or we don't block at all because we think the block was wrong. AO ACB is just useless here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple. There was a user affected because AO was not set. So I added AO, and left ACB for Luna's benefit. You are however correct, so I have unblocked altogether. Nathan 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you unblocked because the user the block was intended for was caught in the block without discussion? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate clarification on this point. With all due respect to you, Mercury, but the timing and nature if your responses lead me to believe you didn't read or investigate the above text in any detail -- you almost said tl;dr in essence. Why haven't you allowed for discussion to establish a consensus? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• You can block the account directly. If need be, get a checkuser on this one I suggest. We don't use off wiki IP coorelation for blocks here I don't think. That would be inexact. If you feel my action is unreasonable... Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action, I will not consider it wheeling.. Nathan 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'd support a block on the user, and, I'd be willing to bet, that bacta is Bacta (talk · contribs · count)... Therefore, the IP block is probably justified, for a short while, in addition to account blocks, due to what can only be described as abusive sockpuppetry, either by the user, or, roommates. SQL^{Query me!}

While the block is unconventional, from the way Luna explains his actions behind it, makes the block seem like a good idea. Just my two pennies. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior restraint, go-go-go! Soon our precious wiki-fiefdoms will be safe from hypothetical editing by supposed rogue IPs and the vandals who may or may not control them, if said vandals even exist! GOOD BLOCK! Metastasize 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So here we go again, someone takes great pains to explain a block and the first person who comes along and disagrees thinks that unblocking is better than discussion. If you don't think its warranted, say so, explain your reasons and let a consensus form. Where's the imminent danger that required an immediate unblock? FWIW, Luna's reasons make sense to me -- if we see collateral damager, maybe then changing the block would make sense. Nathan, you should reverse yourself. Shell ^babelfish 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Luna's reasoning is sound and the case well put. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Accounts are blocked to prevent disruption from an account. Also, it appears that his account can be compromised again. What makes it so complicated is that Bactoid's unblock requests sound possibly legitemate, but nevertheless, there is a pattern of disruption that must be ceased. Under this rationale, I endorse indefblocking his account and hardblocking the IP. Maser ^(Talk!) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And I wouldn't be too surprised if Bacta = Bactoid, given the username similarities. Maser ^(Talk!) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We've all heard the one about the compromised account and the room-mate or family member making the bad edits, and none of us will ever credit it. Either there is significant on-wiki disruption from this IP address, or there is not (and I don't really consider his arbcom nomination very disruptive, any more than a bad RfA). From what I've seen on-wiki I consider a 3-month IP hardblock on the harsh side. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A self-nom in and of itself, no, but I'd encourage you to look at the deleted edits (if you haven't -- "I'm a troll and a damn good one at that. I think that more than qualifies me for the position on the arbitration committee."), plus Bactoid's assertion the account was compromised. Point taken on the duration, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the reversing admin has run into some unrelated complications, deleted their userpage, and seems to have left the project, at least for the time being. We may need to consider the possibility there will be no further explanation or communication from them, on this matter. To my eyes it looks like their reversal was not supported by consensus, but as I have a bias on that front, I'd appreciate it if somebody neutral had a look. Currently neither the IP nor the account is blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose to block the account and leave the IP unblocked, since it seems this is a dynamic IP (Bacta used at least 2 other IPs from this network to connect to IRC) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the block of the account. I'm less sure of the ip. Can we clarify whether there has been any vandalism from the ip that hasn't originated from the account? If not, perhaps we might be better blocking the account. Blocking the ip is effectively a ban so I think we need wider evidence of vandalism before doing this. As I have learned (painfully) myself, its always a bad idea to overturn a block that is being discussed here before waiting for consensus to develop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block on the account, without the IP blocked, for the time being, until either more socks show up, or the user in question can secure their account. SQL^{Query me!} 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeanenawhitney

User:Jeanenawhitney constantly calls other people's edits vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174932018&oldid=174931779 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174959479&oldid=174957391 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174931559&oldid=174931549 When asked to assume good faith, Jeanenawhitney accuses me of vandalism. She's declaring ownership and authority over others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.176.42 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, are those edits yours? There are a different IP address completely. Those edits (changing a chart's colors, and removing a chart) seems like vandalism when they are done without explanation. Now after her reverting, I see that the IP address continued to repeat itself, which is not the way to do it. In fact, she went above and beyond by telling the user to specifically go to the talk page instead of just a typical template. Now, for you, I'd first like you to explain this edit before I go further. Unless I'm missing something, that looks like vandalism from you to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that is something that I don't do. if I want to vandalize I would do something a bit more creative than that. Also the other IP is not removing a chart, user Jeanewhitney is the one removed the chart, see it again http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174959479&oldid=174957391

ironically after calling that edit a vandalism, she later readded the same chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174960584&oldid=174959479

If you disagree with the formatting of the chart, you don't accuse people of vandalism. She was asked to assume good faith but she responded with even more vandalism accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.176.42 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Vividraise

Resolved

 – Hosiery back in drawer.

Are this User's edits (including such nice comments as this and this) appropriate? Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, they don't seem too problematic. They are not being pointy at all. We cannot silence criticism although we can ask him to edit elsewhere. Woodym555 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the second edit be considered a personal attack? Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not really. Shell ^babelfish 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the second comments could be considered libelous up to a point, but it looks like it is carefully worded. This was brought up on a policy page, where it should have been to be honest. Woodym555 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, your starter for ten and no conferring: which banned user has sent complaints to the IRS trying to get the Foundation taken down due to this purported conflict of interest? Focus on the terms conflict of interest for your first clue. Here, socky, socky,socky! Guy (Help!) 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry Guy, I am not privy to emails sent to the IRS. I apologise for that. For whatever else you are trying to say, could you actually say it? Woodym555 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the block log for Vividraise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Xgmx

Could someone please review Xgmx (talk · contribs). He has consistently tried to add links to his website SSFree for which he has been warned several times ([20], [21] and [22]). He was recently indef blocked for vandalism, and was unblocked when he apologized. Based on an older version of his user page [23] he is 14, so I argued that he should be given a little leeway, but even after his block he started stumping for SSFree again [24]. Burzmali 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

14 or not, the fact that he's ignored warnings and went back on his apology makes me want to indef-block him for spam. However, I will hold off on judgement until he gives his side of the story either here or on his talk page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just here to correct you, 15 now. Kind of weird how you just realised I added my site on several pages. I did that like 4 months ago and your just now realizing it. Well that was before I was blocked, but now that I'm unblocked, if you look you will see that my forums are no where on the pages, except of course my own user page. Also if you look at my forum you will see that several companies use it as their forum as well (we let some companies use it, its a marketing strategy). So in fact if you say I'm spamming links, well it might actually be true that the SS Free is the official game's forum. Also we never put a link on Wikipedia, without first making sure their is a similar link on the SS Free back to Wikipedia or that the SS Free has a forum for that specific game, movie, music, tv show, or miscellanious other. Please also see that I have served time for this already, if you don't recall me being indefinatly blocked.--Xgmx 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I view your actions in the most favorable light, how do you explain this? Burzmali 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tjalling Beetstra, Criminologist1963 and COI

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Wikipedia that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Wikipedia guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Wikipedia to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Wikipedia, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into the background of this case sufficiently to comment on the nature of Crim1963's contributions, but the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands sure comes across as original research and synthesis. We could AFD the article, but that wouldn't address the COI concerns. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This whole situation seems to be related to Biaothanatoi's POV-pushing on Satanic ritual abuse and related articles. The overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists believe that "SRA" was almost entirely a myth, a moral panic in which numerous innocent people were swept up. A handful of psychiatrists disagree, and still believe that SRA is real. It is this minority POV that Biaothanatoi wants to dominate the article. An official FBI investigation in 1992 found that there was no reliable evidence of SRA; see [25]. The most definitive book on the subject, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend, also rejects SRA. All that is left is a handful of fringe therapists. With the help of Abuse truth, an apparent single-purpose account, Biaothanatoi is trying to skew these articles towards his own perspective. He has, on occasion, engaged in ad hominem attacks both on sources and on other editors while so doing. Yes, this issue should definitely be investigated more thoroughly. *** Crotalus *** 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, if you have concerns about "POV-pushing" at SRA, then please address them there. There are a number of editors engaged in developing and improving that article, and we represent a range of viewpoints on the subject. The concerns that you raise here have been addressed there by several editors, including myself, at length, in good faith, and to the satisfaction of other editors.

In contrast, to support of your own POV, you've misquoted the 1992 report, referred to a website whose authors misrepresent themselves as "consultants", pointed us to a fifteen-year-old book written by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and engaged in a fruitless ad hominem attack of your own. You might find a more up-to-date resource online at this research paper on child sexual exploitation, including ritual abuse, by Professor Liz Kelly for the European Commission in 2000. The debate on ritual abuse has moved on since your sources were written in the early 1990s.

Beetstra has a clear financial and professional interest in posting material on Wikipedia in which he declares himself an "expert" and provides links to a website advertising his services. I'd appreciate it if administratives could look into this and take some action. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I do intend to address the POV-pushing on that article when I have more free time after final exams. As for your statements above:

Please explain how I have "misquoted" Lanning. Furthermore, if you argue that Lanning's work is outdated, then please cite a case after 1992 where the FBI took a case of "satanic ritual abuse" seriously.

Why should I care if Satanic Panic was written by "a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation"? Furthermore, why is a 15-year-old book an inherently unreliable source on this subject?

Liz Kelly's paper, which you cited, does not contain the phrase "satanic ritual abuse." It does contain several discussions of sexual abuse in institutional settings, but these cases had corroborating evidence (unlike the American SRA craze) and they did not include allegations of satanic activity. If any ritual at all was involved in the abuse (which is not clear), it was probably Christian in nature (since much of it took place in Catholic group homes). If you want to make a separate page for "Institutional sexual abuse" or "Sexual abuse in Irish orphanages and group homes," go ahead. The page in question is titled "Satanic ritual abuse," and the professional consensus on that specific subject is that it is largely an urban myth.

If Beetstra's papers were published in reputable journals, and represent a mainstream view, then they may very well be reliable sources, regardless of who is adding them.

*** Crotalus *** 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" is poor English. They're abusing satanic rituals? Neil ☎ 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Togokill

Resolved

Togokill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

FYI - See user page (first edit). Claims to be the indef blocked User:Layla27. Rjd0060 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. User wasted no time to vandalize and get blocked. - Rjd0060 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eso si que es

As User:John254 points out here, Eso si que es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pun on the word "socks." Two questions: is this grounds for a username block in itself? and is there reason to believe that this user violates the sockpuppetry policies? His activities so far have been mildly disruptive but not beyond the pale in themselves. I am neutral on both of these questions but thought them worth asking others. Chick Bowen 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it means 'That is what it is' roughly in English(I never took Spanish, j'ai pris le français dans l'école secondaire, but I've picked it up over time), can't comment on the pun. Dureo 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It does have a double meaning (Ess - oh - cee - kay - ess : SOCKS - very clever!), but they haven't done anything yet; I'd just keep an eye on them. Neil ☎ 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope the Clinton's former cat doesn't try to set up an account. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My first thought in dealing with this editor was that it was a sock. There's even an old joke about a Spanish speaking customer in a department store where Eso si que es is the punchline. The name is clearly meant to be SOCKS, and the user's contribs indicate this is not his/her first account, but I suppose "watch and see" isn't a bad tactic. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gdvorsky seems to be coining phrases for the sole purpose of writing Wikipedia articles

This user claims to be George Dvorsky, and has an edit history with a fair bit of WP:COI editing and had a userpage containing a lot of WP:ADVERT. I've warned him about the conflict-of-interest and removed the offending content on his userpage. I also note that User:Gdvorsky was the first non-anon account to edit to George Dvorsky article - which needs some serious cleanup. Dvorsky claims to be in the habit of coining neologisms and then writing Wikipedia articles about them - even when they are never used (as in the case of Astrosociobiology). I'm not quite sure what we have here - Dvorsky may be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but this account's edits seem like low-level self-promotion. Could someone please check this out and pass judgement on the account's behavior? Michaelbusch 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate name

I've had my user name for over two years. A new user just took the name Notmyrealname7 (see edit history here). Not sure what the policy is here, but I often edit contentious pages and have previously initiated grievances. Is it legit for this user to take a name that's so close to mine? Notmyrealname 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You definitely should report it. Goto Wikipedia:Username#Reporting_inappropriate_names to get guidance on how to report it. It qualifies under criterion 1: Confusing names "Usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion."Balloonman 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at NMRN7's edits (TP), I gave him a uw-username warning - the only edit (s)he's made is good-faith, and I hope (s)he decides to get a username change. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Something fishy, though - very first edit is a properly-formatted and policy-quoting request for unprotection of a salted page that has Arb Comm issues [26]. Bencherlite^Talk 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note beneath Jéské's explaining what the issue with the name is, since the template could be pretty baffling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John

While looking at MfDs I noticed this very odd one: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination). (For starters, it appears to be the first nomination, not the second). User:Prester John has been getting in hot water again over his userpage. I'm guessing the users involved weren't sure on how to handle the situation, so they listed the offending userpage for deletion. I closed the MfD (for being under the wrong venue to resolve the dispute) and blanked his userpage with a message saying he should only restore the non-offending content. He's already reverted me and given me a little vandalism warning to boot, so I'm noting the situation here. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I very respectfully disagree with you Ned Scott. With all do respect I reverted your edit. I think it is a little optimistic to think Prester John will voluntarily remove offensive material. But, I do implore admins to look over the MfD [27], and his block log and edit history. Make specific note of how many times he has been warned.--Agha Nader 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that he can be blocked if he puts it back.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to his userpage seemed entirely appropriate, and his reversion as vandalism was not. It's probably best to let the MFD run, but whether the content can stay isn't necessarily dependent on its outcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If they really want to use MfD.. ok.. but I'm not sure why anyone would want to wait five days for something we can handle now. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any obligation to wait, in the sense that just removing the material was perfectly fine. But if he is intent on edit warring over the removal, which he may be, MFD permits a more decisive resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I did go through and remove the offending material; I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds in doing so. I left a note on his talk page explaining what I'd done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

IP faking semi-prot.

Special:Contributions/71.191.91.213 shows an IP to be adding the semi-protection templates to various pages which aren't semi-protected. This IP needs a block and the damage needs undoing. ThuranX 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited in over 4 hours.Balloonman 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Card sharp

Thoroughly-sourced changes at Card sharp (and Card shark redir) are being reverted by 2005 (talk · contribs) who labels his reversions "Rvv". Not a huge deal, but could probably use a talking to about what "vandalism" means and how reliable sourcing vs. personal PoV works. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like SJP (talk · contribs) already talked to 2005 (talk · contribs) about it.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Russbot

Russbot just altered a Bedřich Reicin category in which it put the word "category:" twice, screwing up the categories of said article. Who knows what other articles it has screwed up.--Bedford 09:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All edits between 5.42am and 5.45am (all the Czech soldier articles) have this problem. At a glance, it seems to be the only one Russbot has fouled up though... The Rambling Man 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back all Russbot's edits which were still on top (about 80%) for the Czech soldier articles. The others will need to be modified by hand. Russbot can come back and play again once he's making the right changes! The Rambling Man 09:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to The Rambling Man for alerting me to this error. I've tracked down the problem and fixed it (there was a relatively recent change in the template syntax for {{Category redirect}} and the bot hadn't been updated to recognize it). Did a manual run this morning to make sure it works right. --Russ (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

212.162.164.144

• 212.162.164.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent antisemitic vandalism - diffs:[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Here is where he blanked his user page removing numerous warnings. He doesn't edit every day or even every week, so I don't think a 24 or 48 hour block will have any significant effect.

I reported this at WP:AIV and they told me to bring it here because he hasn't edited in a while. --Steven J. Anderson 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A procedure note first: Current consensus is that users are free to remove warnings from their user talk page, that serves as an acknowledgment that they read them. That being said, and due to the nature of the edits and that there is little doubt this is a single user, I'd support a long term hardblock on the IP (1 month?) to drive the point home. This is a customer IP that does not appear to be shared. Any objections? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as he has been warned a block is warranted. The only thing I am unsure of giving it now, almost two weeks after the last edit. - JodyB _talk 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news everyone, He edited today ;). I let a second pair of eyes handle it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that anon IP addresses have the right to remove warnings from a Talk page, since it is not "their" page. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:70.173.50.153

Take a look at this page and tell me what you think. Looks like the user removed some templates back on the 10 november and received vandalism warnings for it. It doesn't look like vandalism to me, certainly not simple vandalism that requires a template. Possible test edits, possibly good faith but clueless, but no matter. That isn't what is bothering me.

The user then tries to remove the vandalism warnings from his page and receives further vandalism templates and a block for doing it. This looks like major newbie biting to me. When an IP is clearly static, and when the IP is clearly not a vandal, why do we not allow them to remove the templates. Is it plain stubborness? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. It may be that we need further discussion about this but there seem to be many who think removing warnings from one's talk page is vandalism. It is not. WP:UP#CMT makes plain that a user may remove such warnings. Of course, they still exist in the history of the page. Some users are embarrassed by the admonitions and wish to remove them. Such is not prohibited. I think there may be some confusion because that has not always been the practice. I believe we allow them to remove the warnings. We have much bigger issues to spend our time on. - JodyB _talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I have an issue with removing warnings while vandalism is in progress, as happened here. The same policy page makes clear that removing a warning implies that you read it ... to me, removing warnings and then continuing the same edit pattern is a way to try to avoid the consequences of your actions by preventing other users from seeing how many you've already gotten.

Flip edit summaries and ownership assertions like this did not help this user's case with me. Perhaps it was edit war rather than pure vandalism, but the net effect is the same, as is the remedy. Daniel Case 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. I don't believe anons have the right to remove warnings from Talk pages, as they are not "their" pages. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a disgrace - treatment of Nishidani by admins

This concerns the Norman Finkelstein article. As Nishidani still appears to be blocked, I am copying his observations here from his user page: permanent link to the talk page Reformated by -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC), see rationale below.

In my view:

• The initial blocks imposed by admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on three editors showed poor judgement. To resolve an edit-war, editors need to discuss on the talk page, and they can't do that if they're blocked. Page protection would have been better, although in this case I think it would have been premature.
• Neither RolandR nor Nishidani committed any violation of Wikipedia rules, yet they remained blocked after the other editor User:Andyvphil was let off (on a technical argument that his first "revert" was not a revert), despite sailing very, very close to the 3RR wind. User RolandR has now been correctly unblocked.
• Nishidani is an excellent editor who adheres scrupulously to WP rules on verifiability. He also shows scholarly erudition, and has made enormous improvements to many articles. Of the three editors involved here, he is the one who least deserves sanction.
• This incident raises several other, more serious issues. I will let Nishidani's words above speak for him.

--NSH001 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section, and replaced it by a permanent link to the talk page, to the revision just prior to this thread. First because this prevent any edits to the section, and it also allows much easier commenting here: The sections titles in the collapsed part were breaking the page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the words of the Message Board Help forum at GameFAQs, "Fair. Next." Will ^(talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Next"? Wtf does that mean? Nish is still blocked.[33], and he should never have been, and certainly shouldn't be blocked now. Cav is going around the protections in the 3RR (the "clearly disruptive" wording[34]) and "disruptive editor" policies (the "frivolous accusation" procedural protection[35]) by banning on grounds ("edit warring") where there is no explicit check in policy on his discretion. There is no excuse for Nish ignoring my edit comments and restoring the text to the footnote without addressing the missing ellipses and unmentioned added italics I had pointed out, but it was absurd to ban him after only two reverts and the failure to unban him when RolandR was unbanned, merely because he'd pissed off another admin, was unconscionable. Andyvphil 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked User:Andyvphil, and, I did not do so, because of any wikilawyering over 3RR. I did so, because after consulting the blocking admin, I still felt that 72 hours was excessive, for a user with no prior 3RR blocks. I can't comment on the other users, as I didn't review those blocks, but, I wanted to correctly represent why I unblocked (what was said above is simply not correct). As an aside, can we get rid of the collapsable talkpage section? Maybe link instead, it is making it VERY difficult to edit this section in Iceweasel/Firefox. SQL^{Query me!} 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I have "barged in like a bull in a china shop to wield his arbitrary judgement on a page of whose complex history he seems wholly unaware.". This is partially correct. I am not aware of any of the issues surrounding Norman Finkelstein, nor do I wish to be involved - it is simply my place to stop edit-warring.

I therefore stepped in to stop edit-warring (note how the block log states edit-warring and not 3RR), or if you like, "breaking the spirit of the 3RR". I checked the blocking history of all three users. Nishdani has been blocked for edit-warring twice before: 8 and 24 hours respectively. RolandR has been blocked several times, and though not all were upheld, it still shows a clear history of edit-warring. Upheld blocks were for 24 and 48 hours. Andyvphil was the user I felt bad blocking, however - no prior history of edit-warring, so 72 hours is a bit harsh. However, I can't very well block him for 24 hours and the other two for 72 and 48 - differing block times would just lead to me being accused of favouritism, and after 24 he may very well go back and revert the article again, much to the displeasure of the still-blocked other users. To conclude: my block of Andvphil was harsh, but understandable in the interests of fairness. The other two users were blocked for edit-warring, and I stand by that judgement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I have never been on active assignment outside of Devon, have no idea who Norman Finkelstien is, and the very suggestion that I should avoid articles about places where the US, UN or UK military are based is ridiculous, because that covers about 40% of the places on the planet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern for my adoptee

This edit, and the one after it on my page, lead me to think (no, believe) that my adoptee has been using sock puppets to disrupt the Wikipedia. I am now going to A) talk to him about the policy; and B)label the other accounts that I know of as sockpuppets. I just don't know if any other action needs to be taken. I am deeply concerned that User:Iamandrewrice is never going to learn how to be a positive contributer and am at my wits end. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the behavior of Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) since the initial thread on ANI. In his 3 weeks on Wikipedia, this user has managed to violate most of the core policies, including making legal threats, using sockpuppets and gross incivility to numerous editors. Jeffpw has had remarkable patience with Iamandrewrice, mentoring him and attempting to mold him into a productive user. However, this experiement has failed as the user is eithe[r unwilling or unable to follow the advice given to him by Jeff and many others. He's been blocked twice (legal threats, vandalism) and has recently implied that he's created multiple sockpuppets to evade blocks. Since there's no sign that Iamandrewrice's behavior is going to undergo a miraculous change, I'm requesting that this user be blocked indefinitely. I believe that a review of his contributions will lead other editors to the same conclusion. Chaz ^Beckett 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this carefully and yes, Jeff deserves a very large chocolate barnstar. I'd agree that an indefblock appears to be warranted. I've asked Iamandrewrice for an explanation of the edits Jeff has concerns about, so far with no response to be told that I am not the person on the account (despite the edits Jeff brought up) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I too have followed this from the sideline since being in dispute with him. That episode resulted in Jeffpw's adoption of Iamandrewrice. He has since shown significant progress as an editor and has worked hard on several articles. However, the amount of incivility towards his mentor has been astounding as has Jeffpw's patience and goodwill for which I awarded him a barnstar and some encouraging words. If this is the path that Iamandrewrice has now chosen, as it would appear, then I guess an indef block is the only solution to this. That said, it really all boils down to how much Jeffpw can continue to mentor someone who at times seem more eager to prove himself right regardless of Jeffpw's firm warnings to stop acting out. I don't think anyone would blame Jeffpw for simply deciding to back out of this arrangement. EconomicsGuy 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a fairly unambiguous statement that Jeff's done just that (and no blame to him) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thats not true! i have not purposefully vandalised as you will see! My edits were all with good faith! and I was learning very much from jeff... Iamandrewrice 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are constantly incivil to Jeff, as in these edits [36] [37] [38]. This is how you're treating someone you're "...learning very much from"". Sorry, you've been informed that this type of behavior is not acceptable, but the inappropriate behavior has continued and possibly even worsened. Chaz ^Beckett 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am basically crying now! I put my trust in you as an adoptee... and was hoping you felt the same level of care... I was, and still am trying so hard... if you look at my edits, none of them are vandalistic ... EVEN that Monkton one, as that with good faith! Iamandrewrice 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have an inability to see past yourself. Jeff took on the responsibility of adopting you when others thought you were a lost cause. He has attempted to put you on the right path. Instead of being grateful you demonstrate a selfishness that is totally out of line with the way Wikipedia works. Then when you are challenged on your behaviour you attempt to put the blame back on the one person who had faith in you. "Crying"? My ass! You are one of those kids, for whatever reason, thinks it's always someone else's fault. Your behaviour is your fault, no-one else's. --WebHamster 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick observation. Is it not more likely that User:SpidermanHero is a sock of User:Joeseth1992 - especially given User:SpidermanHero claims his name is Jose? Yes, the first message left on User:SpidermanHero was from User:iamandrewrice but that is arguably to be expected given User:iamandrewrice has claimed to know User:Joeseth1992 in real life. And User:Joeseth1992 did have his recent block extended for using socks to get around it. Also (and I haven't the diffs at the moment as I'm in a rush) User:iamandrewrice did claim User:Joeseth1992 wanted to improve the grammar on Wiki and User:SpidermanHero did make such an edit (albeit an incorrect one, capitalising a direction)[39]. I am convinced User:Joeseth1992 and User:iamandrewrice are separate people in real life (and they have left enough personal information about themselves on their user pages to make it apparent they are friends on MySpace and Bebo, for instance. My only main concern is that User:iamandrewrice has created the account to disparage the person his username suggests he is. That person does exist, and is connected to the person behind User:iamandrewrice on Bebo if nowhere else. Given all that can be obtained from the details both left (mainly email details in userboxes) is this not more likely to be a group of school friends that have got out of control, rather than socks? Whitstable 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

this diff would support that assertion. Someone came complaining that Iamandrerice had taken their name to use here. I expressed concern at that time, but it was decided Iamandrewrice could keep the name. Jeffpw 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppets are actually a very minor (and recent) part of the problem. Let's assume they're not sockpuppets, but a group of friends. Now we have a situation where Iamandrewrice is playing his usual game of creating drama and then playing the "I didn't know any better" card. This card made its first appearance when he made legal threats then, when blocked for this behavior, claimed to not know the definition of "legal action" (despite claiming on his user page that English is his native language and that he's studying English language and literature). So he's either lying about using sockpuppets or he's using sockpuppets, neither one is acceptable behavior. Chaz ^Beckett 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with that - and would also point to [this edit] to suggest that even if the two accounts are no the same person, they have been known to work together in such a way that is disruptive. I nearly filed a CU yesterday because of the amount of blocked users user:iamandrewrice had been contacting, but opted not to. But socks or not, I think the way user:Jeffpw has been treated by someone he has gone beyond the call of duty to help is so unfair that I am fuming about it, and I'm only looking at this from the outside! Whitstable 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just had a thought regarding checkuser - since the socks (or !socks) seem to admit to being pupils at the same school, isn't a checkuser likely to prove very little? The IP will be either the school's proxy or at least should be expected to be in the same IP block in any case. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He posts at times when one would normally expect a UK school to be closed, therefore it may be he logs in here from school and home. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: This | section here also makes me suspicious. And User:Christine118500 has been chasing around for adoption in a similar manner to how User:Joeseth1992 did. Whitstable 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, Whitstable. And SpidermanHero is doing the same thing now, as well. It does seem as if they are one user with split-personality disorder, or a group of school friends who have decided to make Wikipedia their target for fun and games. It will be interesting to see what the checkuser report says (I filed it a while ago). Jeffpw 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Whitstable, and this edit might be seen as ill-advised at best, under the circumstances. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) They (User:Iamandrewrice and User:Christine118500) both pass the duck test and are obvious sock/meat puppets of each other. I'm going to indef both and suggest that one of them may be unblocked only on stringent parole. — Coren ^(talk) 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The other two do not seem quite as obvious to me, however (but very likely). — Coren ^(talk) 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments above, User:Joeseth1992 and User:SpidermanHero appear to be the same person. Similar style, and the second account, created after Joeseth is blocked, claims to be named Jose? Whitstable 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Iamandrewrice has now posted an unblock request (with a rationale 873 words long!) on his talkpage, in which he admits that SpidermanHero is a meatpuppet. I strongly feel that this editor has been told often enough about policy and had it explained point-by-point where it applies to his edits without success. (Leaving aside questions of possible puppetry) I support the retention of an indefinite block. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with maintaining the indef block. There's a pattern of Iamandrewrice creating drama until blocked, then claiming it was all a misunderstanding, followed by being unblocked and then quickly returning to the inappropriate behavior. There are two possibilities here, either he's playing games seeing how much he can get away with or he's truly unable to understand how people are expected to behave here. Either one should result in an indef block. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Chaz ^Beckett 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would mention that Christine118500 has the same pattern. Tvoz |talk 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As does Joeseth1992 Whitstable 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the indef block. He had plenty of second chances and pretty much blew them all by arguing with Jeffpw rather than pay attention. There is no reason to believe that he will not simply return to his old pattern of disruption and acting out. Fact is he got a second chance that 99% of users who start out like he did never gets and he basically wasted that chance. EconomicsGuy 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary checkuser shows that the account has been socking. I need a second opinion on the Christine one, hence it's not completed, but Iamandrewrice certainly has - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As Christine118500's former adopter, and having observed Jeffpw's admirable attempts with Iamandrewrice, I endorse both blocks. I would add that Christine118500 admitted prior to being adopted that he had been blocked in the past (Christine118Maureen is clear, and others apparently); I discussed the matter with Isotope23, the admin who blocked the previous account, who said in reply that he was willing to let Christine118500 edit and try to reform. Sadly, he has not, and a block is warranted on that ground at least. I do not know whether Christine118500 and Iamandrewrice are the same individual. CU or a more detailed comparison of edit times and styles may reveal more, but it may matter little. Bencherlite^Talk 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the CU Iamandrewrice, SpidermanHero, Joeseth1992 (and, interestingly, Radiation111 and Narnia101) are confirmed. The result on Christine118500 is pending. Tonywalton   ^Talk 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Following another unblock request (which I declined) and yet more verbose "apologies" and promises, I've blanked and full-protected User talk:Iamandrewrice. Tonywalton   ^Talk 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A new one just arrived. Blackhouse123 is claiming to be friends with Christine118500. He also made this edit which isn't very helpful. IrishGuy ^talk 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another? Just seen this edit by User:Burningandrew within four minutes of account creation. Whitstable 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And another Dom58 the Second. They're kindly signing up at Petition to unblock User: Christine118500 (twice deleted). Bencherlite^Talk 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Plenty more socks now identified by checkuser. I blocked a bunch of them already and the checkuser case has now been updated - Alison ^❤ 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, by now, any illusions of good faith are reasonably ignored. Block-protect-ignore. — Coren ^(talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God. I was out seeing clients for the last few hours, so missed these latest revelations. I said to Tonywalton yesterday that I thought I had adopted Rosemary's Baby. Now it is clear I really adopted Sybil. Oh well, it was a good learning experience for my next adoptee. Thanks to everyone who gave me support throughout this. Jeffpw 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated changes to Asia (band)

Resolved

Transferred to WP:RFPPfor now --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is presumably a single anonymous editor (in various IP ranges, including 4.238.124.* and 66.19.20*.*) keeps making the same change (largely consisting of removing sections of text) from this article (relating to a period of the band's existence under a different lead singer). Multiple editors, including myself, have been reverting these changes. This has been going on since early on 1 Dec.[40] Any suggestions for what we should do to stop this going on? Any help an administrator can offer? Bondegezou 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Page need semi-protecting for a while. Copied this to WP:RFPP. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have now managed to engage the editor in some sort of dialogue on one of his IP address's Talk page,[41] but he's still making the same change.Bondegezou 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ESP

I protected extra sensory perception due to Colbert idiocy. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have known in advance that would happen :P --WebHamster 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He is obviously not Stephen Colbert :). On a more serious note, we seriously should have ColCom position who is assigned to watch colbert and protect the articles/issues he mentions. It gets to be annoying after the 300th time it is done. spryde | talk 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are they still showing reruns? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Until the WGA Strike ends, yes. spryde | talk 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Collectonian and Tin Man (TV miniseries)

Resolved

 – (Moved into article talk page.) `'Míkka>t 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that Collectonian may be attempting to exert "ownership" over Tin Man. He She has reverted good-faith edits as "vandalism" because it didn't fit his viewpoint that any reference to the original Oz characters is OR, which is plainly not true (one can point out some similarities so long as he or she doesn't say there's a connection, and that wouldn't be OR in the least). — Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

She is trying to keep unsourced original search and editor opinion out of the article. Pointing out similarities is no different from implying a connection. Other editors reverted the same additions earlier, I just happen to be the only one online at the moment policing the article.Collectonian 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know Collectonian was a she. My apologies. Nonetheless, it would be easier if the show's own stated descriptions themselves didn't imply a connection! ("Re-imagining of the Wizard of Oz"? come on, that's a blatant implication of a connection.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a sourced statement, not my own opinion. Collectonian 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that common sense is enough evidence to link the characters with their counterparts in the Baum novels. Isn't there a WP:COMMONSENSE policy that is useful in these cases? Kyaa the Catlord 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to the talk page of Tin Man (TV miniseries); let's not waste any more of the admins' time on this, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of user Ilkali on numerous pages

This user appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the change of case is appropriate and regardless of any consensus against him. He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again. He has done this most recently on the Misotheism page, where it became clear that whether or not he had a case, he was going to reapply his edits regardless. (Witness his repeated edits and reapplication of reverted edits on November 29 and 30.) This behavior has apparently been going on for months on numerous pages, with the most egregious incident apparently being his edits to the Derren Brown page back in September, where the page had to be protected to stop his behavior. Despite clear evidence against his position presented by others, he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV. On numerous pages, "other contributors have clearly and patiently tried to talk to him" to no avail, and his content "continues to add content that is disagreeable." When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it." Full disclosure: He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action. Craig zimmerman 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these accusations have already been addressed elsewhere, but I'll provide a short response to each of them here.

1. "appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia". Only when it is a common noun, as explained in great detail on the two talk pages.
2. "He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again". I reverted User:Dbachmann's edits when he and I were the only ones involved. At this point, there was no consensus. When User:Craig_zimmerman joined, I ceased. The three of us discussed the issue (to varying degrees), mostly on the MoS talk page. During the process, three of four editors agreed that common nouns should not capitalise, with the fourth not making any clear statements in either direction. With the orthographic conventions largely cleared up, it fell to analyse the actual edits to see if the changes were appropriate. To this end, I presented arguments in support of specific edits ([42]). At this point Dbachmann and Craig_zimmerman both declared unwillingness to discuss the issue. I resumed reverting.
3. "he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV". 'Common nouns don't capitalise' isn't a POV. 'Determiners are almost exclusively used with common nouns' is not a POV. etc.
4. "When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it."". (Why did you paraphrase instead of just quoting me?) The only person to whom I responded like this is Craig_zimmerman himself, and this was because he repeatedly argued against a position that I didn't hold, ignoring what I had said elsewhere in the discussion. I was not the only editor to suggest that he didn't understand my position.
5. "He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action". I'll let the WQA itself address this one: [43].

Ilkali 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute which got a little hot. I suggest some dispute resolution, since you don't need admins to resolve this issue at this point in time. --Haemo 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like that, but it's difficult to resolve a dispute when one side of the disagreement is unwilling to do anything other than revert changes. Ilkali 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this would have been more concise as inline comments...

1. By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that his argument was soundly rebutted and summarily contradicted, but this did not stop him from continuing to cling to his POV on the subject. Those who rebutted and contradicted were deemed "unwilling to discuss."
2. Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's, and this user has strong POV's that contradict both editorial consensus and documented English-language usage conventions as provided in great gory detail.
3. The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general. This talk page section offers explicit examples of his language directed at multiple editors, including his tirade at dab in which he said "If you had any understanding of the distinction at hand, you wouldn't say that my edits were made through indiscriminate search-replacing." (Not that "the only person to whom I responded like this was..." would be any sort of excuse for such behavior in any case.) "I'm not obligated to teach you syntax just so you can talk productively about this topic but I'll explain how you're wrong" (followed by no real explanation of what was wrong with the original statement—perhaps it was he who was failing to understand?) is yet another example. Other similar texts appear in the Derren Brown disruption discussion.

Despite the fact that Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent, and despite the fact that his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed, and despite the fact that consistently he has failed to make the case that he seems to believe he has made, he continued his disruptive reversion behavior in the cases cited above. This behavior has occurred numerous times in the past with perhaps the most notorious and flagrant example being the Derren Brown article, where the issue of his behavior was apparently only resolved by protection of the page from his disruptive edits. I contend that this is a repeated pattern of deliberate disruptive behavior that warrants appropriate action. Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that

"this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation. Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised. Ilkali, you are now, by your revert-warring, indulging in WP:POINT. Review WP:DISRUPT for possible sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour.

Craig zimmerman 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User 83.67.73.117

• 83.67.73.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly new editor that fits the description of a WP:SPA, who has been blocked once previously for inserting misinformation. Editor is now contributing almost entirely to Talk:Bosniaks‎, where his comments are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well. Editor has been warned multiple times but persists.

Previously discussed in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:83.67.73.117, which recommended posting here to ANI. Note though that the editor has responded there [44] and on his talk page [45].

Despite the warnings, the editor appears uninterested in discussions directed at improving the article, and instead uses the talk page as a forum, where his opinions are often little more than trolling [46]. --Ronz 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan

Resolved

We appear to have one of the candidate pages for the Arbitration Committee Election nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan. Could I ask an admin to have a look? The candidate page is here. The nom is already on record as opposing the candidate, but this seems to be a little much. Thank you. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been speedy kept for obvious reasons. The institutional role of ArbCom is certainly not something so fragile or sacrosanct that we must defend it from irreverent nominations. --Haemo 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ostensible breach of WP:TALK by User:Perspicacite

Our guideline WP:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages states: "The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes." Perspicacite has now removed the questions (and the comments of other editors) without providing an appropriate response or canvassing the removal of other editor's comments on the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=175534728&oldid=175532620

When I asked him on his talk page to replace the material and discuss matters in future, he removed my question with an edit summary of "No": http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APerspicacite&diff=175541745&oldid=175540365

May I revert this excision and the sourced material that was removed in successive reversion(s)? Alice.S 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has repeatedly spammed the talkpages of articles where I edit. Her spam was moved to her talkpage. She has done this previously on Talk:Rhodesia, Talk:Tokelau, etc. Jose João 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

These two have been at each other like cat and dog for weeks now. Someone else needs to have a look at how best to resolve it as they have both completely ignored my advice which was to avoid interacting with each other. --John 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban her? Jose João 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if both of you leave the other person alone? That seems like a simple solution. --Haemo 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What Perspicacite alias Jose João calls "spam" are requests for editors (including himself) to comment on why he is removing sourced material. In both the cases he mentions there is no support whatever for his position on the relevant article's discussion pages. I wish he would address himself to the edits and not the editor and stop producing smokescreens. In both cases he removed comments by editors other than himself or I without their permission. Alice.S 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has never added sourced material. The only comments I have ever moved were hers. She knowingly restored an anonymous user's vandalism to ACW earlier today. Why hasnt she been banned? She does not contribute anything. Jose João 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I now assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin FeloniousMonk

FM has been violating WP:AGF and making baseless accusations against me. This started when he "discovered" that I had not been logging in to my user account to edit. (The story behind that is a long one, but to be brief, I am no longer regularly editing and have retired my username.) In not logging in, my IP address was used and, like many IP addresses, it is not static - the last three digits change from time to time - something completely out of my control. FM immediately started accusing me of sockpuppeting, ignoring AGF (which is strongly encouraged for admins here and for handling possible sockpuppets here). I have never denied I was still editing and never hid my identity for any reason. I readily admitted that I was Jinxmchue. This information, however, did not stop FM from continuing to make his accusation and claiming I was doing it do disrupt, avoid blocks, and to disassociate my edits with my username. I asked him to provide proof of his accusations, but he simply ignored my request and described it as "trolling." Of course, his sockpuppeting accusations were never officially made on WP:SSP (and it's not in the November archive, either), likely due to him knowing that the accusation lacked merit. Evidence for FM's behavior can be seen in the following links:

• [47] - smearing me (note the Wikilawyering)
• [48] - smearing both me and Crockspot (and ignoring the edit-warring of others)
• [49] - more smearing
• [50] - I've never denied my identity
• [51] - note that the page is protected despite no official report on WP:SSP

Furthermore, when admin Guettarda wrongly re-blocked me for supposedly violating an edit block (see here), I requested a block removal. FM (along with Guettarda) has been intimately involved in the issues involving editing an article which led to my initial block. Despite this gross conflict of interest, FM handled the block removal request (denying it, of course). Admins with the same agendas and POV working together like this to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed is simply astounding and should not be allowed. A neutral admin should have handled the block removal request.

FM's hostile attitude towards me is unacceptable (and I admit my hostile reactions towards his behavior were also unacceptable, but I don't have admin powers to abuse). 67.135.49.177 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not disruptive, mind telling me why you've been edit warring on Discovery Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Will ^(talk) 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)