Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Is it just me...

Moving long thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Future datestamp: 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

NPA

Re: this diff, would someone other than me tell JzG/Guy to lay off the personal attacks? Had it been me, I'd be blocked for sure. Additionally, the attack should be removed. I will give someone else plenty of time to do that before I do it myself. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Allstar, you were incredibly rude. You were blocked by Jimbo only recently for "unrepentant incivility", and you have personalised that deletion debate to a remarkable and wholly unjustified extent; I note you've also been blocked for WP:BLP violations and edit warring. These are a bad combination. We are dealing here with an upset article subject who feels that he has been deliberately snubbed and insulted by Wikipedia. Do try to show a modicum of tact. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making sure to point out that I've been blocked by Jimbo. There is no BLP issues regarding the Bannan article. He even hosts the very same sources on his own web site. But that's not the issue here.. the issue here is your attack against me. Can you stick to the issue please? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you went over the line, Guy. Please tone it down a bit.

That said - Allstar, this is a BLP issue, and you are not showing it due WP:BLP sensitivity at the moment. It's also an OTRS issue, and on current review it appears like there's a serious problem with your behavior on both accounts. I'm going to also log this to your talk page, but this is a final warning regarding abusive behavior and this article topic. No more. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not done one thing disruptive or in violation of policy regarding this AfD. Mind pointing out specifics? Thanks. And you threaten to block me but just tell him to "tone it down a bit" ?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that I have removed the personal attack. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You accused him of trying to sneak it by people. Counterattacking is not a wise or ethical response to claims of canvassing. Whether what you did met the technical definition of canvassing or not, your comment was rude and uncivil and failed to assume good faith about Guy's motivation and tactics. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't *accuse* him of anything. I *asked* him if that was his intentions. There is a difference. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's sophistry, and coming right after you at least borderline canvassed I can't AGF anymore about your intentions on this particular AFD.

...especially since Guy also "just asked a question". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You aren't normally abusive or problematic, but this is a particularly sensitive question, and you have been particularly insensitive for a bit here, and the combination is not OK. Please take a short break and re-engage on the topic in a manner which won't increase drama and incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think Gwh's comment is probably best for all. While ASE is not always sunshine and light, I don't think his comment is excusable, but the reaction has been a bit overboard as well. So let's all step back? The AFD itself is approaching WP:SNOW, the picture issue needs to be checked out, and I personally would like to hear from the subject of the article why they're all-fire against the words "openly gay" being in the article when they have blared their sexuality in half a dozen interviews. In other words, can we work on the encyclopedia rather than each others' nerves? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy's language,regardless of what preceded it, was totally inexcusable -- it could be seen as a physical threat. Any other editor would have already been blocked for it. I am quite prepared to block for the length of time appropriate to physical threats if there is any support for it.DGG (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did see it as a veiled threat but between him and George ganging up on me, I decided to move on from it. When I pointed out the PA, I got threatened with block by George but Guy got a "Please tone it down a bit" by George. No need to keep this going with any blocks of Guy but I would say that for someone to be in such a high esteemed position as Guy (he made sure to point that out here), he should consider how he talks to people. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I concurr with DGG that the comment by JzG constitutes an implicit threat of violence. However, the placement of an extended block against a current administrator's account would result in a serious conflict. Concerns relating to misconduct this severe by an administrator should be addressed directly to the Arbitration Committee, which, in view of the seriousness of the situation, may be willing to consider the matter without prior formal dispute resolution. John254 19:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG's comment is yet one more in a long line of unprofessional and unnecessarily personal comments directed at editors he disagrees with. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be inappropriate, but it's a very big stretch to actually consider this a physical threat. Common sense is a wonderful thing. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment may have been uncivil, but in the context, I certainly don't see it as a threat either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no way this was a physical threat. It also wasn't appropriate for the level of provocation, but I've seen a lot worse. I think Guy reacted with too short a fuse, perhaps seeing a level of bad faith that just wasn't there. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Handling sock puppetry (block review)

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Sedlam (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? Avruchtalk 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated in a more recent note at my talkpage (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, here, where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reduced block

The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ([1] done). Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to the inference of incivility is here.. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Orderinchaos. As a relatively frequent reviewer of sockpuppetry cases at WP:SSP, the standard practice has been to block named abusive socks indefinitely, but to block the master account for a finite period if it appears to have at least some constructive potential. I typically block for 72 hours (see User:Lucy-marie, for example), though others use anything from 24 hours to a week. In any case, the master account (Griot) should definitely be blocked, but for a finite period (72 hours to 1 week). Further confirmed sockpuppetry should result in a lengthy or indefinite block, but an indefinite block for a first offense by a somewhat-constructive account is excessive. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding sock puppetry by Griot

I filed another Checkuser showing the very extended sock puppetry of Griot over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

Which I don't think is allowed is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so reverted it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history This must be considered uncivil behavior. I reverted it back to the original and he did it again. He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\> However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\> WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\> And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Can someone please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was? Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I or did I not warn you to stop edit harrassing and warring with him on his talk page?

Anyone who wishes can see the old versions and edit history. Stop bothering him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Case of "nothing to see here, move along". Seems the guy archived or removed some comments from his talk page. Orderinchaos 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amongst the comments removed are challenges to transparently false statements on his talk page that attempt to portray his history on the articles he has edit warred on for years in an undeservedly favorable light. Which of course is his right. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told Billy, the history of what people have commented on there on his talk page remains for anyone who cares to dig. Our user talk page policy allows one to remove comments and warnings once they've been read, though a lot of people object to it. Policy remains what it is, though, so Griot is within his perogative, and edit-warring to restore content there is against policy etc. Best for everyone to just drop the situation - everyone knows about the CU results now, that's not going away, if he wants to clean up the talk page and protect some personal dignity then leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

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

Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant".[2] The policy on User names says to avoid names that are offensive or promotional. WP:sig suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.

I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature,[3] and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,[4]. The first request was immediately archived,[5] and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.[6]

For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i religion has teachings on the succession of authority, and anyone creating divisions are considered dangerous and shunned, labeled "Covenant-breaker". The implication is that there is a Covenant in the religion to provide unity, and anyone who breaks away is not under the Covenant. Jeffmichaud belongs to one such group with a handful of followers who call themselves the "Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant". Changing his signature in the middle of a debate over Baha'i content was his way of promoting his ideological claim in the face of other editors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is completely not the point. We have a Wikipedia policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop shaking the straw man, please. Or is that Reductio ad absurdum? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —Kurykh 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over User:Rama's Arrow a few months ago. --Rodhullandemu

Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? Rudget. 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC) This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ JuJube (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. Rudget. 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if someone changed their sig to "I'm in God's favor and you're not", my reaction would be less "offended" and more "hilarity". Even assuming the worst possible faith--that the person is TRYING to honk off the other believers--changing a sig to something self-aggrandizing says less about the truth of his/her beliefs as it says about their response to disagreement. Just my opinion, though, and no offense intended to anyone. Gladys J Cortez 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, is someone here talking about me behind my back? Kidding. Rudget, I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required". I don't believe I've violated any policy, but rather am being "asked" to change it to appease Cunado's will on the matter? After closer look at the actual policies on the matter it is obvious that Cunado is taking generous liberties at interpreting them in his own unique way for reasons not exactly obvious to me or anyone else. I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Username policy is a policy that "all users should follow", and "a user who acts against the spirit of them may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." The policy states that inappropriate user names are ones that are misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, and "these criteria apply to both usernames and signatures." I already explained why the signature is controversial. I was once blocked for not following WP:sig, which is a guideline and not even a policy, see this conversation. Someone please enforce policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to view this as not offensive. It is one thing to say "My group is great" and another to say "Your group isn't", so we have lots of users with pro- type names, whether it be sports, nationality, activity, whatever, which seem compliant with the policy; while anti- type names aren't. Quite a difference between User:Boston Red Sox lover and User:New York Yankees hater in my mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, would you find a signature such as "Jesus, the true lord and savior" to be offensive? It's proselytism, regardless of the religion involved. We have some Yankees and Red Sox fans who have a fervent devotion to their teams, but it's not the same thing. If the signature would be blocked as a user name, it shouldn't be acceptable as a signature either. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. I'm identifying myself here, and not promoting/proselytising anything. BTW, it hasn't been blocked as a user name. Would it be? I've considered creating it as one. Would it be a problem? Baha'i Under the Covenant 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but it was not considered because the actually user name is not the issue. The spirit of the policy is that user names and signatures should be used for identification and should avoid anything controversial. Religion and politics are the most controversial subjects, so it should be a no-brainer to say that it's inappropriate to boldly promote a religious view in a user name or sig. Even a name like "Jesus is for me" might seem harmless, but there is no reason to stir the pot on something that should be free of controversial subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the signature is intended to be a means of discerning who has placed certain comments. By changing it to something that obscures your username (no where in "Baha'i Under the Covenant" does it tell me who that is), is not within policy. The only problem I see is that there is no reference to "Jeff" or "Jeffmichaud" in your signature. Surely, it would be better to use something that includes the phrase you want, but also includes your actual username in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, WP:sig is a guideline, and it says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." So we're back to offering Jeffmichaud unenforceable advice. The issue is about enforcing the policy about a controversial signature. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat

Since no admin seems to have the sense to have unblocked User:Zenwhat yet, I'll make this a new section. This user was blocked for removing a section he started on the village pump [7], with the edit summary "Too angry when I wrote this. I don't want a flame-war. I changed my mind. This thread is getting deleted."

He was trying to make the situation right, and got blocked for it. Some users can be a pain in the butt, but guess what, no one has to edit Wikipedia, no one has to go to discussion pages. If people like Zen drive you mad, edit somewhere else, but you don't get to block them because you don't like them. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• This user's pattern of edits to project-space have been very eccentric, to say the least, and unhelpful. If he is unblocked, he should be restricted to editing only articles and their corresponding talk pages. *** Crotalus *** 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we should block people for personality qwerks. Unless they're actually being disruptive, don't block them, or restrict them. Criticism of the Foundation, however misplaced it might be, is not banned from the Village Pump. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the interesting quirk to look at is the pattern of making edits and either deleting them or claiming "oh well, I do silly things". Making mistakes is one thing, continually making mistakes with the justification that one makes mistakes is another. No I don't have a set of diffs. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• We users are often reminded that blocks are to protect WP and to prevent disruption, and are not used punitively. The blocking admin's rationale was that removing the comments of other editors was unacceptable. Zenwhat recognises he should have archived rather than removed. The comments have been restored, and the discuaaion in question is archived. There is thus little "protective" benefit to be had in continuing this block. Since I know that punitive blocks aren't permitted, the situation here must be that no one has noticed the discussions above or that not removing the block is an oversight - after all, none of Wikipedia's admins would ever act to punish an editor. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Zenwhat seems to have a history of acting, then recognising and apologising for inappropriate actions. To the extent that this statement is true, then the protective benefit of a continuing block is to prevent the disruption caused by these recurrent mistakes. The time-out also gives pause for reflection and hopefully self-remediation. Franamax (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have spent a lot of time on two serious efforts to convince Zenwhat to become more responsible in his actions. He accused me of violating WP:AGF and WP:AHI by criticising him. I invite those who feel that blocking Zenwhat was unjustified or not necessary to prevent further disruption to read my two long conversations with him (see my talk page). If this does not change your mind, then presumably I approached it in the wrong way and would like to get some feedback on my talk page. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if this was just a "personality quirk", that would be one thing. But this user seems to live to stir up the shit with twisted arguments that I have doubts over the sincerity of. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I missed this second thread, but per above, I unblocked about an hour ago. Orderinchaos 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Though Zenwhat is "retired" now, there is previous User:Nathan admitted, and see above similar edit pattern (briefly) a user banned? called something similar to User:Karmaisking. Are there issues of the socking nature that deserve more attention?

Interacting with Zenwhat on WP talkpages recently has been a rather frustrating experience.

I have no problems with Zenwhat being unblocked at this time, however, if the user comes back from retirement, some remedies (ie agree to abide by talkpage guidelines, and respect both WPspace and mainspace as decent venues for building knowledge, not a battleground).

Other editors have commented on Zenwhat's energy, prolificy, and remarkable tendency to hurl accusasions, of CABAL, assume bad-faith, invoke IAR, SPADE, -ICK, etc. The incivility is the main issue, and the user will not acknowledge the need to drop such nastiness in the future. But, then, they've retired. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking him was not the most smartest thing to do, since he has a history of becoming 'Hostile' towards other editors that disagree's with him, I'm not going to Bite him or call him a troll though his attitude is nothing less than what an actual troll does, he earlier created to policies on Meta called Precisionism and Don't be a crybaby with the latter being the one which defines his attitude perfectly..Previously he edited as an anon, where his attitude has been similar and he also had personal Grudges against editors like Sceptre and also making personal attacks against him as well as near edit warring here and on a deleted article maybe to enforce a POV... I don't think this person will ever contribute positively to wikipedia and thats why I disagree with the unbanning...--Cometstyles 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are the meta essays he wrote particularly bad? I for one find the "Don't be a crybaby" essay, while unfortunately named, a particularly illuminating essay and the approach with which I (try) to approach Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have misread Cometstyle's comment. I think it is safe to say that Zenwhat behaves like the crybaby in the essay: he is rude and overly inflammatory. I am not sure if he imagines he is acting like the Zen master of the story, or if he wants to teach us to behave like the Zen master, by openly playing the martial arts student. In both cases this is at the same time a good and useful essay and another example of Zenwhat externalising his faults. There is also a chance that he wrote this essay as a reminder to himself, but then it clearly didn't work. As to "precisionism": I have never heard the term before. Apparently he wanted to popularise it because he thinks it describes his attitude.

The problem I see with the unblock is that it allows him to continue in his delusion of having community support for his disruptions. I hope that the next time he has to be blocked for outrageous activities it will be for less than a week, so that the educational effect won't be spoiled by another unblock. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, his behavior, while not the best, didn't warrant a block in the first place. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is what makes Wikipedia great. A user comes here simply to complain about the place and make a scene, gets blocked for it, and scores of admins who apparently don't have time to worry about important things like vandalism reversions and taking care of other ANI posts, sit around and argue about the precise definition of troll. This is almost as bad as arguing about Coolcat's userpage. The fact that I'm edit conflicting in posting here only proves my point. Not that we're feeding, or that I've seen this happen 500 times before or anything. Get on, guys, do something useful; you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If the user wishes to contribute, let him say sorry now (as the community has so agreed), or he can find another username anyway, which he obviously doesn't. And then END OF STORY, move on. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we are 7 users who have nothing better to do. The 3 admins in this thread have contributed only 1 post each and didn't argue much about the semantics. I will certainly stop doing it now. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked this was a volunteer project, and users can choose to spend their time in one area or another if they wish. Yes, we could ignore this, but we chose to look at a situation which bothered us, discussed the issue, and I'm sure we hope that the discussion effects more than the immediate issue. -- Ned Scott 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is unblocked. ZW is "retired". ZW chooses not to comment at the AN/I. ZW chooses not to acknowledge any need to respond to the concerns of editors who, collectively, have been attacked and insulted by ZW. All done? Newbyguesses - Talk 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat is a extremely intelligent person who unfortunately is badly let down by his equally extremely impetuous nature. If he were to think before he acted more often, he would be a great contributor. He does spot his own mistakes and correct them, which is a sign that he is learning, which is a positive thing. I'm fairly certain that he isn't intentionally trolling. I've been scratching my head about what to do about the impetuousness, though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good summary for most purposes, actually. Orderinchaos 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only interacted with Zenwhat once at the Help Desk the other day, but I certainly didn't get the impression he was eccentric or impetuous as people say. And he was working on an improved Wikipedia:Bots/Status page (although now reverted by him for some reason). Frankly the comments about him here on AN/I are fairly insulting, although given that other editors seem to have encountered him a lot more than me, I'll not jump to call them impetuous either. I just think any indef block was/is way overboard -- Zenwhat just needs to spend several hours reading and absorbing all of Wikipedia policies is all. In short, I do not believe admin action is required. • Anakin ^(talk) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

IP editor being disruptive -please help

Editor 201.245.216.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continuing an ongoing wiki-campaign to disruptively add (randomly inaccurate) information to infoboxes of multiple celebrities without discussion. I noticed this latest time here (edit on Michael J. Fox page diff). Some of the other IP's doing the same thing (most likely the same user) here:

201.245.218.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

201.245.216.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

201.245.218.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It's all s/he does, I'm tired of dealing with it, more eyes please. And please check all of the latest contributions. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, R. Baley (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to file a suspected sock complaint. You may be able to take action against the user via that route as well. Lambton ^T/_C 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jovin Lambton, and thanks for the suggestion. However, I think it's pretty clear that it's the same user here, so the main questions are: 1) Is the level of disruption worth a range block, (2) how many/what type of users will be affected by a range block?, (3) How long to implement it? I don't know any of those things, so in the mean time I'll just save the post, and if/when it comes up again, re-post with the new info as needed. Is it dull? sure. But it's about all I can do on my end. R. Baley (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I would support any effort to block this editor if the use of multiple IPs has had the effect of generating false consensus. Lambton ^T/_C 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: disruption resumes

This editor has started back up again (though someone reverted before I noticed it myself on the MJF page). The IP address is:
200.119.56.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Thanks for any help. R. Baley (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And a run of 9 more today. . . 201.245.217.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . . .all edits by this IP made thus far have been reverted. If there's anything else to do, or a different way of doing it, am open to suggestions. R. Baley (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add 201.245.217.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 201.245.218.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list. Obviously the same user. He comes here nearly every day and makes the same edits over and over again, most of which get reverted. Pretty annoying. --fschoenm (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Nishkid64 blocking users based on favoritism

I have filed a 3RR report on Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) here only to find out that Admin Nishkid64 says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman and not have him blocked here. However, when I went over the 3RR, he blocked me instantly here. This is straight out favoritism and an abuse of power on this admin's part. It is not fair that one editor can have such privileges to avoid being blocked for 3RR violations. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not presented any evidence that this is due to "favoritism". The circumstances may have been different. Alternatively, he may have simply taken two different courses of action at two different times; there's no algorithm for how to deal with 3RR reports. -- tariqabjotu 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect if one has broke the 3RR rule, doesn't that entitled the editor to be blocked? Correct me if I am wrong, but on the 3RR page it states, "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. The rule applies per editor." This was found on the 3RR page here. So, please let me know if 3RR only applies to particular editors (race, caste, creed, sex, nationality). Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And doesn't the same exact page you just cited say the following: "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action."? So, in this case, Nishkid64 made some judgment here. Metros (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, I blocked you in September for disruptive edit warring over the addition of WikiProject templates on talk pages. In January 2008, you violated 3RR over the same WikiProject template on an article talk page. I had told you before to seek a consensus before adding those templates back. You failed to engage in such discussion and you violated 3RR, so I blocked you. Also, I did not handle the 3RR report you filed. Bakasupraman contacted me off-wiki hours before, and asked for my thoughts. I reviewed the situation, told him he had violated 3RR, and issued warnings to both Baka and Relata refero. I chose not to block the users because they were engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I was going to protect the page, but I decided to leave it alone for the time being. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So, would it be ok for me to edit war just as long as I have dialog on the page? Wiki Raja (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR violations are handled separately. You engaged in repeated disruptive edit warring, so I blocked you. Bakasupraman has a history of that behavior, but I didn't think it was appropriate to block him (and Relata) when they were both engaging in serious discussion on the talk page. If you had been engaging in serious discussion and violated 3RR, an admin might consider just protecting the page, instead of blocking. However, like I said, it's an admin's call. Different situations need different action. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I quite get you on this matter. You state that I did not engage in dialog, when I did engage in dialog here in the section titled Removing WikiProject Templates. But, wait a minute, for some odd reason, my discussion is not shown in the history section here. Now, can you tell me what's going on? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm...yes, you didn't engage in any serious discussion that would achieve a consensus in your favor. That's why I blocked you twice. You told them not to remove the templates, but I don't see where they commented. The history wasn't deleted at any point, so it's possible that the discussion took place elsewhere. Also, there seems a consensus to not include the template. If the other editors remove the template, do not undo their edits. Get them into discussion, and try to convince them. If that doesn't work, then you could try consulting a larger audience (don't go as far as forum shopping, though). Nishkid64 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because they didn't bother to reply and continued reverting. When one was coming close to a 3RR, they get another account to continue the revert. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Nishikid is practicing "favoritism". But sometimes I feel that decisions on WP:3rr are handed down (by many admins, not just a particular one) quite inconsistently.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You doubt? Then that means we're not really sure of that. BTW, can there be an explanation as to why my two previous posts which can be clearly seen here under Removing WikiProject templates is not showing in the history section here? Wiki Raja (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about; all of your posts are in the history. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the dates in bold face below really close and show me that it appears in the history.

03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC):

• Appears on talk page here.
• Does not appear in history here.

06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC):

• Appears on talk page here.
• Does not appear in history here.

Wiki Raja (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied on Wiki Raja's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is puzzled by the reference to me. please do have a look at re:3rr. I do think Nishkid has mismanaged a few situations, particularly in his desire to shield someone who really should have been banned by ArbCom three times by now, but I think he's already been madea aware of the problems. I do trust his off-wiki discussions with Bakasuprman will be followed by more careful investigation in future; its not as if Bakasuprman has much of a reputation for accuracy. Relata refero (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not shielding anyone. As I told you already, you made an uncivil comment, and I warned you. Dealing with problematic users doesn't give you a right to violate WP:CIVILITY. Don't make unsubstantiated baseless comments about my actions. Also, I investigated the matter, as I already told you on your talk page. Drop the irrelevant side commentary on Bakasupraman. He has issues with edit warring and incivility, but don't tarnish his contributions, many of which have been beneficial to this encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I didnt violate WP:CIVIL, as I have explained at length on your talkpage. There was simply no other way of making that point.

What is an unsubstantiated baseless comment? I have based everything I have said on what you have told me specifically on my talkpage - in a conversation linked above, so anyone can check. Dont make unsubstantiated baseless comments accusing me of making unsubstantiated baseless comments:)

And "side commentary" on a seriously disruptive, POV-pushing, habitually uncivil user who violated 3RR yesterday and didn't even care is hardly irrelevant at AN/I. His mysterious positive contributions, which consist as far as I can see of 50 minimally researched stubs in one subject area where he is not an expert, are not really Giano standard, you know. Relata refero (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about Bakasuprman's previous edit summaries on Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the following statements:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].

This individual has something against folks who do not belong to the same faith as this user which was also the case with the recent 3RR this person committed. Further, the admin who let him of the hook makes me feel that he also favors editors of the same interests. Admin or not, I'll have to state that there sure is a lot of favoritism going on in here. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Now, which is lower? Wikiraja trying to divert attention from himself or Relata refero taking a snipe at Bakasuprman from behind Wikiraja? Bakasuprman has been through arbcoms and come out clean. He has been upheld as an editor in good standing by arbcoms more than once. If RR doesnt like it.. just too bad but just dont bring it here and waste people's time. Sarvagnya 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bakasuprman has benefited due to dirty admins playing the favoritism game. Birds of the feather flock together. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvagnya here. WR's use of "Jews" in that statement proves that he is attempting to throw mud at the wall (in hopes of some sticking) considering I have collaborated with numerous Jewish users, and no user in good standing has ever indicated anti-Semitism on my part. On the subject of Muslims, Wikipedia's articles on Muslim history would be lacking without articles on Khwaja Ahsanullah. Shamsunnahar Mahmud, Habibullah Bahar Chowdhury, etc. Looking at Christians, please do compare Hkelkar's version with mine.Bakaman 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this group is slowly trying to evade the topic on Nishkid64's biasedness towards certain users. You can throw all the piety and adminship talk at me, but the truth shows there is favoritism for editors of the same feather. If favoritism was not the case, I would not have been blocked in a heartbeat and would have been given the chance to speak with an admin just like the chance you gave Bakasuprman. Who is he anyway to receive preferential treatment over other editors? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Call for block of Relata refero

Relata refero is an obvious sock puppet account which started editing Wikipedia in October 2007. Since then this user has targeted a certain number of users who edit controversial pages. The sole purpose of this sockpuppet has been to cause disruption and enter into disputes. Therefore, a block of this account is called for under the Good hand, bad hand sock policy, perhaps that might encourage this user to login through their original account. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is he a sock of and who is being targeted? Lawrence § t/e 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can apply this Good hand, bad hand sock policy on the Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti accounts. After all, both usernames have been confirmed to belong to the same person here. What's fair is fair. Wiki Raja (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Sir Nick, this is a pretty wild accusation and would need a lot more substantiating. For all I can see, Relata refero is an excellent editor with a wide spectrum of interests. Yes, his early contributions of last October indicate he was probably not a newbie at the time, but that doesn't mean he is an abusive sock. He could be a reincarnation of a user in good standing who left. He could even be a legitimate alternate account, although I doubt that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas is talking rubbish, as usual. There's no reason to block Relata refero: he's been doing a good job in a number of problematic areas. Unless you can prove to me, via checkuser or otherwise, he's an abusive sockpuppet, I will strongly oppose any suggested sanctions. I'm aware that some think he's User:Hornplease, but, with all due respect, Hornplease was not banned, had a virtually clean block log, and has stopped editing anyway! This would be a legitimate reincarnation - and I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest Relata is Hornplease anyway. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Sir Nick is standing right next to the guy here who blocked and then unblocked the confirmed socks Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti. There's a lot of hanky panky going on around here on Wikipedia. It's time for a serious cleanup before this gets out of hand. Wiki Raja (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not usually quick to shout "admin abuse" or "cabal", but Sir Nick is really pushing it here. Relata refero is an excellent encyclopedia editor, and I'd trade ten Sir Nicks for one of those any day. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The accusations against Relata refero are baseless and absurd accusations. And I will echo Wiki Raja's comments above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick, please strike this attack on Relata Refera unless you can provide hard evidence that the general community can review. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. Wouldn't litigiousness befit a lawyer in training? rudra (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya were initially confirmed as sockpuppets because of geographic similarities. A later CU showed that they were indeed two separate users. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. This dirty cover up is getting so old. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Raja is begging to be blocked himself, by raking this issue up again, for no reasons, and without having any recent findings. Per the previous discussion with another admin, he is not supposed to bring this up again, but he has violated that. See the discussion, here. As I have mentioned in "Wiki Raja" section above, these kind of disruption is happening time and again, and there is absolutely no use to Wikipedia with all these, and is just consuming time of everyone. I call for an immediate block on User:Wiki Raja. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This mobster and bully mentality on Wikipedia has got to stop! Wiki Raja (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on Nishkid64 or Wiki Raja, Relato refero is a very serious and dedicated wikipedian. He regularly shares his thoughts on WP:RSN and other policy making venues. While he has been involved in disputes (I can name you admins that have been involved in ugly disputes), his overall contribution to wikipedia is positive. No evidence above has been provided that would suggest otherwise.Bless sins (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• do not endorse - I do not endorse any sanction against relata refera. the user is a good editor, who works hard for the encyclopedia. there are many others who should be shown the door prior to relata refera. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

YHBT. HTH. rudra (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Nick would be making such allegations without evidence to back it up. I'm sure Nick will be able to properly substantiate the aforementioned claims. Similar editing patterns on Narendra Modi, Nandigram massacre and Sonia Gandhi for a start piqued my suspicions, and the basically identical wording and attitude on talk pages confirmed my suspicions. I would assume Nick has something that is more convincing, which he will probably disclose in the near future, considering that he has not taken action yet.Bakaman 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And all one has to do is just click on your username and see your resume. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this group is slowly trying to evade the topic on Nishkid64's biasedness towards certain users. You can throw all the piety and adminship talk at me, but the truth shows there is favoritism for editors of the same feather. If favoritism was not the case, I would not have been blocked in a heartbeat and would have been given the chance to speak with an admin just like the chance you gave Bakasuprman. Who is he anyway to receive preferential treatment over other editors? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2#On notice, I hereby hit Wiki Raja on the head with a stick. Clobbering received necessitates 48h resting period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, someone beat me to it anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Raja wasn't a party to Hkelkar 2, but he needed to be hit with a stick anyway. Frankly, I think the Hkelkar stick needs to be used more often, on more people. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See how we have resolved conflicts much more equitably in WP:SLR. Many editors who used to violate wikipedia rules now play by the rules, others keep out of trouble. What really mattered was a bunch of admins who really wanted to resolve these issues in a neutral manner who were more than ready to use their admin powers liberally. Another one is WP:IPCOLL. India caste and religion related articles require such a dispute resolution process where truly uninvolved neutral admins are willing to participate as enforcers of civility, neutrality etc. Al what you guys have done here is to put off the problem by two months without resolving the route cause of the conflict itself. Taprobanus (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block review of User:TlatoSMD by Rlevse

• TlatoSMD (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• See here

I personally agree with this indefinite block, but I think because TlatoSMD has made some contributions worth keeping and has been an editor on the English and German Wikipedia for some time the ban should get wider review. Avruchtalk 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to disagree with the blocking admin's rationale left on User talk:TlatoSMD. The disruption and incivility needed to be permanently stamped out. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I fully support this block, and would have advocated an indefinite block on Tlato long ago. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this block. Just as 3RR isn't licence to revert an article 3 times, everyday, no matter what, DRV isn't a forum to rehash every XfD that closed against one's interests. Also, the continued incivility from this user WP:NPA and his attempts at WP:GAMEING the system are a major issue. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse the block per the sound rationale left by the blocking admin. TlatoSMD is a disruptive SPA who has tried so hard to game the system for weeks now, and has repeatedly disrupted deletion processes in an attempt to push a POV. The incivility is just icing on the cake. --Coredesat 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per my comment on the user's talkpage [19]. Disruptive and combative user. WjBscribe 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the indef block. An indef block is excessive - I would recommend a temporary block. (The following rationale for this has been copied from TlatoSMD's Talk Page)

While it's true that TlatoSMD can use a bit more tact in his commentary from time to time, indef blocking seems wildly inappropriate in this situation. His confrontational and "snappy" responses and exclamations are a result of what this individual perceives to be unrelenting attacks and POV-pushing by both regular editors and admins. Although he may have stepped out of line several times with his tone and heavy-handed words, I can't say I completely disagree with his interpretation of what has been happening on Wikipedia, especially in regards to PAW articles and their editors, for the past year or so. A great deal of misrepresentation is occurring, biases are clouding both editing and discussion, and a multitude of editors are refusing to engage in direct debate, preferring to completely disregard positions they personally disagree with. The fact that a number of admins have been either apathetic to TlatoSMD's situation or, in fact, engaged in the very same nonconstructive practices just mentioned has frustrated TlatoSMD quite a bit. Placed within such a hostile environment, and ignored by many regular editors and admins alike, TlatoSMD began to pick his words with less tact than is expected. Although some may be correct in asserting that some sort of block is in order, maybe even longer than several days or a week, indefinite blocking this individual would not benefit the project as a whole. Wikipedia will be hurt if it loses yet another intelligent, well-read, and usually civil editor, who's not afraid to speak his mind and to point out policy violations and POV-pushing when they occur, even at the risk of opposing many influential Wikipedians. A temporary block may be in order, so that TlatoSMD rethinks his approach to commentary and regains appreciation for civility, but an indef block will do nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia or its articles. The controversial PAW articles will definitely suffer, and an indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, to respond quickly to the reasons provided by Rlevse for the indef block. First of all, I fail to see any conclusive evidence that TlatoSMD is a single purpose account. Although a great deal of this user's recent edits have focused on PAW articles, his contribution history, via both his current and previous accounts, clearly shows that he has edited a variety of articles. Besides, being an SPA is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for indef blocking. Next, his "snappiness" and (what can be deemed by some) uncivil behavior can be addressed with a temporary block - no indef block is necessary. Besides, this is only the third block this editor ever got, and all the blocks were recently received in regards to the ongoing discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Adult-child sex" article and of the various drafts that attempted come up with a quality representation of this controversial subject. Then, even though this is a very "icky" topic for many, TlatoSMD followed proper Wikipedia procedures in contesting the deletions just mentioned. Thus, his actions to this regard should not be grounds for an indef block. As for the supposed "canvassing," this behavior can be addressed by warnings or a temporary block - once again, no indef block is called for. Lastly, this editor is quite capable of editing articles constructively and civility, as his editing history clearly demonstrates. To assert that TlatoSMD is "not here to be constructive" is to blatantly ignore all his contributions prior to his controversial conduct in the recent debates. There's much that this editor can contribute to Wikipedia. And, yes, enforcement of policy and emphasis on NPOV are just two of the positives that TlatoSMD generally brings to the table. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're misquoting me, I did not say he was a sock, I said his admitted doppelganger account, see this prior version of his user page. Also, I protest your claim this is censorship, the issue is incivility and disruption. As for his good edits, that is not a defense, per Jimbo's link below. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading a part of your comment. I have now adjusted my response to account for the assertion that TlatoSMD is an SPA. As for the "doppelganger" comment, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand. As far as I know, many editors mistakenly create several spellings of their username and only end up using one of the account. Since this is his primary account, and the combined contribution history of his current and previous account show editing in a variety of articles, I fail to see what makes TlatoSMD an SPA. Besides, as stated above, being an SPA, even if this was true of this particular editor, is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for an indef block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also no assertion that your particular indef blocking of TlatoSMD is censorship. What I said was that this "indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense." I'm not saying that this is true, but it's foolish to deny that such observations are being made about the project, especially after a number of controversial indef blocks in the past year or so. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TlatoSMD Review Break

• Has he been blocked or banned? Regardless, indef is def excessive. Firstly, he is not a Single Purpose Account as was said in the blocking rationale on his talk page. At least, not according to his contribs history. Blocking is not supposed to be used as punishment or to make a point, regardless of what Jimbo says. I'd say a timed block, as in 24 hours if he hasn't been blocked before to 48 hours if he's only been blocked once before to a couple of days or week depending on recent past block count, would be more appropriate in dealing with his incivility. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked, not banned. Even if one accepts the argument that he's not an SPA, there's still plenty to support an indef on this highly disruptive user. Short blocks have not worked. There is way more than his incivility. His statements (see quotes I made on his user talk page) show no sign of acknowledging the collaborative nature of wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, Avruch has my deep respect for bringing this here, even though he agrees with the block, because bringing it here for wider review was the right thing to do. Good call and thank you.
  • Keilana will of course support the block because TlatoSMD rightly challenged her deletion of a page without rationale.
  • When we are talking about a permanent ban on a user, we have to really look at it. Why? I have seen vandalism-only accounts and vandalism-only IP's blocked for 24 hours, only to go through the entire process again. I have seen the most aggregious name-calling and personal attacks go without rebuke at all. But TlatoSMD is uncivil and warrants a permaban? That is, quite simply, ridiculous.
  • So, why is this user being banned? Because he is right. Not entirely, and not always, but he is absolutely right in that he demands that Wikipedia policies be followed, and he has made no attempt to hide his feelings about clear policy violations. Pages that do not warrant deletion are being deleted. Personal attacks on him and others go without even warnings. And when he responds in kind, he is banned. What sort of precedent does this set?
  • There is the canvassing issue. Firstly, let's even assume it was canvassing (which it was not); is canvassing once worthy of a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Of course not.
  • TlatoSMD is by no means a Single-Purpose Account, and even if he had an uber-narrow focus, so what? Sockpuppet? No. Focused editor? Sure, why not? Who cares, though. His contributions have been very good and he has spent more time and effort on articles than some who only have worked to tear articles down. Are we going to start banning everyone who edits in a narrow range?
  • The bottom line is that this ban is egregiously over-the-top. I can agree that TlatoSMD has been aggressive. TlatoSMD has even rufled many feathers (gasp!). But to be permanently banned for this? Come on now... don't we all, as a community, have better things to do that force this issue? How about blocking intentional, blatant vandals for more than 24 hours at a time? TlatoSMD deserves time to cool off and continue editing constructively.
  • Let's drop this block to 24-36 hours, shake our collective finger at him, and move on...
  • VigilancePrime (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

For what it's worth, I'm not supporting the block because he " rightly challenged [my] deletion of a page without rationale". First of all, I did provide a rationale, which he disagreed with. Fine. He had every right to DRV the article. However, after the n^th incarnation, it became clear that he was an SPA. He has acted uncivilly, and the net gain to the project of unblocking him would be much less than the net loss from all the drama and incivility that follows him around. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It became clear he was an SPA? Have you not taken the time to look at his contribs? He is definitely not an SPA. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it did. I have read his contributions, FWIW. He has barely any article-space edits, effectively everything he does is related to this one article. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime--There's way more to this than Keilana and other edits. That three admins deleted that page shows there's considerable support to do so and that TlatoSMD is not correct in his actions. And again, he is not banned, there is a difference in a ban and an indef block. Your claim that he's being banned because he's right is ludicrous. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though he is not technically "banned," TlatoSMD is now incapable of editing articles, so how is this different from a ban? ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The confusion there is probably my fault for naming the section "ban" - technically he is blocked, but if no one unblocks him it has the effect of a community ban. Avruch ^T 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like the verifiability vs. truth argument. He may be right, but right is subjective, and his opinion of right has been shown to be against consensus. I have also refactored your comments' formatting and removed the annoying red box. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disruptive SPA sums it quite nicely. In my opinion, indef is a good call. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed with this analysis (after having seen the user at a few of the debates). Orderinchaos 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly I support this block, he has been incredibly uncivil and disruptive and short blocks perpetuated the situation. WP is better off without users like this. Viridae^Talk 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keilana, replied to your note on my talk page. Thank you for asking and no, I don't think you're self-important.
• Second, the difference between Indef block and Ban is purely semantic. Spare me.
• Third, Keilana closed the original debate w/o stated rationale, and that caused a firestorm (on all sides, ultimately). That led to Tlato being less-than-kind toward her, and thus I would expect a certain dislike for him. I would be too, so that's not meant as a slight against her.
• Fourth, counting admins is useless. Yes, three admins deleted the pages. Just as many kept the original page, protected the original page, or agreed that the pages should stay. In fact, more. Spare us the "so-many admins (as if that makes opinions more valuable?) did this or that". Poor argument.
• When it comes down to it, "we" would rather protect those who intentionally destroy Wikipedia (blocking vandals for 24 hours at a time, no matter their history?) and wash ou hands of someone who is so committed to Wikipedia as to fight for it. I do not disagree that T's comments have been unnecessarily aggressive. But a lifetime ban? Come on now... let's use our common sense. If "we" want to set this precedent, can I bring you twice as much evidence about another user, who has in fact taken part in name-calling and personal attacks and you'll permaban/permablock them as well? Give the word and I'll give the links, quotes, and diffs. But make me that promise first.
• Let's set some sort of consistency. Everyone in this debacle has had some sort of culpability in it, including me. I haven't been the most pleasant at times (longer ago). Neither has anyone else, admins most often included. Let's not overreact here. I would recommend a few cement trucks worth of Good Faith just be poured over this entire situation.
• VigilancePrime (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Question: What is the status of this page now? Its called "Der paedophile impuls" and is written in German, and it is apparently a copy of an article that was deleted on de.wiki. Avruch ^T 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That would need to be brought up on de.wiki; it may have different standards and processes than en.wiki. --Coredesat 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The userpage is here, though. Its a copy of a deleted de.wiki article, but he's ported it here for translation. Avruch ^T 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to strike my comment after misreading it. The page should be deleted. --Coredesat 05:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I also support this block, and would support a ban as well. This is a highly disruptive user who continually insults and attacks other users, even continuing to be so blatantly uncivil that during a block today his userpage had to be protected due to his outrageous behavior. TlatoSMD has attacked several administrators, accusing them of blatant lying [20][21][22], having “faulty rationale” and being neglectful by turning a blind eye to vandalism. TlatoSMD has acted in a disruptive manner in every MfD DRV and MfD he's been involved in, while continuing to insult administrators and other editors after being warned time and time again:[23][24][25][26]. These are just some of the most recent incidents, the user has a long history of attacking and insulting other editors and tendentious editing. Dreadstar † 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I simply can't see how this user can ever work collaboratively with editors they disagree with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While TlatoSMD may use excessively colorful words at times and has lately been upfront about his sentiments concerning others, his civility problems can be addressed with a temporary block, even a long one. An indef block is really inappropriate, especially considering that most criticism of his editing is directed at his commentary surrounding this one particular issue. This has been an upstanding, constructive, and generally civil editor in most other contexts. As for his critique of other editors and admins, and their editing practices - as long as this is done in a tasteful manner, and proper reasoning is provided, there's nothing wrong with such criticism. If it's established that TlatoSMD has been uncivil as of late, he should be blocked, but not indefinitely. I'm not sure how his constructive editing of other articles, and even of PAW articles before this messy situation, can be diminished by recent events and be completely disregarded. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility blocks have had no effect on this user - he was blocked on 4th Feb for 48 hours and was still being uncivil and offensive yesterday when I blocked him for calling another user a liar. I certainly didn't see any evidence from their talk page that they understood they had crossed a line. Quite the opposite in fact. Too much agression & refusal to moderate unacceptable behaviour is not collaborative. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, extend the block. But there's no need for idef blocking, especially considering the consistent constructive contributions on the editor's part in the past, before this messy situation. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, he has ~20 unrelated contributions since he joined. That's not at all consistent. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hardly a Single-Purpose Account.

Edits to Spontaneous‎, Jihad‎, Sodomy‎, Kurgan hypothesis‎, Counterculture of the 1960s‎, Dialectic of Enlightenment‎, Níð‎, Right-wing Authoritarianism‎, The Holocaust‎, Nazi occultism‎, Michael Naumann‎, Child sexual abuse‎, Donald Duck pocket books‎, Adolf Hitler‎, Velvia‎, Kodachrome‎, Proto-Indo-European religion‎, Dialectic of Enlightenment‎, Pedophilia‎, Repressed memory‎, and Pro-pedophile activism‎, five of his edits, even though made awhile back, are still the most recent to their pages.

VigilancePrime (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles in your list are related to the "adult/child sex" topic. One edit to a disambiguation page is irrelevant, as are the few other topical edits TlatoSMD has made. TlatoSMD is a single purpose account not because he has edited a single article, but because the vast majority of his edits have been to a group of related articles in a manner which is not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards. The SPA concern pales beside the disruptive nature of this user's editing habits. Dreadstar † 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a word: this account may or may not be disruptive, but this particular act - that of submitting the user copy page to DRV was not "disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation". The MfD was a complex situation, with several different reasons brought up by different people in a long discussion. (I voted delete, incidentally, and still think that deletion of the material is best.) Riana's closing rationale was really, really, uninformative; and her justification in the subsequent DRV was simply appalling. You do have to have a bit of chutzpah to say that after that a DRV was out-of-process. Relata refero (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agrre that this editor has been an SPA, and even worse, has been an aggressive POV-pusher. I don't see any article that he's improved, and he's fomented a lot of disruption. I think a ban is appropriate and necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't disagree about the block, but I gotta ask (since it's been the subject of a few discussions of interest to me), what does being an SPA have to do with it? -- Ned Scott 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• He is here mainly to push a pro-pedophile POV based on his edits (and he is doing so in an uncivil manner, which is the basis of the other problems he has), and that is something that can't be tolerated. --Coredesat 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but my point is that he would still be blocked even if he was pro-pedo and edited articles about apples. Being an SPA is unrelated. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I would hope that your assumption would be proven wrong, cause I don't see how an indef block would be justified in the scenario you just described, unless of course the editor finds a way to be disruptive when editing an article about apples. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess you could give him a topical ban so that he could still edit about apples, but wouldn't that offer be allowed to this user? Even if they haven't started editing other articles yet, we could say "you are free to edit other articles, but not the ones you have done so far". This is important because often we've reblocked indef. users who've come back under a different name to edit different articles, something that has always bothered me.
• But because the disruption was pro-pedo POV pushing, he would just be blocked over-all, regardless of other activities, because of a statement made by Fred Bauder. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, he's exhausted my (admittedly limited) patience and then some. People should be careful to pick the right fights; this was the wrong one on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, per all the others that agree above. Whether he is or isn't an SPA is moot; the other evidence alone supports an indef. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - sorry, the DRV was pure disruption. Will ^(talk) 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block—a rather textbook block: the net negative effect of this user's contributions are far outweighing the positive effect. I fully endorse to prevent any further disruption. Anthøny (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block- This user has got enough "final warnings" and enough blocks and chances to reform edits. Users actions seems like he/she refuses to do so and thus deserves the blocks and some more. Sorry Watchdogb (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse this block, too. Unbelievably disruptive abuse of process over a single article... enough is enough. :/ krimpet✽ 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse this block, after reviewing the situation, blocked editor seems to have reached a point of no concern for his/her actions.Taprobanus (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but I don't oppose this block. I say this so that there is no confusion about this, considering my discussion above about the SPA concerns. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I also endorse the block, but I do hope that eventually it can be lifted. Tlato is a thorough researcher that has been feeling persecuted lately. However, his everyone-else-is-biased-and-wrong attitude and the endless challenges to all attempts by the community to move on from the nasty situation have made it clear he wants to keep fighting. Well, Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't think it's right to say that this is a SPA, but certainly his single purpose lately has been campaigning on one sole issue. Mangojuice^talk 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of TlatoSMD by @pple

• I strongly disagree with this block. TlatoSMD, though his disproportionate forthrightness to the extent of a bit uncivility may disturb some users here, no way deserves such tough punishment. my personal interaction with him told me that he is a progressive editor who remains a relentless devotion to the project. Human is not flawless; we at the same time have both weaknesses that need fixing and strengths to encourage. TlatoSMD couldn't be exempted from this logic. We as a community should open our heart to see from him the potential of amendment and good things he brought to the project rather than merely dig out all the mistakes to use them as the barriers impeding his chance of showing improvement. admin rlevse, with all due respect, made the wrong decision this time.

1. Reviewing his contribution log, I came to staunch affirmation that WP:SPA has its practice completely failed on this user. His editing activity, though not as diverse as many people's, is not in line with "single purpose". TlatoSMD is also an excellent writer who has made a lot of substantial edits to articles [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], one of his strong points that is praiseworthy. I have carefully checked his edits, many of which are fully sourced and I don't find any PoV-pushing issues as many people alleged so. Allegation that all his mainspace edits are related to only one topic (adut-child sex) is even more inaccurate. I don't deny that his recent overenthusiastic involvement in debates may lead to misunderstanding of a SPA, but further scrutiny on his past contribs authentically refutes this. Besides blocking a user just because of SPA is fairly strange to me and undoubtedly a wrong decision.
2. Being disruptive warrants a block but an indefinite block for recent evidence of disruption is utterly unreasonable. It means that you brutally close the door on his chance to change himself towards the positive way. Tlato did try hard in discussions with good faith intention, giving thoughtful arguments with a view to achieving consensus , but the way he presented it and his uncontrollably fervent involvement that amounted to usage of improper words turned out to be disruption in the end. I think Tlato didn't do it on purpose, just something of quick-tempered nature that spontaneously bursted out when his reasoning was downplayed and made no effect to the discussion. I believe that every wikipedian must once experience this feeling because it is something that is unavoidable. AGF should be critically invoked in this case.
3. For the record, the first DRV questioning the afd closure was opened by User:Pharmboy, the second one on the issue of wrong speedy deletion of user subpage was credited to me. Subsequently, User:JzG brought the subpage to MfD and lastly it was Tlato himself that initiated another DRV, this time on the MfD closure result. Admittedly he took part in all the discussions but saying that he abused the process on account of his resubmission is an overstatement. His notification message of the ongoing discussion to multiple users carried quite acceptable content with little PoV pushed forward, though a bit borderline WP:CANVASS violation. However, all those actions don't warrant an indef block.
4. The civility issues as provided from the diffs appeared after he was aware of his being blocked the second time. This sudden block together with bad temperament was blamed for his improper reaction. We use indef block for constant disruptive behavior, not for a sole incident of misconduct.
5. I also favor rlevse's decision to unprotect the talk page.
6. I conclude that this user has the potential to become a constructive editor, as long as he has the chance to have a new start. I unblock him now and I'll take on the responsibility for his subsequent actions. If any valid concerns raised from his behavior thereafter, as a guarantee, I will endorse the indef block and have my sysop access automatically revoked for one month as a correction to my mistake as appreciating the wrong person. @pple complain 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

@pple, this was completely against consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, you opened one of the discussion debates and closed another. I object to your unblocking - but not because you have been involved in the issues that have not endeared TlatoSMD to the community, but because consensus was so clearly against your actions. A crowd of users and administrators above you strongly endorsed this block as necessary to prevent further disruption and as inevitable in any case given his seeming pro-pedophile point of view. And yet you unblock him, quite awhile after most of the comments in this thread. It just seems strange, and I'm at a loss for understanding your actions in this whole situation - from your strident reaction to my questions on PeaceNT's talkpage, to your involvement in the various deletion discussions, and finally to this action against clear consensus. Avruch ^T 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• That is an outrageous unblock against consensus. You do not appear to have made contact with the blocking admin, aprt from anything else. Please reblock straight away. Black Kite 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm counting over half a dozen admins and at least 1 crat who endorsed the block. You did not give any time for anyone to respond to your reasoning for unblock. This seems to tread very close to WP:WHEEL by unblocking against known and recognized conensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Tlatosmd has ALSO been unblocked by @pple. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reblock straight away - this was completely against consensus. This isn't a wheel war - just a really bad admin action. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Big mistake. Totally against consensus of multiple admins and one crat. Not to mention you never contacted me. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Sounds like another ArbCom drama is about ready to fire up. What is going on with administrators the last few months?! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked based on all the above comments objecting to @pple's action, plus all those endorsing the block in the first place. I would have loved to hear @pple's side of the story here but @pple appears to have stopped editing Wikipedia for the day, and based on his/her edit patterns we may not hear from him/her against for some time. Mangojuice^talk 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to do the same, per my message on User:@pple's talk page and thus endorse this action. I suggest this does not contravene WP:WHEEL, given
  • that it was an obvious unblock against consensus
  • User:@pple is an involved editor in this dispute
  • No attempt was made (apparently) to contact the blocking admin.

I have other concerns about this admin's recent conduct, as exemplified by this diff [32] where he calls a user he is in dispute with "ignorant" and his editing "nonsensical" and "vandalism". Black Kite 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at [33] I'm really hoping this action by @pple wasn't the "plan" VigilancePrime was referring to. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't, the conversation about the plan was with Keilana and concerned a civility parole. Avruch ^T 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, where has all the good faith went? ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, I think it would be fair to say that the history Tlato's edits and behavior have given good reason for that to no longer be the case. AGF is valid until a user shows us otherwise and TlatoSMD/smd has managed to do that. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt about that, but I believe Homologeo was referring to MBisanz's posting about @pple, rather than TlatoSMD. Black Kite 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still WP:AGF about Vigilence and @pple. It was just suspicious that one user would post about a potential "plan" with admins to unblock and then an admin presents an unblock rationale overriding consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AH, I see now. I can see where MBisanz has concern since @pple had not particicpated in this discussion as far as I recall and then took unilateral action that was totally against consensus. I agree that VP's "plan" was probably referring to his talks with Keilana, though. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime

I'm becoming concerned about this editor. The lawyering to the point of trolling is just the tip of the iceberg - a cursory glance at his talk page with sentiments such as "Call the WAH-mbulance!" "Undeniable Admin Abuse", "More (Typical) Admin Abuses of Peasant Editors", etc shows me that he will rarely, if at all extend the courtesy of WP:AGF. Several warnings by admins have been ignored. What do we propose to do? Will ^(talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean all the collapsible boxes and content contained within? That would probably be something that could go to WP:MFD if the user declined to remove it and you felt it was disruptive enough to warrent action. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That, and the conspiring to get Tlatos unblocked. Will ^(talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well right now we only know he was attempting to conspire to unblock Tlatos, there is always the possibility he failed and gave up and @pple decided on his own to do this. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's have some good faith here. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little criticism. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica

Just my day for ANIs I guess. User:Edito*Magica was brought to my attention by another editor, User:UpDown who knows I am well versed in creating episode lists and requested my assistance on List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes. Edito*MagicaJ kept changing for format of the list to one that removes the lead, and does not follow proper episode list format, going against the consensus for proper episode list formatting. (see good version versus his version). I reverted his edits, and tried to explain to him why his edits are incorrect. He refuses to listen, however, and appears to feel that he knows better than the main Wikipedia MOS, the TV project, and existing consensus and standards for episode lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=next&oldid=190484465 talk page discussions). UpDown also tried talking to him. I warned him that if continued his attempts to mess up the list, his edits would be considered vandalism, but he continues to revert, now calling the undoing of his edits to be acts of "sneaky vandalism." (his talk page with warnings that he has since blanked)

He is also removing content from various articles under the claim that information shouldn't be repeated in an article (examples: [34], [35]), despite it being appropriate information and my explaining to him that information can and should appear both in the lead and within the article proper.

At this point, its down to just undoing everything he is doing in these areas, and I'm hoping perhaps he will be more willing to listen to an admin since he is completely discounting the comments of other editors. I'm not entirely sure his edits are fully vandalism, but they are becoming very disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an update, he is now leaving false warnings on the pages of those undoing his actions [36], and is selectively canvassing relatively new, inexperienced editors to try to get them to agree with him [37] in an attempt to "form a new consensus" [38]. He is also continuing to edit war over his changes, blanking out content of infoboxes [39] or outright reverting the undos of his bad formatting and calling it vandalism [40]. He is showing that he has absolutely no desire to actual improve or work with the community, and is ignoring more notes from experienced editors telling him that his format idea is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why I persist in making the alterations on the Keeping Up Appearances episode page is to improve it for other users. I have the good of the community in mind and for that reason I want to help improve Wikipedia. Secondly, it is true I contacted two other users for a second opinion, both are not inexperienced and both agree with my minor adjustments to the layout. Collectonian does not like the fact that other users agree with me, and to report me for making changes he does not agree with is folly. It is he who is reverting constructive alterations that I have made, which still follow the Wikipedia policy on the “lead”, which isn’t even compulsory to follow anyway. I will stand up to the likes of Collectonian; if he can get people banned for undoing his edits and get them banned for making improvements, then how unjust the Wiki system actually is. I would report him, but i don't thing it is a constructive method in solving deputes. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have either of you considered stopping the accusations of vandalism and trying to follow dispute resolution? Someguy1221 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith or not, the policies have been show to EditoMagica, who ignores them. That is vandalism whether he thinks he's improving the pages or not. --UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGFed at first, and tried to explain in detail why his edits were wrong, but EditoMagica has made it clear that he doesn't care. He removes content from articles because he thinks it shouldn't be "repeated" in the infobox (despite being told the infobox is a summary, not a standalone) and he is refactoring episode lists articles to remove the lead in favor of another section of lists of statistics, despite again being told that it violates the MOS, the lead, and the consensus for episode list formatting. He is now taking these edits to other episode lists[41][42][43] and of course he is continuing on the KUA list[44]. He also completely blanked the talk page of Keeping Up Appearances[45] despite his edit history showing he knows very well how to properly edit a talk page. Its hard to AGF when he has already said very plainly that he doesn't care about Wikipedia policies or guidelines and instead is calling the clean up of his mess "sneaky vandalism" and making other accusations against the editors keeping him from ruining the articles (such as the one he left on your talk page which is obviously not a good faith remark). He's been told numerous times this isn't just the opinion of UpDown and myself (who normally, by the way, tend to disagree), but of the entire Television project, Anime project, and BBC project, all of which deal with television episode lists, and of the FL process, which EditoMagica would realize if he would actually look at the MOS and featured episode lists as was suggested. This was brought here because he will NOT listen to other editors, hence the need for admin intervention as his edits are very disruptive. His claims of support are from one or two other editors who are also as inexperienced as he is, and he continues to claim this support of two trumps to consensus of the hundreds of members of those projects and of Wikipedia guidelines as a whole. He is also blatantly ignoring two other editors telling him he is wrong. Despite his accusations, I'm not asking for him to be banned, but corrected and only blocked if he continues to be disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This really is getting out of hand now; EditoMagica is being hugely disruptive and seems to think that his way of writing an episode list is the best way, and the fact one or two editors apparently back him up he thinks means he has "popular support". These things are backed up policy, guidelines and by looking at relevant FA. All these go against EditoMagica but he ignores this. In addition, he fails to understand that what is in the infobox is always repeated in the article proper (like the LEAD). If he won't listen to advise and guidelines he will need to be blocked for the sake of Wikipedia.--UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And he continues leaving fake warnings on people's use pages[46] and again trying to mess up the KUA episode article[47]. I really wish an admin would look at this. Edito*Magica is trying to harass other users to get his way, insulting other editors, and being disruptive. He is not going to listen to warnings from "regular" editors as he thinks he knows better than all of us, and his actions will only discourage people from working on those articles to give them the final polish they need to be potential FL candidates. Collectonian (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of cultural impact sections

I've had a problem with editor User:DJH47, and I'd like some clarification. On the page for Rock Lobster, I had readded a section detailing a reference to the song on Family Guy. After some discussion on the edit page [48], it stood. User:DJH47 then deleted it, saying it was not notable.

After I pointed out to him several other articles of note that contained cultural references sections, he went through and deleted every one of those sections [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] without any discussion. He has since gone on to redelete every editors attempt to readd the section, [55] [56] [57] [58] without explanation on the talk page.

I don't want to enter into an edit war with this editor, much less one that stretches across multiple pages, so I've tried to engage him in a discussion on his page User talk:DJH47 and also the Talk:The Butterfly Effect page. He is deadset against the validity of sections detailing cultural impact or references, and doesn't seem to want to discuss it before deleting them.

By my understanding and experience of watching and editing wikipedia pages, the general consensus is that these cultural reference sections are approved. Personally, I enjoy them if they're edited well. In my opinion, references in other works help to show the notability of the quoted work.

Anyway, my opinion doesn't matter much in this, I'm only here to ask about consensus on these sections. Am I out of line for asking for discussion before deletion on something that's common on wikipedia pages dealing with songs/movies/tv shows?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as I certainly don't want to edit war. I'd like to make sure I understand the current consensus. Thanks. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, there has been alot of discussion over the years regarding cultural significance/crosscultural references etc. with folks lining up on both sides. The surest way to avoid rather messy edit wars from time to time is getting 3rd party references. eg. some book, encyclopedia or journal citing the relevance. I have not seen the diffs yet. If you have any references and referenced material is being deleted then that is more difficult for him to defend. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally these sections are quite frowned upon - usually almost all of these pop-culture references are not relevant to discussion of that topic, though they might be relevant in the article of the connecting subject. See Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective trivia and Wikipedia:Relevance of content. I'd have to agree with the removals in the articles you cited above, and would prune or remove them if I came across them; they are all rather unwieldy and off-topic, and leave the articles less focused. krimpet✽ 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Family Guy wiki? I am baffled by the astonishing number of citations I see to this series here on Wikipedia; it (along with The Simpsons and South Park seems to be referenced everywhere, and I suspect that those three series are the heart of every trivia section on this project. I'd love to see some sort of pop-culture wiki where all of the trivia content could be transwikied and be done with it. Horologium (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Snowfire, this is the tip of a larger iceberg, many of the themes can be seen here. I think some can definitely be referenced and written better. Some on quick scanning are clearly notable while others are less so. Thus the need for some references or commentary/3rd party sourcing. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, I have proposed the same thing in the past. I think it's the only viable long-term solution to the inclusionist/deletionist wars regarding popular culture articles. *** Crotalus *** 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that fans of shows whose stock in trade is making pop-culture references love their shows so much that they want to add every joke to every applicable article. It's almost an extension of the 'plot summary' problem seen on many TV Episdoe articles. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with ThuranX, and I'd like to add that the connections themselves would be unverifiable from a historical perspective. Many connections make sense now to quite a few editors but do not necessarily support the historical perspective of an article of the topic. Every kind of media will be culturally attuned to the contemporary environment, which is constantly changing. The uncited connections of popular culture references won't make sense to readers 50 years from now since they cannot dwell in and thus comprehend the environment that entitles current viewers and readers to "get" the references. Ultimately, the most important references will be addressed by secondary sources, not necessarily in the same decade as the media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but if I say "Vitameatavegamin", or "a rilly big sheeeeewwww," a substantial group knows what I'm referring to, even fifty years later. I can't speak for "South Park", but I'm reasonably certain that "Family Guy" will be a similarly-remembered show, and I'll be shocked if "The Simpsons" isn't. (Okay, actually in 50 years there's a more-than-reasonable chance I won't be around to BE shocked, but I trust you take my point.) Gladys J Cortez 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people here have no idea about "A rilly big sheeeeewwww", and even the name Ed Sullivan doesn't ring a bell for many of them. (I'm almost 40, and I don't remember the sheeeeewwww myself.) Vitameatavegamin is probably a lot more widely known, because of the widespread reruns of I Love Lucy. While I think The Simpsons and South Park will be remembered 50 years from now (both pushed the envelope in ways that Family Guy never did), I doubt that FG will have the same impact, and its densely packed current pop-culture references will date it badly. Just my own thoughts; YMMV. Horologium (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that the sort of judgments we should be making, or should we be recording popular culture as it becomes notable, whatever we think of the actual merits? DGG (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The sad fact is that there is no current consensus about "cultural impact" sections. Such sections have both flaws and virtues, and there are editors both new and experienced who may loathe them or champion them.

Although content removal does not go by the same rules as XfD, it is probably best to go by the standing convention in XfDs that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Otherwise people could edit-war their way to deleting any part of the encyclopedia they dislike. I am with you in that I do not want to edit war over such material; the solution here is that User:DJH47 should be urged to form a consensus for the deletion of such material if others contest his removal of it. If he opts to edit war to enforce his views over it, the prohibitions against that are well established.--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎

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

---

Blocks for sockpuppetry have been placed on RDOlivaw (talk · contribs), Unprovoked (talk · contribs) and DrEightyEight‎ (talk · contribs) by User:LaraLove on the basis of a checkuser run by User:Thatcher and User:Deskana. See User talk:RDOlivaw for details including concern that a University proxy in Grenoble and the network of Nottingham University may have been indefblocked. No details seem to have been made public about the alleged disruption arousing suspicion. .. dave souza, talk 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As a very old commercial for Wendy's noted, "show me the beef". We seem to be going round in circles in our quest for evidence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocking the uni proxy is a very rookie mistake, and at the very least that needs to be cleaned up. "For the admin who reviews this, please first talk to User:Thatcher or User:Deskana. Checkuser evidence shows that this user and user User:DrEightyEight are connected to the account User:Unprovoked and on February 1, 2008 they edited from the same IP address, alternating, in a matter of minutes which puts them on the same computer. Lara❤Love 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)" seems like a some very weak evidence to block first and ask questions later. Blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ned, nice to see you again. Rookie? I went on the results and recommendations of a bureaucrat/checkuser and another checkuser. Also, the underlying IP is not blocked, according to said 'crat. So have a seat. Checkusers and 'crats have the trust of the community, so considering two of them have stated that the evidence links them, everyone needs to move along. It's not a conspiracy, a Albion moonlight refers to it. It's not shady or weak. It's actually (Thatcher or Deskana correct me if I misinterpreted) pretty strong evidence. So as much as I like a nice puddle of spewed bad faith on my talk page and an ANI on my action without anyone notifying me of it, I've got work to do. Lara❤Love 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of times checkusers and checkuser results have resulted in blocking of non-socks is great enough that one would be a fool to simply "move along". User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, anyone? I really need to start keeping a list. And Lara, please stop taking this so personally. Look around at the comments aimed at other admins, they're pretty cold at times too, but you don't see them freaking out every time someone objects to a decision they made. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me spell it out, we have more than one user using a uni proxy, and again haven't even stopped to consider that they might know each other. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't play that "don't take it personal" card. This is not like the last situation you popped your head into regarding me. I'm not taking this personal. I'm pointing out that you're challenging the block of socks confirmed by two checkusers based on failure to do your research. RDO already stated he doesn't know Dr88. Yet, they edited from the same computer and the same IP alternating within minutes of each other.

> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)

> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)

> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)

Is that how dynamic IPs work? Lara❤Love 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have over 30 active comments on WP:ANI right now, most involving blocking discussions related to sock puppet accusations, and you believe I'm going after you? WTF? You being the blocking admin makes little difference. I'm challenging a block that where normal users don't have access to the evidence, and are asking for a little more explanation than "trust the holy checkuser results". They might be socks, and I'm certainly not asserting they're not, but I am well within my right to question something like this. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ned, frankly I know more than you, and without discussing the details I can only say that RDOlivaw's unblock request bears only a passing resemblance to the truth. I would strongly suggest that these accounts not be unblocked, unless it is to give this user a second chance, and that any admins moved to unblock should first contact Arbcom, who can review my findings in confidence. Thatcher 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't question that you know more about this than me, and I have a lot of respect for you. But given past incidences I hope you can understand why we might question stuff like this. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• As has been shown at User talk:DrEightyEight there's a concern that the edits concerned were made from a Static IP address (Freebox) where the modem has the static IP, and multiple computers can use the modem and will show the same IP. That could perhaps explain the sequence LaraLove shows above. DrEightyEight had been indefblocked with autoblock enabled, so I've unblocked and reblocked with the autoblock removed, in case that was also blocking a university network. User:Unprovoked has never been blocked, and I don't know if there are any other accounts blocked in this connection which could have the same issue. Presumably the DrEightyEight whois relates to Grenoble university, however an IP which RDOlivaw apparently used more recently when logged out showed as a Nottingham University network on whois. I've requested clarification of the alleged disruption but have yet to be shown any diffs or any indication other than the claim that "they have supported one another in various discussions regarding article content and such". Concerns have been raised in the past about indefblocking newbies, and care is needed. . . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me clear up a couple of things. First, LaraLove did not know that RDOlivaw was editing from a proxy at Univ Nottingham, because I didn't tell her--IPs are rarely disclosed, except when absolutely necessary or when the editor has given it away himself. I didn't check for other editors because at the time I ran the check, RDOlivaw had only 3 edits on this IP and they were not germane to the issue of sockpuppetry. If I had checked, I would have seen a lot of good users and I would have told her to disable the autoblock. But I didn't. Second, RDOlivaw has himself stated that he edits through a "University proxy." and from wi-fi. There is nothing in the whois or rdns information for his Grenoble IP address to indicate that it is a proxy and he is the only editor on that IP. But for the one edit that gives him away, he has no logged-in edits from any other location such as wi-fi hot spots. Finally, it is clear to me that these two accounts were carefully created to give the appearance of being different individuals. RDOlivaw edits exclusively from University during work hours Monday-Friday, and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a residential IP (probably DSL) on nights and weekends. Except for one mistake, the best I would ordinarily be able to say is possible based on similar geolocation. I am normally hesitant to describe precisely what that mistake was, to avoid making this person a smarter sockpuppeteer next time, but Deskana has already given away the basics on user talk:RDOlivaw. DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a single residential IP address, probably DSL. There are no edits from other users suggesting this might be a wi-fi hotspot or LAN. This series of edits

> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)

> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)

> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)

were all made from DrEightyEight's residential IP address. These two editors have stated they do not know each other, the only possible explanation is that DrEightyEight is running an unsecured wi-fi hotspot that no one has every used except himself, but for one day when RDOlivaw was driving home from work and was struck by a sudden need to protest his being added to the list of editors under probation [59] and by coincidence was driving past DrEightyEight's apartment and found his hotspot for a single edit. Thatcher 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The commonality of the subject of these edits should also be noted.

RDOlivaw (23:06): "Hi. I'd like to know why you've pinged me for the Homeopathy probation."

DrEightyEight (23:08): "I'm obviously already aware of this. Why have you added me to the list?" <-- Speaking of Homeopathy probation. Lara❤Love 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet, they edited from the same computer and the same IP alternating within minutes of each other. - the _lack_ of this rapid-fire alternation on the same IP address was used as evidence _against_ Jeffrey O Gustafson; and your claim that it was "the same computer" is absolutely unsupported as an independent claim vs merely being the same IP address. —Random832 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not unsupported at all. The checkuser tool gives information on the computers used to make edits. The fact that they edited from the same private residential IP to ask the same question within minutes of each other, on the same kind of machine... that's not suspicious to you? When that is their *only* overlap? You need to think like a sockpuppeteer to understand them. --Deskana (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser tool does not and cannot make evaluations about how much equipment is operating at an IP address (and i'm not aware that it returns browser, user agent etc data, even though it would be technically possible for it or another tool to do so - which would be necessary to even say "the same kind of machine") - that was all that I was saying. I didn't mean to be questioning the validity of the sockpuppetry claim in general, it's just that saying "from the same computer and the same IP" makes the claim sound stronger without adding more substance. —Random832 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Same user agent, whatever. RDOlivaw has just one overlapping edit, his "fingerprint," on a static residential DSL IP used exclusively by DrEightyEight. Otherwise RDOlivaw edits exclusively from a college during working hours and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from his residence during non-working hours and weekends. I guess they are roommates, and RDOlivaw has never, in the last month, had an urge to make more than a single edit outside of working hours. Thatcher 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User agent? Does wikimedia use some kind of fancy extended checkuser that's not pictured in commons:Checkuser? —Random832 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dave souza, thank you for making me aware of this thread. Simultaneous to Thatcher looking at these users, Deskana forwarded the issue to the ArbCom mailing list. Several current and former arbitrators with CU looked at the evidence and felt that that there was abusive use of multiple accounts through either socking or meat puppets. I do not think that we have made a mistake here but as always are glad to answer questions. There are restrictions on what is ordinarily disclosed to adhere to the Privacy policy and keep sockmasters from learning how to beat the system. This may make our decision seems weaker than it actually is. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Small point (as in "I might've been wr, wr, wrong):

The English of RDO and Dr88 is a bit different, but hardly enough to distinguish between the two. Also, there is one troubling similarity: both RDO and Dr88 end their posts without punctuation, adding instead two dashes (--) followed immediately by the sig. Finally, neither one seems to like edit summaries, at least on that talk page.

The above isn't conclusive evidence, of course, but it does seem an odd quirk to share. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone and in particular Thatcher, for clarifying the detail of the checkuser supporting the blocks of RDOlivaw and User:DrEightyEight. That's rather more detail than I was expecting, but certainly it's informative. You don't mention‎ User:Unprovoked – if that user has been cleared, presumably the sockpuppetry template should be removed from the user page. Anyway, it's certainly been educational for me, and there seem to have been procedural issues that might be improved in the light of the outcome. The notice placed on User talk:Unprovoked stating "evidence presented here: Refer to User:Thatcher," wasn't terribly helpful as there was nothing on your talk page about the case, and an enquiry made to the blocking admin had met with an accusation of bad faith.[60] An enquiry was then made to you, but by the time I read your response RDOlivaw had already raised the question of blocked university networks. The user had disclosed an IP which showed on whois as Nottingham University, but obviously I was cautious about disabling the autoblocks – which was a major reason for my late night posting here, and I'm glad that the autoblocks were disabled by reasonably early on Monday morning to minimise any disruption. So, in conclusion, it might be best for blocking admins to be ready to answer questions about reasons for blocking, preferably indicating the alleged disruption as well as the simple fact that a checkuser had been carried out. Where block notices refer to another admin's page, it would be helpful if that admin's talk page had a mention of the blocking. And obviously care has to be taken to avoid autoblocking networks. It's sad that what seemed to be a promising editor has to be blocked, but there is indeed a considerable weight of evidence of sockpuppetry. Thanks for your help, .. dave souza, talk 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I thought it would be obvious that directing one to User:Thatcher and User:Deskana, being that they are CUs, meant to direct questions to them rather than check their userpages for evidence in a sockpuppet case. Regardless, reports filed at RFCU don't give details, and I didn't even have all the details. I wasn't sure how much was supposed to be revealed, so I didn't find it appropriate to give out any of the CU results. As far as my comment linked above, considering OrangeMarlin's post to my talk page was "...there's nothing I dislike more than a sockpuppet, except for an admin that makes improper blocks" and the section below referred to the situation as a "conspiracy", I'm not sure how I was supposed to take that in good faith. But perhaps it's just me. Either way, I'll file a report in the future. Lara❤Love 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't thinking of anything more than "they were colluding on page x, and checkuser has confirmed they are sockpuppets, ask Thatcher for any further details". I appreciate that there was some snarking going on with OM and Whig, but Jim had made a reasonable enquiry and a simple answer would have cleared things up quickly. We all make mistakes, as I did when forgetting to tell you and the others about this AN/I. Sorry about that, .. dave souza, talk 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the situation is resolved now. Evidence is strong, users remain blocked. Apologies given and accepted all around, everyone have a beer (I'll have some Dr Pepper) and it's done. Good times. Lara❤Love 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

NYScholar block overturned

NYScholar edits at four times the rate of most of us, but has a Wikibreak notice permanently on his user page, and a talk page header that basically says "Please don't put any messages on my talk page; I'm too busy to respond". If anyone posts on his talk page, even for matters that really do require a considered response, such as asking him to prove or withdraw a false accusation of personal attacks, he accuses the poster of harassing or upsetting him by ignoring his request not to message him, and then he archives the discussion, i.e. deletes it from his talk page, copying it into an archive which others are not permitted to edit. If anyone pulls the thread back onto this talk page to continue the discussion, the cycle repeats - accusations of harassment, followed by an immediate archive.

Sarah put his modus operandi like this:

"you make false accusations and then archive quickly before your victim has an opportunity to respond, forcing them to leave it unchallenged in your archive so it looks to anyone not aware of the truth that it's true, or your victim restores the thread and responds, only to be hammered with more false accusations and lies.... "

Yesterday I warned NYScholar that his management of his talk page was disruptive, and asked him to stop archiving active threads. A number of other administrators chimed in with support. NYScholar subsequently archived that very thread three times. I therefore applied a 24 hour block, expressing the hope that this would convince him to find a method of managing his talk page that is in line with community expectations.

In my absence, Sandstein overturned the blocked, characterising my block as "you blocked this user for archiving or deleting content on his talk page", claiming that NYScholar's behaviour is in line with WP:UP, and asserting that my block was punitive because it did not prevent NYScholar from editing his talk page.

I cannot understand how Sandstein cannot see that this behaviour is disruptive. I cannot see how s/he can imagine that WP:UP endorses this kind of behaviour. And I don't see how s/he manages to function effectively with such a narrow, technical interpretation of preventative - in my view the whole point of punitive v preventative is that blocks should be applied not when a user has done wrong, but when they are likely to continue doing so. There is no requirement that the block must directly technically prevent the action being censured, else we would never again bother to block for block evasion, sockpuppetteering, or anything at all that happens on a user's own talk page, no matter how awful.

All in all, I find Sandstein's rationale for unblocking to be so bizarre that I don't think we can work it out between us. That is not to criticise Sandstein, who is operating in good faith according to his/her own understanding of policy. But we seem to be so far removed in our respective approaches that there can be no meeting of the minds. I would like to hear some outside opinion on the correctness of my block and Sandstein's unblock.

Hesperian 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think NYScholar should stay blocked, preferably indefinitely. He is consistently rude and tendentious, and has in at least one case forced a false and unnecessary license tag onto an image because of his own inaccurate interpretation of the statements of third parties. Wikipedia would be better off without him. *** Crotalus *** 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, on what basis did you block? You used "disruption" as the reason. Please provide diffs for that disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, in this as in most cases, disruption is a pattern of editing that is difficult to capture in a few diffs; I probably can't do much better than Crotalus below, although I could provide a hell of a lot more such diffs. What Crotalus' diffs are missing is context: If someone accused you of making a personal attack, and you asked them to prove or withdraw that accusation, how would you feel if they simply deleted it unreplied, then accused you of harassing them by ignoring their request that people not post on their talk page? That's what happened to Moondyne. If you were trying to hold a serious discussion with someone, and they kept replying with false accusations, then immediately archiving, so that the discussion ended with their false accusations ensconsed in an archive that is not supposed to be edited, how would you feel? And if you decided to bring that discussion back to the talk page to respond to said false accusations, only to be accused of disruption and harassment for doing so, how would you feel? That's what happened to Sarah. And if that user deleted that discussion within a couple of minutes of it being brought back, over and over again, how would you feel? That's what has happened to everyone who has tried to engage this user over the last two day. The warning I gave was "I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators." And that is exactly what has happened; that page shows reams and reams of discussion from angry, frustrated people, who want a redress that NYScholar is denying them through what amounts to a low down dirty trick. If this is not disruptive, I'll eat my hat. Hesperian 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, but preventative. A user's talk page can be edited by a blocked user, so blocking NYScholar will be punitive as it does not prevent him from doing what he was doing before. Encourage the user to follow WP:DR, or, if the behavior iwarrants it, start a user WP:RFC, so that the community can give him feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone through this punitive-preventative issue above; didn't you read it? You don't seem to be addressing what I said about it. Hesperian 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See [61], [62], and [63] for some examples I found in the past day or so. He simply refuses to discuss issues with other contributors and instead accuses them of disruption, using this as an excuse to "archive" (delete) comments from his talk page. Ability to work in a collaborative environment is necessary for Wikipedia editors, and this one gets a F- on that score based on his repeated actions. *** Crotalus *** 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See also his block log which contains an extensive record of misbehavior including repeat 3RR blocks, legal threats, and trolling. *** Crotalus *** 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He should have been blocked long ago for disruption on Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg and related pages. I've fixed the license information on that image, and I would appreciate if an administrator could go and undelete the old, high-resolution version, since it meets Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Crotalus, I read the diffs, and I do not think that you can block an editor on that basis. I support the unblock. Invite the user to pursue WP:DR instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and didn't block him. But I think he should remain blocked because his presence is a net detriment to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Sarah's summary of things, with an emphasis on false accusations. Any attempt to correct the record is promptly deleted. One example - NYScholar strikes through a comment I made, and when I point out that such actions are expressly verboten per WP:TALK, s/he deletes both the original comments and my reply, leaving instead a post claiming that s/he had to delete it because I reverted his/her strikeout. Patently false. S/he also claims to know my motivations, as when s/he claims that I am only doing so to "upset" him/her. Quite frankly, I find this user very difficult to work with; s/he insists that other editors should read his/her "N.B." to understand his/her editing summaries, user had made claims that using citation templates introduces "vast problems," and continually refers to the opinions and edits of others as "ridiculous." Add to this the tendency to make huge numbers of small edits (which several editors have likened to not useing the "show preview" button), and it becomes almost impossible to work collaboratively with NYScholar. Pairadox (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As with any privilege, when abused, it needs to be curtailed. If NYScholar is going to abuse the privilege of archiving talkpage comments, then he needs to be placed on some kind of probation in that regards. --B (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a probation of some form should be the minimum expectation here. While policy allows archiving of talk pages, doing so mid-discussion as a move to end scrutiny of one's actions is downright disruptive. Furthermore, on principle, I would have declined the unblock on the basis that the unblock request itself contained a personal attack. Orderinchaos 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OIC and Hesperian about the talk page disruption and I was particularly disappointed to see the block unilaterally overturned on a page which contains numerous attacks against multiple users, false accusations, and incredibly disruptive userspace practices, without so much as a warning or obtaining an undertaking to cease the attacks. UP is a guideline that has limits and says so. If people's userspace practices are disruptive and it gets in the way of the project (as is most certainly the case here) then they need to stop or be stopped. Sarah 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[ec] NYS is possibly the most frustrating editor I've come across here. His/her talk page (history, don't bother just reading the current content or the selectively updated archives) and block log is littered with warnings from exasperated admins and non-admins. And thats not counting the still unresolved false accusations of personal attack against Sarah and myself. In this context I was amazed that a nominal 24 hour block was hastily overturned by Sandstein without any of the other admins currently communicating with NYS (Hesperian, Sarah and myself) having time to respond. Why the rush? A better course of action would have left the block in place rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to a known disruptive user at least until until an involved admin could comment. —Moondyne 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, without any comment on the block itself, it appears that Sandstein overturned a block without any attempt to contact the blocking admin? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an attempt was made here. —Travis^talk 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Sandstein didn't contact the blocking admin. —Moondyne 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Contacted in the most perfunctory manner - the sensible action to take would have been to communicate with the blocking admin. As it turned out, he would only have had to wait a further 3 or 4 hours, and none of this drama would have been necessary. Orderinchaos 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another bad block, and another admin that needs to review our blocking policy. While admins are supposed to use their good judgement in situations, they are not to replace policy with that judgement. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And IAR doesn't cover "well, we don't like this user, so we'll look the other way". -- Ned Scott 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why you think it's a bad block? Pairadox (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the part where a user was blocked for rapidly archiving their talk page? -- Ned Scott 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to make something look wrong if you simplify it until it is. Hesperian 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And your IAR comment too please? Who was that addressed to? Who's trying to invoke IAR here? Hesperian 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(to Hersperian) No one, it was a bit of a preemptive comment. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems we agree on one thing - IAR is the most over-invoked policy on Wikipedia... unless it be second after POINT. Hesperian 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But Ned, you're wrong if you think this will be cleared up by me reviewing the blocking policy. I believe that the block was proper, both in policy and common sense terms. I opened this thread to get some feedback, and your feedback is welcome. But it isn't constructive unless you take the time to explain why you think this was a bad block. Hesperian 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just undone the "archiving" of this thread by User:Jossi. Way out of line shutting down an active discussion that you're involved in and want to have stopped. Orderinchaos 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out WHY this had been archived. A bad archiving, and a bad unblock. Archiving all talk page activity and continuing with bad practices isn't the purpose of the 'if they delete it, they saw it' rule of thumb for Talk pages. IF you're approached about stuff repeatedly, and always make a show of ignoring it, then you need to stop editing here till you CAN work with others. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. This is exactly my belief, too, ThuranX. Sarah 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by the unblocking admin: I acknowledge that I should have been more diligent in contacting Hesperian, and I apologise that I did not wait longer for a reply by him or her before unblocking. As to the merits of the block I've presented my point of view on my talk page, at User talk:Sandstein#NYScholar. To summarise, I fail to understand how someone can be blocked merely for the act of deleting or archiving content on their talk page, a practice that – although it may be impolite – is explicitly allowed by WP:UP. This is not to say NYScholar could or should not have been blocked for any other misconduct she or he may have been guilty of, just that a block merely for deleting things on one's own talk page is inappropriate. Sandstein (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar makes a baseless personal attack against Moondyne. Moondyne posts a message asking him to prove it or withdraw it. NYScholar blanks the request unreplied two minutes later.[64] You may have your own opinion on whether or not this is appropriate, and you may have your own opinion on whether or not the modus operandi of doing this to virtually every post, irrespective of the state of the discussion, constitutes disruption. But to assert that WP:UP affords NYScholar carte blanche to do what he is doing is an insult to the good people who wrote that page. Hesperian 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But WP:UP does allow this. A great number of times people have pointed out that a user's talk page is for messages to that user, not from that user. There's nothing stopping anyone from talking to him. If they want to leave the discussion open the can make a copy of it on their own talk page. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of where this came from appears to be located in the following, and after reading it, I am now even more convinced that a bad call was made here. This should explain why such behaviour is disruptive. I believe Sandstein should have read this and taken it into account before making such a controversial decision. Quoted in full below from NYScholar's talk page. Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I've been very concerned about NYScholar's use of this page for a couple of months now and have kept his/her page on my watchlist as a result. I had to contact NYScholar because the foundation was contacted by the brother of a man NYScholar claimed had died but in reality was still alive. The brother hadn't had recent contact and was distressed to learn of his brother's "death" via a google search of his name. He wished to talk to NYScholar to find out the details of his brother's "death". Only NYScholar declined email contact saying s/he prefers all contact to be on site (fair enough, I suppose). This forced the brother to register for an account specifically to come to this page to talk to NYScholar but a couple of hours after responding, NYScholar archived his/her talk page. [65] It seemed rather rude to me that NYScholar would claim a man had died, causing his family great distress only to immediately archive the thead. Do you think someone who has never used Wikipedia before and who came here to address such a matter would have seen NYScholar's reply in the couple of hours it was posted? Would he have known where to find the archived reply or would he have thought his message had simply been deleted without response and then given up in disgust? Makes you wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with Wikipedia must get. I had to apologise to the poor man several times. Sarah 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (reposted in AN/I by Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

But NYScholar responded to this person. He apologized and explained himself. NY didn't anticipate that the guy might not see his message, and that is all. That is certainly not a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He even left the guy a note on his talk page, User talk:Aachtert. Clearly NYScholar wasn't trying to be disruptive. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) This post was on NYscholar's lengthy talk page at the time of his unblock request, but it was not cited in his block reason, and for that reason I did not acquaint myself with it specifically. If this account is true, NYscholar may have it made rather difficult to communicate with the brother, but it seems from this account that he did respond to him. If this episode was the basis for the block at issue, not just NYscholar's practice of deleting talk page threads in general, the blocking admin should have said so and should have cited this (and possibly other) specific incivilities. That's not to say the block would have been justified then either, but at least it might have been possible to evaluate it more thoroughly. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Achtert issue is a red herring and really has nothing to do with the block that I'm aware of. I only raised it when I did to explain the point that I personally became concerned with the way NYScholar was conducting the page with hyperediting and controversial claims and false allegations about people followed by rapid archiving, effectively preventing them from responding. I am very concerned and upset by his personal attacks, and utterly false claims and accusations. This is just exacerbated by the fact that he rapidly archives so that the 'victim' can not respond. They can't edit the archive where the claims are and if they attempt to repost on his talk page, he accuses them of harassment and of causing him upset etc etc. His talk page practices are massively disruptive. Also, I might add that I never claimed that NYScholar didn't respond to Mr Achtert...so if y'all are getting that idea you're barking up the wrong tree. What I have claimed is his talk page practices exacerbated that very unfortunate situation and it did. Sarah 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad judgement is not a reason to block. Intentional disruption is. I can't speak for other situations, but it's very clear that NY meant no disruption when he responded to the brother's message (he even left a message on that user's talk page). Not only that, but for that specific issue it seems that NY was not attempting to make some kind of "zomg, false accusation" to hurt anyone, but made an honest and simple mistake, one which he corrected and apologized for, before this incident even happened. The brother found the comment on a talk page archive. NY could be the biggest asshole in the world for all I know, but I'm getting tired of you guys trying to make him look like a monster because of the Achtert incident. Even assholes have a heart, and I have no reason to believe that NY was doing anything in that situation with the intent on being misleading, sneaky, or any other form of disruption. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ned. Red herring. As I said. The Achtert incident happened months ago and it had nothing to do with the block...I don't know how many times it needs to be said that he was blocked for disruption. You don't seem to be understanding this and have been sucked into a red herring tangent. And "you guys" is a bit rich given that I was the only one who had mentioned the incident and was, in fact, the only one who even knew about it since I was the one who handled the OTRS complaint and I never discussed it with anyone else or raised it on-site until I noticed the dispute at the weekend on NYScholar's talk page about his problematic editing practices. If you have a complaint about the Achtert issue then it's all me. I'm the one you should be taking issue with and accusing "you guys" of making NYScholar "look like a monster because of the Achtert incident" is extremely unfair on the others involved in this. You're tarring them with my brush, they've never had anything to do with it, never even knew about it, and never opined about it at all (except, perhaps in OIC's cut and paste of my comment above). So if you have an issue with it, take it up with me but trying to dismiss the entirety of this dispute which had nothing to do with Achtert because of it is very silly. You also don't seem to understand that this block evolved from a dispute in which NYScholar accused Moondyne of making personal attacks, refused to retract the accusation, refused to provide proof of personal attacks and, in fact, stood by the accusation and quickly archived the discussion, declaring it "unnecessary discussion". That's what was the starting point of this dispute. You're stuck in a red herring, Ned. Furthermore, I take issue with this: "Bad judgement is not a reason to block." If I thought otherwise, I would have blocked NYScholar months ago when the Achtert incident happened. You seem to think that you're arguing against me on that but you're not. Please try to understand that the Achtert incident had nothing to do with the block. He was blocked for disruption after several warnings from multiple administrators. Sarah 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how things change. A little while ago the prevailing attitude was that users might be given a little latitude in how they manage their user and talk pages, but ultimately those pages belong to the project and were subject to the various rules, expectations and even vagaries of the community. Perhaps this mode of thinking was a product of the userbox wars. I must have nodded off for a moment, because the sudden change of attitude has come as a surprise. All of a sudden a man's talk page is his castle, and he can do whatever he damn well likes on it, no matter how outrageous, no matter how it pisses people off, no matter how disruptive. I suppose this change is a backlash against the ridiculous warring over the removal of warning messages. This had become a real problem, and I'm glad it has been resolved. But methinks the pendulum has now swung way too far. Hesperian 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how that's the "prevailing attitude"; only two people here have expressed that attitude. -Amarkov moo! 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian - that's certainly not an attitude I would support. You can't attack someone on your talk page. You can't violate copyright. You can't put someone's home address and telephone number. But archive it "early", when we have no guidelines about how long message should stay there? I can't see that as a disruption. I'm sorry it wasn't convenient. Frankly, I think NYScholar was pretty irritating with it. But I just don't see it as a blockable offense. - Philippe | Talk 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear about this: I'm not talking about "archiving early". I'm talking about deleting a active thread in the same minute as the previous contribution to that thread.[66] Or within two minutes.[67] Or four.[68] And accusing people of harassment when they restore the thread in order to continue the discussion. That is a far cry from "early archiving", and the fact that people here are choosing to characterise it this way, is, I think, inconsistent with how we would have responded two months ago.

Furthermore, it is indicated above, clearly and repeatedly, that you can't block someone for making an attack on their talk page, nor for putting a copyvio on their talk page. The logic is that blocks don't prevent people editing their talk pages, so such a block would not be preventative, so it must be punitive, and therefore forbidden. Hesperian 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian's general point. I've noticed some users (usually the more disruptive ones) create special "rules" for their talk pages and then get mad when users don't follow them. Talk pages, both user talk pages or article talk pages, are for communication and discussion. Inappropriate material should be deleted from either but appropriate material should not be removed whether by deletion or by overly-rapid archiving. If folks can't or won't deal with other users they should find a non-collaborative project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian's block, although I have no confidence that it will have any effect. NYScholar has been a difficult editor for some time in almost every regard. He has treated article and project page archives in the same way, making personal attacks then archiving so that no one can respond, and if they unarchive and post a reply, he will post several very long (unreadable) responses, then archive again. He's difficult in the same way when editing articles. I'm afraid I agree with Crotalus that an indefblock might have been the best thing some time ago. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a guideline change proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving. —Moondyne 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To all admins closing AfDs created on 10 Feb and 11 Feb

If you are closing an AfD which was created on 10 February or 11 February, you will see a "(delete)" link. Please do not click on it! Due to my egregrous screw-up it will delete the AfD page or whatever page you viewed the AfD from. I have just fixed the mistake (passed wrong parameter to the delete link). AfDs created on 12 February onwards will not have this problem. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this be all AfDs for 11 Feb, or just the ones in the first hour or so before the error was caught (per your timestamp above)? Thanks for the heads up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those AfDs created after the timestamp of my previous comment will be okay (I fixed the template a few minutes before that.) But I'm mentioning dates only, to be on the safe side. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake timestamp for bot: Pegasus «C¦T» 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Craigtalbert blocked due to vandalism on Justine Ezarik

I have just blocked User:Craigtalbert for one month due to perceived repeated vandalism to Justine Ezarik's article. Over the past few months, a number of anonymous IPs have repeatedly tried to add/change Ezarik's signature phrase to "Deposit me in your spank bank", while masking them with deceptive edit summaries, (the following diffs are a sample of the disruptive edits: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]). Craig was the first registered user to vandalize the article in this fashion, which gives me strong reason to believe that he is the anon-editor who has been disrupting the article for a while. Based on this user's edit history, he is somewhat of an established user who has been involved in a number of editing disputes, which is the reason I'm bringing this up to AIV. Most of the anon edits come from the Colorado area (a state Craig claims to be from), which makes me feel that the editor is one and the same. If possible, I would like to have another editor take a look at this situation, possibly a checkuser. --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, that all the IPs in question (or nearly all) were from one university. Note sure if this would be valid for RFCU, just throwing it out for discussion. For BLP reasons this article probably needs it's Semi-protection reset. Lawrence § t/e 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be better listed at WP:SUSPSOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly clear cut case. The IPs all resolve to University of Colorado at Boulder, and Craigtalbert's userpage states that he is a student at that university. It also says he is a resident of Denver, Colorado (~20 miles from Boulder). No need for SSP reports for such a case. Endorse block - auburnpilot talk 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unrelated to Justine Ezarik, I perceive issues with article ownership that have led to edit disputes and personal attacks.
I had not been aware of Craigtalbert until about 25 hours ago, but for no reason that I could discern, our interactions in our brief acquaintance were threatening to erupt into a full-scale edit war. Fourteen of Special:Contributions/Craigtalbert Craigtalbert's last 17 edits after vandalizing Justine Ezarik were directly related to me, including reverting changes I had made to articles that he has had an interest in, responding to my questions and comments on talk pages, and accusing me of being a troll. Since the majority of his edits seemed to be thoughtful and responsible, I was taken aback by the vehemence of his disagreements with my edits. (It was clear that he vehemently disagreed with me, but his reasoning was not communicated nearly as effectively as his vehemence.) I was surprised to see that he had been blocked, and that the block had nothing to do with me.
In retrospect, I guess that I must have triggered something several days ago, when I saw the AfD for Schizophrenics Anonymous, reviewed the article and its topic, and commented that I thought it should be kept. As it happens, this is an article that he had earlier proposed for speedy deletion. Subsequently, by editing Schizophrenics Anonymous and a couple of related articles, I seem to have wandered deep into territory that he considered his own.
I hope that the block helps him cool off and return here with a more cooperative attitude. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus appears to support the block, but the original reason for the block was because of the vandalism. Other issues have come up as well. Should they be taken into consideration. Also, the reason I have blocked for a month is because Craig tried to justify his vandalism because of Ezarik's "attention whoring" [sic], which in my view showed a complete disregard to Wikipedia:LIVING. Is the length of the block proper? --w^{L<speak·check>} 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 1 month block length given the user's recent history. If he wouldn't have been a productive editor before, indef may have been more appropriate, but he seems to have contributed well in the past. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He's invoking WP:RTV, and his user page was deleted while I was viewing it. I don't think he'll be back, but it might be a good idea to keep an eye on Justine Ezarik for a while. Horologium (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He made a post in the Wikipedians community on LiveJournal, in which he explained he was afraid of losing his job over the incident (apparently he was editing from work). That post is now deleted. I think he is spooked and won't be editing in the near future. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just recieved an email from him asking to have his username changed. I've forwarded his email to the unblock mailing list. Being that he is/was an established editor, I would say yes. But being that this is a serious offense, I won't do it myself. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found out that he has changed his username to Scarpy (talk · contribs), however he is still blocked. and I have rejected the CSD on his usertalk page, pending further decision here. Your thoughts? --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a one-off and the guy is spooked, as said above, since he used his real name to vandalize. Lets just leave the Ezarik article semi-protected, and the next time someone "spank banks" it we'll know who may be responsible, and it's an easy RV and possible block them. Let him RTV. Lawrence § t/e 07:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae

1. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Athoughtforyou (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
2. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked OrionClemens (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
3. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Slintfan (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
4. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Academic38 (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
5. 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Drstones (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)

No, these were single purpose accounts with no contributions other than to stir up a problem we have with Oxford Round Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

More to the point, Viridae has an agenda against me and has a habit of undoing my admin actions, including undeleting a WP:CSD#G5 by request fo the banned user with discussion solely on Wikipedia Review. I think Viridae should not be undoing my actions, given a stated (again on Wikipedia Review) agenda against me.

I also think we need single purpose accounts like we need holes in our collective heads, but I'm happy to see what Carcharoth's discussions bring forward on that. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How can you judge whether an account is a SPA if it has been created for only 2 days, makes 2 edits and is then blocked. A wee bit of good faith is always helpful. I make no comment on the dispute between you two. Woody (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant. Admins should not undo the actions of other admins with whom they have a long-standing dispute. And a single purpose account can indeed be diagnosed if it is registered in order to take part in a deletion debate on an article which is itself merely a vehicle for an off-wiki dispute. But I'd not have objected if it had been someone else, the problem here is Viridae's repeated actions against me, which are starting to look just a little personal. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not an admin, but aren't you guys not supposed to revert each others' administrative actions without discussing it first? I think I heard that somewhere. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:33, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Guy care to look half a dozen sections up where a request that those accounts which were not CU confirmed sockpuppets be be unblocked was made, which I happened to catch and perform. Also nice of you to notify me of this - I caught it on my watchlist. As woody said, you can't determine a single purpose account on half a dozen edits - every account to start editing WP would come under that banner at first. Viridae^Talk 09:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should've linked to that discussion in your summary, contacted Guy on his talk page, or otherwise made clear your reasons for the revert. "incorrect block" is flip and a wheel-war invitation. In my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:40, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that it WAS an incorrect block, I was in a hurry - as evinced by the fact that I asked Ned to do the non-admin apologies. I work in science and frequently have short breaks in the day while something is incubating in which I log onto wikipedia. Sometimes I block someone reported on AIV, sometimes I check the requests for rollback and grant that if necessary - this time I saw the request for unblock, and having followed the previous discussion decided that these accounts were clearly good faith (anyone denying that?) and should not be block for a second longer. We do not need more of the academic establishment driven away while wikipedia argues with itself. As tro contacting guy on his talk page - he has taken to deleting anything I put there anyway so that is entirely pointless. The edit summary therefore came about because I was somewhat at a loss as to what to actually put there. Viridae^Talk 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to carry out an admin action properly, then you should leave it to someone who does. I'm sure there were others who saw the same discussion you did, and there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:51, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

It was carried out properly, the only part of that that was actually an admin action was the unblock. The apology for the unblock could have been dealt with by anyone - and that was done quite sucessfully by Ned. While there may have been no huge hurry in the grand scale of things, had the wait cost us some very qualified editors wikipedia would have been so much worse off. Viridae^Talk 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of an admin action needs happen in conjunction with that action by the admin taking the action. They aren't two separate acts. If you revert another admin, you need to communicate your reasoning to them, preferrably before you even take the action. Again there are no emergencies, and that includes the potential to lose valuable editors. If you couldn't communicate, you shouldn't have acted. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:09, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Actually Guy knows exactly why those were overturned as he was involved in the original discussion, there was no need for further communication that would almost certainly be ignored given recent history. And yes, it is always urgent to unblock a potentially valuable contributor. Especially one with academic qualifications - a species of editor wikipedia is sorely lacking. Viridae^Talk 10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have "history", ie. an ongoing dispute with Guy then that's all the more reason not to take it upon yourself to revert his actions. Perhaps you should steer clear of policing that particular admin for a while, and let others be the judge of his actions. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:17, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Other WERE the judge, did you not see the lengthy discussion further up the page? Viridae^Talk 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The leave it to the others to do the action. You should not be reversing my admin actions, you have an existing agenda against me. If others agree, let others do it. I suppose I should be grateful that at least this time the discussion took place on Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia Review, but somehow I'm not. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda Guy, you just think I do. Yes I dislike you, yes I believe you frequently make rash/incorrect decisions (like for instance deleting something as a G5 when it has significant contributions from other people) and yes I find you possibly the most uncivil person on the project at times but that does not make it a longstanding dispute. I have no grudge to bear however, this is my personal opinion - I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe you have never performed an admin action on someone you dislike or overturned someones admin action when you dislike it. Smarten up and fly right (assume good faith and stop attacking other people) and I will no longer have a problem with you. That is NOT a longstanding dispute. Viridae^Talk 11:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think given the obvious illwill here between Guy and Viridae, that keeping out of each other's way where possible is advisable; that means don't get involved in each other's actions, at all, period - not to reverse them, not to comment on them, nothing. If there's any actual concerns then present them (sans commentary) to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Neıl ☎ 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is silly. Nothing in the blocking policy justified these blocks. Undoing them was the right thing to do and making it about Viridae obscures the issue. The issue is whether or not we can expect non-Wikipedians to read tree leaves to determine our policies or whether we should attempt to engage them before hitting the block button. If someone is a flagrant vandal and is replacing pages with nonsense, ok, I really am annoyed with the "you can't block them without 4 warnings" crowd, but these were good faith users who were simply unfamiliar with our policies. Blocking them is bad. When some of them requested unblock, declining those requests without attempting to engage the user compounded the error. I don't really give a flip about assessing blame, but I think we need to make clear this isn't how we do business and there's a difference between a flagrant troll and someone who just isn't familiar with our policies. --B (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's 1,488 other admins on Wikipedia. If Guy has made a bad block, one of them other than Viridae can unblock, as anything Viridae does (irrespective of intention and making no judgement as to who is or is not "correct" here) now upsets Guy. Neıl ☎ 12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy has been given chances to communicate about his admin actions before, and is almost always either argumentative or dissmissive. ANYONE overturning one of his actions gets this response, so frankly I don't care whether it upsets him or not, if he makes an obviously bad call and I am in the position to deal with it, I will do so. If guy wants the lines of communcation to be opened again before I do so as I am quite happy to do, he can be civil and actually respond to queries. Viridae^Talk 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just post your concerns here in future rather than acting on them - please? Neıl ☎ 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, this is a red herring. A month or two ago, I nominated a template for deletion that happened to have been created by Guy. I had no earthly idea (didn't look, didn't care) who created it, but Guy accused me of nominating it as retaliation because I had disagreed with a block of his in an ANI discussion. It was utter nonsense, but the point is, it was refocusing the issue from one of whether or not the template was appropriate and trying to make it into merely a personal issue. Most of us really don't care one way or another about Wikipedia factions or personalities or anything like that. We don't sit here and debate political expediency and whether the blocking admin is someone we like or don't like. This is an encyclopedia, not a grade school club or a MMORPG. If Guy is right, we'll call him right - if he's wrong, we'll call him wrong. That's all there is to it. --B (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking should be discussed with the blocking admin. I am as guilty as anyone of broaching this on occasion. Anyway, Guy has decided he doesn't like Viridae for whatever reason, and whenever Viridae does try and contact him, Guy tells him to "go away". So I have suggested that instead of just countermanding Guy's admin actions, Viridae posts them here for review. I am neither defending nor agreeing with Guy's actions - that is a seperate issue. I'm simply asking Viridae to refrain from directly reversing Guy's admin actions, as the drama it creates tends to obfuscate the issue. Neıl ☎ 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"...whenever Viridae does try and contact him, Guy tells him to "go away". -Actually, he tells him to "fuck off", but I don't want to argue semantics.  :-D daveh4h 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Neil's suggestions. I'm not familiar with the relationship between Guy and Viridae though, have other means already been taken to prevent this sort of stuff occurring? Rudget. 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys seem to be forgetting to do something here, so I'll start it off:

• Standing Ovation. Thank You Viridae for having the courage to stand up for the rights of the many. A lot of admins seem to feel that blocking people is an adequate solution for almost anything, when the truth is that it is only meant as a last resort. And, frankly I don't see any real cause to even get that far. --BETA 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, now sit down. There's a difference between "standing up for the rights of many", and specifically targeting the actions of an admin based upon discussion at an attack site. As already stated, there are well over a thousand admins here; any one of them would have been a better candidate to analyze Guy's actions than Viridae. This sort of cowboy play doesn't work well either for developing consensus or developing community. Reverting admin actions without discussion is the sort of thing that inevitably leads to desysopping; are we sure that's the direction we want to take this? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

JP there was endless discussion on this page about these blocks, which is why I was so quick to overturn them when the request was made because I fel there was some agreement that they were incorrect. I didn't bother to contact Guy directly because 1. he had already been involved in the discussion of his blocks and 2. part one meant there was no point given that he would just ignore any notification/attempt at communication anyway. Viridae^Talk 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think many of the original blocks were a violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Newbies can't be expected to know our policies about canvassing. They should be gently reminded about how Wikipedia works. Only blatant vandals should be blocked on sight. The unblocks were justified; I don't care who posted what on which third-party website. That has nothing to do with us. JzG really needs to work more cooperatively with others; he seems to have been given a pass from following WP:CIVIL. That needs to stop. *** Crotalus *** 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, then that could have been discussed. Reversing admin actions without discussion is not acceptable behavior. That needs to stop. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per Viridae's original response, these unblocks had already been discussed and per the results of a checkuser a request was made a few sections above. Does every request for admin action need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure the sysop preparing to action a request will not upset the sensibilities of another involved admin? It will seriously dilute the effectiveness of this board if this is the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • If reversal of admin actions must always be discussed, then admins must always be willing to discuss their actions, even if they don't like someone. You can't have it both ways. -Amarkov moo! 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt that Viridae and Guy have an ongoing dispute, so Neil is correct that it would be best if Viridae had posted notice here and gain consensus to revert Guy's blocks. Jpgordon is 100% correct...admins shouldn't be reversing other admins just because they can, and in this case, the reversals appear to be done to incite Guy. This is far from the first examples of questionable admin actions made by Viridae.--MONGO 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"be best if Viridae had posted notice here and gain consensus to revert Guy's blocks", Rough consensus was already established in the above threads. --BETA 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MONGO you believe everyone who has ever disagreed with you is in an ongoing dispute. You now appear to be trying to try that on with Guy. Viridae^Talk 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They do not have an "ongoing dispute". Guy has just decided that he does not like Viridae. Now, there's no obligation to like every admin. But that doesn't mean Guy can say "I don't like you, so you're never allowed to talk to me again, HAHAHA". -Amarkov moo! 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd...here Viridae clearly states he doesn't like Guy...so reversing his admin actions was obviously done to incite Guy.--MONGO 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the only possible explanation for undoing an overzealous admin action that wasn't backed by CU evidence. Of course! Jossi (talk · contribs) and must have been in on it too, since he performed an unblock, too. — Scientizzle 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov, you are wrong. Viridae openly declared a dislike for me on that other site where you both hang out, and the dispute started when Viridae honoured a request from Gregory Kohs to undelete an article on one of his clients that he had created with a sockpuppet while banned, which I deleted under WP:CSD#G5. That undeletion was discussed only on Wikipedia Review, the request was made by a banned user while banned and acceded to without on-wiki discussion by a Wikipedia administrator - about as clear a case of unacceptable wheel warring as you can get. That is the foundation of this dispute, as far as I'm concerned, and subsequent reversals of my actions by Viridae before this action, again also without any discussion outside Wikipedia Review, have served to entrench it. That is why Viridae is not welcome on my talk page, especially given what's on there at the moment, and it's also why Viridae should be leaving it to someone else to review these blocks. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you're bringing up a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the unblocks here. If you're not willing to deal with your disupte appropriately, then drop it. You don't get to choose which admins fix your mistakes or otherwise perform any administraive action (similarly, I would reject any potential claim by Viridae or someone else that you should be verboten from reconciling any of Viridae's actions). You don't like each other; we got it. Were these unblocks wrong? I have yet to see any indication by anyone here that they were inappropriate. For someone with this on his userpage, you're stirring up quite a bit. — Scientizzle 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing was discussed in depth in a thread that has now been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. There was no unblock without discussion or any such thing. There was no agreement that the non-socks should be blocked. We engage users - we don't block first and ask questions later. This is doubly important since some or all of these users are academics and certainly have a lot that they could contribute to Wikipedia if we reach out to them rather than chasing them away. The arbitration committee hounded valued admin Adam C out of the project for a questionable block of a marginally disruptive user where Adam had asked for and thought he had ANI approval before making the block. Contrast that with blocking users for commenting on an AFD opened by the blocking admin. I have a real problem in the consistency here of going after Viridae for undoing obviously inappropriate blocks. --B (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with B's excellent comment immediately above. This is stupid. Oxford Round Table was discussed here and then a big ol' discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. The Summary of account activity resulting from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones came back with a list of clear socks as well as accounts that were unrelated from any others, including those listed here and in the ANI archive. Guy, if you can provide a valid rationale for these accounts to be re-blocked, please do share. If not, what's the problem?

The shoot-first action of blocking a slew of accounts from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table had some significant collateral damage...We don't block accounts for being single-purpose if they're not clearly disruptive; it would have been much better to have done the checkuser first. I reject the idea that any sysop should necessarily recuse themselves from undoing another's action just because there's some sort of personality conflict. Guy, you admitted that your actions weren't perfect (please do "keep the definition of single purpose rather more focused" in the future), so why does it matter which of us 1500 admins took care of your loose ends? It seems pretty clear from the prior discussion on this matter that there was little support for these accounts to stay blocked (Guy even softed his stance) and at least a few questioned their validity. — Scientizzle 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Viridae for unblocking users who were in exactly the position I was when I first edited, all that time ago. Ideally someone else would have done it before you, but thank you for making sure it was done. Merkinsmum 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As several other users have pointed out, Guy's allegation that there was no prior discussion is FALSE. There may not have been direct one on one discussion between Viridae and Guy, but there is no requirement, and there is no reason to have a requirement, that after a community discussion has occurred in which the blocking administrator participated (or declined), another admin has to have a separate one on one conversation with the blocking admin before unblocking. There was no community support for Guy's block, he knew that, he had had opportunity to explain his actions. No foul was committed by Viridae, even though it would have been better if another administrator acted sooner. Guy's complaint here looks like him prolonging a battle, and Guy, you need to stop this behavior of never letting go of old battles. GRBerry 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Offensive title sockpuppet and/or confusion

Resolved

 – Offensive talk page heading refactored, confusion about sockpuppetry solved on talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

offensive title.Numbered user seems to be sockpuppet of Dodona user(and if he isnt he mirrored his actions and while reading the talk it seems they are the same and they he forgot to change usernames).He copy pasted the same material and material belonging in the talk page in the article page and discusses as being both users but at the same time denying it.Also refuses to understand given position on article and the fact that he added a pseudohistorian(s) quote already removed along with his long comment on the talk page.Admin and other users rejected these positions in the past as well but to no avail.Megistias (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Said(dodona and/or numbered user) we are or making "greek propaganda in wikipedia",called on ethnicity and other elements said:they are most originally Albanian but they loath everything Albanian , you know what I mean it is just “schizophrenic". Megistias (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly-named accounts maintaining legitimate articles in user space

Extreme confusion here: I just removed an entry from WP:UAA about a few accounts which are maintaining (what appear to be) legitimate hockey game log articles in user space. The accounts/IP involved so far are (and yes, these are real account names):

• Bozeman Icedogs Roster (talk · contribs)
• 2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season (talk · contribs)
• 1974-75 Quebec Nordiques season (talk · contribs)
• 69.144.85.125‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Does this behavior sound familiar to anyone? I've asked all four for clarification but have heard nothing. They are active - 69.144.85.125‎ edited one of the user pages a few minutes ago - and a couple of them have made legitimate edits elsewhere (although a couple haven't). I couldn't find where the articles had been deleted from article space so it's not a WP:CSD#G4 end-around. Template space pages have been modified and created to link to the user pages [75][76]. I'm tempted to ask for a checkuser but I'm not sure I care since nothing particularly malicious is going on. I'm thoroughly confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are legitimate and are not CSD-eligible, why not move them to the article space (if no article space copy exists)? Pegasus «C¦T» 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's part of my confusion. Why don't they move them to article space? And why did they need to name their accounts after the user page/articles? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If User:2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season were made into an article, previous consensus would like hold up and it would be deleted. See examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000-01 Huntsville Tornado Season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Alexandria Glens season

Although the other content could be useful in mainspace. Flibirigit (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

General consensus thus far hasn't supported minor/junior league team season articles. Rather than put them in main article space, perhaps point them to the ice hockey wikia, where such articles would be most welcome? Otherwise, I've seen a couple around making edits, and they seem to be fine editors thus far. Resolute 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• A similar discussion to this is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Userspace_and_Usernames_pretending_to_be_articles. Flibirigit (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been recently unblocked from a block that stemmed from his edit warring after recently being unblocked from an indefinite block that stemmed from myriad others blocks resulting from the same problem. Got that? In more simpler terms: he hasn't got the message. Here is a relevant discussion on these same noticeboards not month ago about his disruptive behavior, which led to a two week block. He was blocked indefinitely prior to that for being wholly uncivil and an unrelenting edit warrior. His block blog affirms that. It was most generous of User:Haemo to unblock his indefinite block indeed, and quite generous of the succeeding blocking admin to block for only two weeks instead of going back to indefinitely. The terms on which he has been allowed to edit here have been laid out rather robustly by various admins and he has made various promises or commitments to these terms and standards, which leads me to my reason of posting all of this. On Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Callmebc has been edit warring again, though just to the brim of making it within WP:3RR. However, given the past discussions on this user, I think it is safe to say that there should be zero tolerance for him to edit war. A now it seems he has been (disruptively?) canvassing other users (see contribs). I'll let the powers that be decide what ought to be done. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this complaint is being filed by a persistent anti-science POV pusher, who himself has been blocked repeatedly for incivility. In this case, the edit warring Uber refers to was him reverting to preserve the wording changes he made during CallmeBC's absence. I've asked Raymond Arritt and William M. Connelly to weigh in on this one, and we should defer to what they say. Raul654 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise all interested admins to ignore the above comments, because they are useless and not germane to the discussion. I would delete them under the just pretense of WP:NPA, but invariably I'm sure that would lead to my block from this unneutral administrator. Let me remind the interested administrators that this is about the aforementioned user's behavior--that is to say I'm not here as part to resolve a content dispute. I'm confident that can be resolved reasonably by educated editors on the GW talk page, because it is rather clear it is Callmebc's edits that lack truth to them, and I was merely undoing his mistakes to at least keep the article accurate as possible. Me, the so-called "anti-science POV pusher" has pushed nothing but factually accurate science since being here, so not only are the above comments wholly uncivil and contrary to WP:NPA, but completely without regard to the truth. A careful examination of my edits and blocks show this to be true, with blocks only coming from the above administrator because of some mislead biases and vendettas he has against me.[77] So again, I reiterate, ignore the above as the content of the dispute is easily resolvable, but the behavior of the user is what brought me here. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty aggresive response. I assure that I, for one, will not be ignoring the comments of a trusted user who also happens to be an administrator, a bureaucrat, a check-user, etc. In this case, the content of the dispute and the behaviour of the users involved are intrinsically intertwined. - Philippe | Talk 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, appeals to authority tend to lead to folly discussions. Raul654 has but demagogued the issue. I'd be glad to discuss the content, because I can assure you that Callmebc has been inserting inaccurate information (and I have but removed it). If by "intertwined" you mean that typically his edit warring is over the insertion of inaccurate content (as is the case for Killian and GW articles), then, sure, I could agree. But I think it would be best to discuss the content, in this case, at talk:Global warming. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UBeR has indeed demonstrated in the past what some might consider to be some hostility towards me and perhaps what might be seen as a little fudging of the truth, and this thing here appears on the surface to be only more of it. His actions in this situation are mostly outlined via these two links here and here. The basic background is that I had one time posted, after a Talk page discussion, a graph on Global Warming with I thought was a pretty good description. During a later block on me, UbeR changed the wording to what I felt was something not nearly as clear. I recently created a new Talk page section on GW to discuss changing the wording back to its original, and evidently UBeR saw this mostly as an opportunity to get me blocked again by provoking me into a revert war by being untimely and unresponsive to the Talk page discussion and automatically reverting me after I had allowed for more than ample time for discussion. I have since requested comments by other GW regulars: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]. I think UbeR's actions and mine in this particular situation, once you take a look, speak for themselves. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence is presented here that Wikipedia needs to take aggressive steps to protect scientific integrity in it's articles, and to protect especially editors who work to advance real science, free or political, social, of religious nonsense. Perhaps another look at scientific point of view is needed, to keep the lunatic junk science under a harness. Lawrence § t/e 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No block needed; some form of dispute resolution or mediation should be done. If mediation and/or dispute resolution is conclusive in its findings, and ignored by one party or the other, then ArbCom may be a next step. However, other than some perhaps short-term 3RR blocks, I see no evidence of bad faith or foul play against either side that requires the drastic measures called for here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if it were not for the user's exceptional history. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My "exceptional history" seems to consist primarily of trying to improve articles by adding updated, well ref'd, clearly written content, removing dubious, POV'd, poorly sourced (if at all) stuff, and bumping heads with editors apparently not so much keen on such activities. I don't think dispute resolution is needed at the moment -- given UBeR's somewhat less than congenial behavior, and not wanting to risk 3RR, I had already solicited comments by other Global Warming regulars on their Talk pages. I'll let however that turns out to be the guide. Also Lawrence does have a point -- the hot topic science articles like Global Warming regularly draw editors of a not-too-scientific inclination constantly trying to "massage the message" by either trying to add blatant nonsense, slipping in borderline fringe stuff, giving very minor alternative theories way, way too much space, attempting to marginalize mainstream scientific consensus; misusing scientific terminology to make concepts less clear, and trying to WP:GAME Talk page discussions about removing the bad stuff and adding in the good. It's a testament to Wikipedia that articles like Global Warming somehow manage to not deteriorate to being not much more than a conservative radio transcript. But I think there really ought to be at least a periodic "science audit" of sorts on article like Global Warming -- despite even that article's high visibility, you are still really dependent on just a handful of watchful, responsible editors to keep things from deteriorating. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your exceptional history, to contrary, seems to consist of no less than 15 blocks, one of which was supposed to last indefinitely, relating overwhelmingly to edit warring and incivil behavior, the last of which just ended a few weeks ago. Your record of ever being accurate on global warming has been shoddy, given recent inability to understand radiative forcing and earlier mistakes of confusing temperature with greenhouse gases. You may chide me for removing your mistakes, but it seems the levelheaded editors at least agree with me. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that particular matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UBeR, you're not one to be pointing out anybody else's block history. Corvus cornix_talk 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I am. I only have one or two legitimate blocks, which is more than quite a few people who've been around as long can say--though I don't tout that, especially not as a good thing either. But who I am matters not as much the problem user in question. Like I said earlier, when we engage in silly fallacies our discussion is reduced to folly, and that seems to be going in that direction indeed. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no block. If anyone is being uncivil, its Uber, whose comments on t:GW appear deliberately provocative. The assertion that C's edits are untrue or mistakes is silly - this is just a matter of wording. Both versions are "correct", which makes this a silly edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No block needed. CmBC gets in plenty of trouble on his own, we know. Working to get him into more disingenuously, while working to push an anti-sci agenda doesn't make for a good case for blocking him. I'm with Lawrence regarding pseudo-science and science denial. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous user evading 2 week block using multiple ip's and engaging in edit warring.

Ip Special:Contributions/217.87.88.179 had been blocked for 2 weeks earlier this morning (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_with_repeated_incivility_from_IP_user). Since then, he has used multiple ip's to vandalize talk pages, and engage in edit warring at Talk:Binary prefix. The multiple ip's are Special:Contributions/217.87.88.179, Special:Contributions/217.237.148.23, Special:Contributions/217.237.148.24, Special:Contributions/217.237.148.25. I'm asking for an sprotect for Talk:Binary prefix, and for someone to look in to more drastic measures against that ip's dial-up service as this has been an ongoing problem for months with this person (see user:Sarenne, User:NotSarenne, User_talk:217.87.59.247, User_talk:217.87.98.171, User_talk:217.87.61.227, etc.) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, this IP user is getting out of control again and it appears to be a regular cycle of abuse. Fnagaton 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be in need of a Range-Block, since the nature of the drifting IP address indicates that individual whack-a-mole blocks may be futile and ineffective. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I have semi-protected Talk:Binary prefix for 48 hours. — Satori Son 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) *Breathes sigh of relief* Fnagaton 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have blocked 217.237.148.0/27 for the same length. Black Kite 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, since the IP user has continued to evade the block and has now started to blank this section many times [83] [84] [85] [86] I have to agree that a temporary range block for the user's IPs seems to be a prudent course of action. The range for User:Sarenne and User:NotSarenne would appear to be 217.87.* and 217.237.148.23-25 so far. I realise this course of action is not to be taken lightly. Also please can I have semi-protection on my talk page as the same IP user keeps on reverting comments on there as well? Fnagaton 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, another IP from the same ISP is doing the same thing ( User talk:217.237.148.71 ). [87] Fnagaton 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Block tweaked to 217.237.148.0/24. Black Kite 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI semi protected for 48 hours... Feel free to shorten it if you think the vandal won't return. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another range of IPs which appears to be 217.237.* with the IP user vandalising my talk page. [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] and many more in the edit history. Please can I have a semi-protect? :) Fnagaton 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie took care of it.[93] — Satori Son 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad protected, yet again

I appealed to the protecting admin (whose only editing periodically now) and posted an unprotection on WP:RPP about this (at which point I was referred to ANI), so I'm here... again. Essentially, without repeating everything I said a few days ago and which was said by others on the talk page of the article, this article is not really being subjected to (much) edit warring. We mostly have a variety of a drive-by editors removing the images without any willingness to participate in the ongoing discussions on the talk page and/or heed past (even recent past) consensuses. As a result, most of these editors have been blocked (or they have merely stopped). That appears to be the most sensible route to take, especially because the level of disruption is dwindling; we currently have a manageable number of drive-by removers. We should just leave this article without full protection (but with semi-protection), then refer drive-by image removers to the talk page of the article. If they still persist in removing the images without any discussion whatsoever, they can be blocked. A similar proposal was made by, among several others, Daniel (talk · contribs). His proposal is mentioned here, but none of these proposals has every reached a solid conclusion. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to come to a perfect consensus, but I !vote that the article remain semi-protected unless we see 4 day old accounts starting to edit war, then full protection. Wikipedia is not censored, leave the Muhammad images there. We don't have to fold to any religions, activist groups, or any other crowd that wants to change our goal: provide information to the world. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Useight entirely. Horologium (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You should remove the images , this website might get a "message" from some crazed out Islamic radical group or something. Does Jimbo Walles or the Foundation has a protocol for "anything" like that.Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't censor out of fear about what some un-named radical might or might not do. While I personally would probably have removed the images out of my personal sense of propriety (so as not to offend someone's sensibilities), the community has decided that they're important to the article and should stay. No faceless, nameless, potential threat should deter us from intellectual honesty. - Philippe | Talk 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is going to stand there if OBL(Osma) or some crazed out nutjob makes threats to Wikipedia or the Foundation on that article here. Someone should removed the pictures. It the same thing with people putting pictures on paintings of the death of Christ. People dont want to see SHOCK. Is there a policy for this. I thought we cannt show images of the Prophet because we might get sued or get threats from Mr. OBL or his "buddies". If you pics of the Prophet Wikipedia is going to be in the news or in hot water just as that Danish-Cartoon BS in 2006.Rio de oro (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's actually made any credible threats, to my knowledge, so that's a theoretical argument. If they did, I feel certain we would involve the Foundation's legal counsel and appropriate law enforcement bodies. - Philippe | Talk 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me Osama has more important targets to blow up than some website he's likely never heard of. The apparent threat that random, unknown people will somehow harm Wikipedia's servers because the project won't bend to radical Islamic thinking isn't going to affect change. As far as the original topic goes, I'd support going back to semi-protection, if it hasn't already been done. There are plenty of eyes watching it, and we are weeding out the sleeper accounts. Resolute 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NOT#CENSORED, by-the-by. WilyD 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Osama's got better things to do with his time, and he's frankly far more likely than many of the so-called radicals that hit that page, to be aware of the variations in Islam that led to devout Muslims making that art. A lot of the 'radicals' here are likely to be teenagers in their middle eastern nations, finding that it's easy to vandalize WP, not much different that any other vandals. The few 'true believers' arent' the highly educated ones who could carry out any sort of attack. If they WERE educated, they'd understand the controversy. But how often do they assert that the 'wrong branch' of Islam made them? rarely, if ever. It's never a theological argument, just dogma. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Osama is dead [94]. In any case, this section is to decide whether we want to unlock Muhammad or not per Tariqabjotu's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the main article can be unprotected at the moment unless we plan on biting more new users than a swarm of blackflies. But one can always try for an hour or two to convince themselves of this. WilyD 13:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to recreate a banned page

As a favor to the author of a web cartoon, I have been recreating the Wikipedia article about his cartoon. Unfortunately I cannot create the page by moving--it gives a message

"You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation"

The author said he had "given up" trying to create this article, but could not remember the specifics or which administrator was involved. I feel that I have written an article that is acceptable for Wikipedia, meeting the NPOV, format, and citation requirements.

The title of the original article was "Retarded Animal Babies". I would appreciate some attention to this. My email is synth...metasonix..com. Thank you. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eric - I'd suggest posting the article in your user space and linking to it, so that we can evaluate whether it's worth unprotecting the page to create it. I confess that your statement that you're doing this as a favor to the cartoon's author doesn't strike me as a good sign to begin with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've dotted out your email because it's not necessary and that might stop you getting a little spam. Hope you don't mind —αlεx•mullεr 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted via AFD on the grounds of being non-notable web content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retarded Animal Babies). The proper venue for this is deletion review, where you should link to your new version so that editors can decide whether it alleviates the concerns raised in AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree; deletion review is for cases in which the closing admin didn't correctly determine consensus. In this case, Eric seems to be saying that the article that he's written - as distinct from the one that was deleted - is policy-compliant. I don't think WP:DRV is the right place for a case like that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is only one of the four criteria for listing an article at DRV. The point here is that the AFD acts as a pre-existing consensus that this subject does not deserve an article, and the proper place to contest that ruling is at DRV. It actually sounds to me pretty much like Eric is making a claim (unwittingly) that that consensus is incorrect. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, an AfD only establishes that the article, as it existed at the time of the AfD, does not meet WP's requirements. If someone had written an article on Green Day in 1988, and it went to AfD, it would have been deleted. However, by 1992, the band was notable - they had an album and a world tour; someone re-writing an article on the band then should not need to go to DRV. Note that I don't know if the AfD for the subject article has established that; and the page protection raises suspicions - but DRV may not be the place to go - as Wildthing suggests, WP:RPP might be better. Argyriou (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the correct place for this then be WP:RPP, since the page is protected from recreation? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review has been used many times to successfully validate a new version of a deleted article, particularly if said article had a messy history. Given the extensive deletion log of that entry, a community consensus prior to recreating the article in mainspace is wise if for no other reason that to prevent an over-zealous G4 speedy deletion or a potentially-needless 2nd AfD. Eric Barbour should take the new article at User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox to WP:DRV and be sure to include any secondary coverage since the initial deletion in this case. — Scientizzle 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware that DRV had been used in this way in the past (I spend very little time there). I defer to more knowledgeable admins than I. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem--I wasn't aware of it myself until I participated in one of the same type myself about 6 months ago. — Scientizzle 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, this venue is as good as any. If the new version created in the userspace meets WP:N any admin can use his or her own good judgement and unsalt the page. There is no need to jump through pointless beurocratic hoops. Lets see his new version of the page, and then we can judge for ourselves if it should be unprotected. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 11. Feel free to add a comment there or be bold yourself in whatever you think should be done. Directing people to a forum in which analysis of past AfD results and present content is routine isn't bureaucracy, it's organized discussion. As I stated, if this article has been a problem in the past, why not get a consensus on its proposed reinstatement? If a bold admin unprotects/restores, there's a decent chance this will end up at AfD again...that's just my gut feeling given the article history and a reasonably-perceived COI. — Scientizzle 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The exception to the 'unilateral' theme being, of course, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (requires explicit consensus to restore). Daniel (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not relevent since the article being restored here is not a BLP. No BLP, no need for insanely complicated beaurcracy. But, it looks like the DRV has started, so no need NOT to see it through. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo

Hi. I posted a complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against User Quizimodo. He responded to reasonable comments by me at Talk:Dominion with incivility. I took my complaint to his talk page, where he continued to be rude. I made my posting and informed Quizimodo at his talk page. Not only am I personally affronted, but his incivility makes it impossible to conduct a useful discussion. User:Soulscanner also posted a complaint about his incivility. User:GoodDay offered to be a go- between. Quizimodo has not responded, but has told GoodDay he does not acknowledge the complaint. I do not want him blocked. I do not want an apology even. All I want is for him to conduct himself with some dignity and respect. Could an Admin pop over to his page? The history of the complaint is at Wikiquette alerts.--Gazzster (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What good would an admin do? We carry no special weight in the matter; any user may respond to the Wikiquette alert, and their opinions should be taken with the weight of any other user, including an admin. If no one is to be blocked at this time, there is nothing for us to do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my query. I have never made a complaint before and don't understand the process. So are you telling me that if Quizimodo doesn't respond to the Wikiquette alert, there is nothing we can do? Myself and other uses must suffer his rudeness?--Gazzster (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As has been suggested at the Wikiquette alert section, I'd strongly advise going to WP:RFC/U to get some other perspectives on his behaviour. If everybody seems to agree that it's inappropriate, he would be well-advised to change it or he might ultimately be blocked. I'd be happy to help you with the process; just contact me on my talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll do that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply Gazzster's earlier comment (Edit conflict): Not at all. All I am saying is give the WQA report some time to work its course. Perhaps mediation will work, and the user will reform their ways. All I am saying is that until there appears to have been some serious attempts by outside users to get this guy to straighten out, blocking should probably not be the first course of action. Also, Sarcasticidealists suggestion to follow up the WQA with a RFC is a good idea, since the more editors that find this users behavior inappropriate, the greater justifcation there is for a block should the behavior continue. A block may well be appropriate in the future when all other attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted, but lets not throw around a plan to do so until those avenues turn out to really be dead ends... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting checkuser results

Would someone mind having a look at this historic checkuser and clarify something for me. The last line doesn't explicitly say that the six or so users are socks of User:Wikinger, but each has been blocked with that as the reason. Is it therefore the case that the socks were socks of Wikinger, even though the RFCU report doesn't say so in as many words? Thanks. _GB^T/C 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Various users stalking and harassing User:Charles

Hello. Over the past few weeks, several people have been harassing User:Charles, calling him a sockpuppet, troll, and various other things, impeding his ability to work on the encyclopedia. I have dealt with this situation twice, short blocks had no effect whatsoever. Please see here and User talk:Keilana/Archive2#Complaint about a stalker for more information. I do think there's a possibility of sockpuppetry between the users mentioned (not Charles), and would recommend an indef block on Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and I vonH (talk · contribs). Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this report, Keilana. Tfoxworth initially was the subject of a report here a year or so ago (my memory is a little fuzzy on that matter), but it didn't go far because the report was not really noticed (much more must have been going on at the time) a pattern had not yet really developed and it certainly appeared then to be a content dispute. However, over a period of weeks and months it developed into stalking behaviour involving this user, another user who claims to be his wife (I vonH, and therefore his meatpuppet, at the least, on the basis of tag-team reversions and stalking) and a number of proven IP addresses, all of which can be viewed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth. Initially, the sockpuppets were all tagged and categorized as a means of organizing a report which was filed more or less at the same time as a previous WP:AN/I report. Over the passing weeks and months, Tfoxworth's and I vonH's behaviour has been consistently disruptive and aggressive and has usually been targeted at me but now also at others who may or may not share my viewpoint. More specifically, I should say people who oppose the two users' viewpoints are those who are targeted. This is a long-term abuse situation that has been steadily going on and I truly feel it should be dealt with accordingly with a final ban, discussed here as a record of the situation. There have also been a number of other similar stalking editors in the past that seem to arrive in a cascading effect but I have not been able to make as clear of a connection between any of them as the obvious connection between the presumed Mr. and Mrs. Foxworth. Charles 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Tfoxworth and I vonH have *just* turned up reverting a lot of the changes made to a number of articles. Charles 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, see Jorge de Bagration. Tfoxworth has removed newspaper citations. Pairadox (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get some more comment here. Charles 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very ugly situation, this… It appears to be a clear case of stalking and, given the warnings and blocks that both Tfoxworth and I vonH have received, an indef block for both would seem in order. —Travis^talk 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• A persual of both accounts' histories shows that there is no doubt that User:I vonH is either a sock or meatpuppet of User:Tfoxworth (editing days and times, article choice, stalking of users and edit summaries), I have blocked the former indefinitely and User:Tfoxworth for a week. I invite review of these actions, and if any admin wishes to extend the latter block, please feel free to do it without informing me. Thanks, Black Kite 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there a recent discussion on this page where it was stated that I vonH has claimed to be Tfoxworth's wife? Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A possibility - but given their edit history, that would still be meatpuppetry. And I would be dubious of that anyway - their editing styles and summary are very similar. Black Kite 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BoxCrawler

Resolved

The bot owner is aware of the situation.

This report has been moved from WP:AIV

• BoxCrawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Talk:Ash Green School, Talk:Exhall Grange School, as examples; Bot making a lot of mistakes. It causes duplication on wikiproject schools wikiproject boxes under some circumstances. I have seen it make several duplication mistakes now, so it is probably making a lot all over the wiki. I reported this on its talk page, but I am not sure if it has come to anyones attention yet. . Snowman (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• User:Snowmanradio has left a message at the talk page of the bot owner, but I wanted to bring it here in case they're not around to see the message. Caknuck (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• A random sampling of the edits shows the bot is functioning (mostly) correctly. Some of the find/replace routines needs to be tweaked to account for spaces, etc... Caknuck (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have recieved the message and stopped the bot. The issue was that the bot didn't recognize parameters with extraneous spaces (Many of them cut-and-paste of the exact same template text). I am fixing the bot so that it will remove such spaces and fix the errors it has generated. Thanks for not just killing the bot as the vast majority of it's edits have not produced this error. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also some discussion on my talk page at User Talk:Snowmanradio#User:BoxCrawler Snowman (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pax Arcane

Pax Arcane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), despite several warnings by three editors: User_talk:Pax_Arcane#AN_notification, User_talk:Pax_Arcane#A_caution, User_talk:Pax_Arcane#Don.27t_do_that, he continues disrupting [95]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot?

I just noted a page in AfD called List of fictional barefoot characters that rang a bell -- I can't pin it down exactly but I remember reading a report of a persistent vandal who inserted references to the barefooted status of various individuals into articles. Could User:Darkfighterman possibly be a sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler? I know there's someone out there who knows more about this than I do, and I'm sorry my memory is so poor. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creepy tends to focus on creating categories for comic book characters and soap opera characters, usually using capital letters to begin each word. Pairadox (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems correct judging by previous contributions -- he may have disappeared upon suggestion of sock-puppetry, but if he pops up again, I think I know what to do. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

several things.

Look, I want to leave Wikipedia. I don't want to stand around several months [[Wikipedia talk:Request for comment/Vanished user|waiting for Wikipedia to fix bugs that mean I still show up on google

To that end, will people stop insisting that my real name feature prominently in Wikipedia's bureaucracy and google? The Request for comment, the Arbcom case - let me leave, alright? Don't poke me with a stick. Just rename nmme, like I asked, buut which is evidently being delayed until the arbcom get off their arses and approve it - oh, gee, sending it to the group that have buggered me over at every turn! I'm so glad that I can trust them to do a good job at doing things at a timely point, and not to lose e-mails left, right and centre.

I just want to leave. User:Hiding is my precedent. LET ME.

Oh, and don't include me in the damn signpost, alright? Vanished user Adam C. 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

A user named Betacommand has been acting very rude to me. I uploaded an image: Image:Cultofgreed.jpg, which I understand is free to use as a magazine cover. I was unable to add the image to a page because my account was too new, but Betacommand tagged it as orphaned. I tried to explain to him that I would be able to add the image, but he reverted me and called my edits vandalism. He has been spamming my talk page about once every 10 seconds now with frivolous vandalism warnings, even though this obviously is a content dispute. After I added it to the page, he changed his dispute to one over the rationale. I have tried to familiarize myself with your policies, but I am no expert. So I would have appreciated some guidance from him instead of edit warring on my own talk page and accusing me of vandalism. He's also removing my image from the article. Is he supposed to be your ambassador? I'm trying to help Wikipedia by adding a good image to an article. I'm certainly not a vandal. The image is perfectly legal and does not violate Wikipedia policy, either. So, why is he wasting so much of our time edit warring and attacking me? I understand there are rules on civility, being helpful to newcomers, and disruption. So, how many rules does he need to violate to enforce some obscure rule of which I admit I am unaware? To add an image I shouldn't have to fight such an intense struggle with this guy.--Guywithdress (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because you don't realize you're wrong. You have to provide a fair use rationale with the image. You haven't done this, and instead repeatedly removed the valid warning tag, which is vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Betacommand isn't doing anything wrong. You inappropriate removing the notice from the image without adding a fair use rationale (which the warning clearly states) and you ignored multiple warnings that you were violating policies in doing so. Also you are not allowed to use non-free images on your user page, so if it is not going to be used in an article, it should be deleted, otherwise yes, it does violate policy. Collectonian (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, people could stop acting like unhelpful dicks round here? When someone says they can't add an image due to their account being new and the page being semi-protected, don't blindly quote policy. How about asking them what page the image should be on and adding it yourself? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. --Haemo (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

I was contributing valid content to your encyclopedia and was acting in good faith. The only person acting in bad faith is you. It doesn't need a rationale, anyway. All you two seem to care about are rationales. That's the most important thing in the world to you. Add it yourself since you know so much about policy instead of vandalizing the article and insulting me. See if you can contribute something useful to the site.--Guywithdress (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC)this is not a new user. this is a long time user coming back under a new account. they threaten me with WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:BITE and ANI. As for not adding the image, one it has no rationale, two the page he wants it on should not have it per our NFC policy. β^_command 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as no existing users ever complain about your civility or makes other complaints on ANI.... Let's not forget how many times you reverted to the orphaned tag before claiming it lacked a fair use rationale - one, two, three, four. Then 90 minutes later you claimed it lacked a fair use rationale. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry I only pointed out one of several errors with that image. it was flagged by BCBot as orphan so that is what I tagged as. once it was used in an article then it needs a rationale. you cannot have a rationale for a usage that isnt there. Once the image was used without a rationale I tagged it as such. either way I was correct. β^_command 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Guywithdress for 24 hours for 3RR (actually 11RR) after several warnings to stop removing appropriate tags from Image:Cultofgreed.jpg. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My views on this are as follows: Endorse 3RR violation block of Guywithdress for repeatedly improperly removing the DI tag 11 times. In response to One Night In Hackney, edits considered to be vandalism - including the improper removal of CSD and DI tags - nullify the 3RR. And then, another question: If Betacommandbot, a bot which monitors fair use violations on images, tags your image, if I understand the bot mechanics correctly, if you remove the tag without rectifying the problem, the bot will re-add the tag. This would result in the same cycle that is being discussed at this thread currently. There is no point in creating an ANI report about that, because it is a bot doing what it is supposed to do. There is no difference here between what was done and what the bot would have done, so why treat it as such? --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. Well, maybe if he didn't WP:BITE people, he wouldn't get "needled" for it. —Random832 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:66.245.194.183 and Cartoon All-Stars 2000's

Please do something about these edits, I'm pretty sure this special doesn't exisit! --Hailey 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras?

For as long as he's been a member here, there has been a cloud of suspicion from some editors (myself especially) about Solumeiras (talk · contribs) and his connections to past users. A checkuser was brought back as unrelated, but this looks like it may have been because of stale data on the past accounts (see the now-courtesy blanked Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SunStar Net).

It's always been a suspicion that he's been related to TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) for similar edit patterns and general focuses. Both display a love for templates. Both focus on articles that involve cars. Both focus on radio articles (see TheM62Manchester's deleted James Kerr (radio presenter) which is on a Q103 presenter and Solumeiras's Q103 edit as well as two non-notable radio presenters up for AFD Sheri Staplehurst and Lara Rorich‎).

But the edit that sent all my suspicions over the edge today is this: Solumeiras added a controversial tag to Talk:Girls Aloud with this edit. This is exactly what TheM62Manchester did here on the same article. In fact, TheM62Manchester had a very fond liking to adding controversial tags to non-controversial pages (see a large sum of his talk page edits). This edit is so minor and unnecessary in nature that it is extremely unlikely two unconnected editors would make the same edit. It seems that Solumeiras is taking on a similar interest in controversial templating with 3 added today ([96] [97] [98]).

And while researching this just now I discovered yet another remarkable discovery. Solumeiras has taken a strong liking to Police Camera Action! as a point of edits. Guess who else did. Here's the talk page archive with TheM62Manchester and Solumeiras both featured and here's the article history for hte last 500 edits. Note that in addition to Solumeiras and TheM62Manchester, you'll also find User:Sunholm who was connected to TheM62Manchester.

I believe that with all this evidence laid out, we definitely have a sock situation at hand. TheM62Manchester and Sunholm were part of a large good hand, bad hand accounts that even went as far as Willy on Wheels. With his edit nature, I wouldn't doubt the same situation is in place with Solumeiras where he is the good hand with other bad hands out there. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention Solumeiras loves to edit the pages of banned/blocked users like Special:Undelete/User:Sunholm and Special:Undelete/User:TheM62Manchester. Metros (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My question: does it matter? TheM62Manchester has been blocked since November 2007, but he/she is not on the list of banned users. Is there any evidence that Solumeiras is using abusive sockpuppets currently? Is Solumeiras causing disruption to Wikipedia at this time? We're supposed to act proactively, not punitively. I don't care if Solumeiras was or was not a misbehaving user in the past. What matters is what he/she is doing now. The bottom line is, based on current activity, is this person a net benefit or detriment to Wikipedia? *** Crotalus *** 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The belief is that Solumeiras, like the past carnations of this vandal, was using a good hand/bad hand system. Solumeiras would be the good hand in this situation. So while the Solumeiras account might not appear as a vandal, the person behind it is acting as a vandal. Metros (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, there has been disruption through Solumeiras personally. He has been making nonsense edits like the controversial tags, creating inappropriate articles like the two "radio personalities/models", he has been requesting unprotection on pages that are not going to be unlocked (George W. Bush and Lindsey Lohan being two prime examples), and some other issues as well including this Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Solumeiras/VfD where Solumeiras was using his own AFD template which was creating deletion discussions at Votes for deletion instead of Articles for deletion for, what he deemed, "nostalgia". Metros (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this with CheckUser and I can confirm that Solumeiras (SunStar Net) is very likely the same as Sunholm/Sunfazer, who I gather is probably the same as TheM62Manchester (though I don't have records on that one). Dmcdevit·t 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

His requests for unprotections lately are interesting.--MONGO 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of the unblock requests was for Wikipedia, which was vandalized three times within an hour of removal. He seemed to be looking for long-term protected articles and asking for them to be unprotected, simply because they had been protected for a long time. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe he's a sockpuppet of any of those users, nor is he being deliberately disruptive. Dmcdevit, I don't think he is likely to be the same as those users.

Crotalus, I agree with your point though. Anyway, leave the guy alone, people, do you want him to become another {{retired}} editor (like Jaranda (talk · contribs) was, ages ago.).

I'm only really a sporadic editor here, but I'm commenting anyway purely because I have a bias: I know the guy in real life. Also, Metros, you're violating WP:AGF - you're treating him in the same way as the Armenia-Azerbaijani editors in that Arbitration case.

Please leave him alone. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing... he's not a good hand/bad hand account, and is a separate user from them.

You might think I'm a WP:SPA, but I'm just a sporadic editor. Anyhow... he hasn't done too much wrong with his mainspace editing. Yes he tagged talk pages as controversial, but what's wrong with that?? Anyway, I've courtesy-blanked his user/user talk pages for him... nothing wrong with that. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing:

Clean start under a new name

• If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.

The most common two concerns and their usual answers are:

• I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered.
• I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.

(That said, if future usage does draw attention by concerned users or administrators, then it is likely the connection will be made. See alternative account notification for how to reduce the likelihood of problems.)

--Windmill 000eh (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's funny how when we discussed the Sunholm/Sunfazer and TheM62Manchester accounts on this here noticeboard, the same thing happened. Socks/SPAs/friends etc came out of the woodwork to tell us that the user was a good editor. Come on, Solumeiras. This is too pathetic and transparent for words. Log into your account and come and talk to us properly. Sarah 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• But I am not Solumeiras, honestly. He'll probably be editing today, I don't know. But I'm a sporadic editor, not a SPA. --Windmill 000eh (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe you...once bitten and all that. for example: [99] Meybe you can staart tiping liek a unliteatable prson. Either you're Solumeiras or you're a meatpuppet here at his request. Either way, we've seen this dance before. As Matt said eighteen months ago here "I have blocked the IP that Sunholm (former Sunfazer, it is claimed) uses, since the promises from last time it was blocked that no more vandalism or sockpuppet creation from this IP would occur have been proven to be lies, and the old tricks are back.

I ask that no admin unblock this IP without talking to me. Vandalism and sockpuppetry from this IP has been going on for at least nine months; despite numerous blocks and promises to reform, the behaviour returns each time. The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" If Solumeiras is Sunholm/Sunfazer and this crap has been going on for another eighteen months then enough said, I think. We've wasted enough time on this and that IP over the last couple of years. By the way, if you're going to be maintaining the claim that you aren't him you shouldn't be retiring him on his behalf. Sarah 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, this "friend" is on the same IP as Sunholm, TheM62Manchester, and Solumeiras. Dmcdevit·t 11:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got an email from User:Doctor Nigel Lewis. This user's been blocked since March 23, 2007 as a compromised account. Who was the person the person to tag this user's user page as a compromised account? Solumeiras. Now, suddenly after all this time, the user claims it's not compromised. If that doesn't prove that good hand/bad hand is going on, I don't know what does. Metros (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Metros, that person emailed me, too. Look at User talk:Sunholm, the person/people behind that account claimed to have compromised some old account by guessing the passwords. I really don't think we need to tolerate this rubbish. I would support a community ban of the people/person behind these accounts. Sarah 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This behaviour (good hand/bad hand, protestations of innocence, claims that the IP is now OK although yes it was a source of bad edits before ("it was my little brother", "it's a library", "It's a school", "my roommates did it but I've spoken to them", etc), unwarranted and keen interest in CUs and the process of CUing and other people who have been CUed, vandalism of admin pages after an admin takes action (often on other wikis), creating impersonator accounts, offers to be a CU/crat/admin/steward on one of their personal wikis, and a host of other things too long and bizarre to mention in detail here unless it's necessary) is not confined to en:wp... This user is a frequent topic of discussion on the CU mailing list and has been blocked on and off under various guises on many many wikis to the point that it's almost a running joke (as in "what has he come up with THIS time??"), so it strikes me that it's time to permanently block the IP, with account creation disabled, on en:wp at the very least. (I am aware this will probably get me some angry protestations of innocence in my mail, and possibly some vandalism of some of my pages somewhere). Note also that this IP and its accounts are poster children for bugzilla bug: 8707 Support global blocking ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What now? Block? Ban?

What is the best course of action from here? Something is clearly up and it seems indisputable that one user is responsible for all these accounts. Do we go ahead and block Solumeiras indefinitely for the disruption? Do we then ban whoever is behind all this (I'm assuming we're calling this "Sunholm" in terms of who it is, right? Obviously this can't keep happening and frustrating us all. Metros (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ban the person behind the accounts, block Solumeiras and any other still not blocked accounts and reblock the IP as Lar suggested. I'm not sure if the IP is still 82.42.145.158 or not. Sarah 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Solumeiras and his alternate accounts. What's funny is that each of his alternate accounts were tagged with {{User Alternate Acc}} which was heavily edited by...Sunholm, Windmill 000eh, and Solumeiras. It doesn't get any better. Metros (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry

I'm sorry to say, this user is doing more sockpuppetry. I need an admin to e-mail me, so I can release sensitive information I have on hand from another website. Additionally, I have evidence that may prove that Doctor Nigel Lewis is a sockpuppet. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page edits

Continuing issues here [100] and here [101], from 142.162.195.175 who makes similar and sometimes identical edits as the following:

• 142.162.190.217
• 142.162.162.87
• 142.162.197.114
• 142.162.199.228
• 142.162.200.61
• 142.162.200.61
• 142.162.193.68
• 142.162.161.46
• Provider: Stentor National Integrated Communications Network
• Explanations from others as to the inappropriateness of the edits are ignored [102], [103], and talk page histories [104], and [105] reveal the process. JNW (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been enlightened by this information regarding the puppet's scope: [106]. Maybe an administrator can help. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove an edit?

I sent an e-mail to Oversight about this; but I appear to have done something wrong, since I got some sort of bounce message back. Could an admin please delete this edit, which appears to include someone's phone number (the area code matches the area where the IP is located) in both the edit and the summary? Deor (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did it... twice because I messed up the first time. --Haemo (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Deor (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot again: it's failing to follow redirects when trying to decide if an image has a valid rationale or not. See [107] for an example. --Carnildo (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

you know Carnildo you could have shown me a little respect and left me a talk page note about it. Please unblock and ill look into it. β^_command 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the bot stopped running? Are you going to fix the problem? --Carnildo (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He just said he'll look into it... I think it's reasonable to assume that means he's stopped it and is trying to fix it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:21, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Im looking at what the API gave me as redirects to the article in question, and they are not the same information.

Image:Angyali udvozlet.jpg
Lenght:752
Rationale:False
Regex 1:(Angyali\sÜdvözlet|The\sAnnunciation\s\(film\))
Regex 2:(Angyali_Üdvözlet|The_Annunciation_\(film\))
Time:True

but Angyali_Üdvözlet and Angyali üdvözlet dont match. the API have me the first page as instead of the second. Im not sure what caused that. but I will be looking further the API error. β^_command 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock as long as the bot doesn't do any image-rationale work until this bug and the μTorrent bug mentioned on your talkpage are fixed. --Carnildo (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo, there was no need to block the bot in the first place. Like I have stated several times to you. Leave me a talkpage notice and Ill stop the bot. I said im looking into this and will see if I can figure out if its fixable on my end. As for the μTorrent issue that is a seperate issue. β^_command 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Betacommand here. Why do we feel it neccessary to block this bot the moment someone has "an issue" with the bot? Woody (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Any bot should be immediately blocked if it makes serious mistakes (like here, tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted), as restarting the bot is far easier than checking all of its edits. Kusma (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a quick easy way to make it stop. It's not remotely a big deal. Friday (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Friday, when people hold it against the bot in every argument, and a talkpage notice would do the same thing. and Ive asked Carnildo repeatedly to do it before blocking it, and he ignores my simple request. Leave a note and give me 5-10 minutes to kill the bot, instead of blocking. If I dont respond then feel free to block it. β^_command 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots that are malfunctioning is standard practice. Why should yours be treated differently? Natalie (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie, when there are as many improper blocks on the bot as there is, people saying there "BCBot is malfunctioning", when they dont understand policy. and I have repeatedly asked this user to discuss it prior to blocking (you get about the same speed results) and the user repeatedly ignores my request I have a problem with that. β^_command 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear, however, to be making a general request of everyone: that they not block this bot without first telling you the issue. Since there's no instaneous way to know if a user is online, you're essentially asking any admin to contact you, hang around while they wait for you to answer, and then block if they haven't received an answer from you in some indeterminate period of time. Why is it such a problem to block, tell you the issue, and unblock once it's sorted out? Natalie (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

waiting 5-10 minutes is not that long. its a problem when the "follow redirects" is not the issue. and its been ~15 hours since the bot was blocked and its not been unblocked. this was sorted out over 12 hours ago and the bot is still blocked. admins are quick to block and very slow to unblock. its a pain in the ass to work with a block when a 30 second post to my talkpage would do the same thing. Ive repeatedly asked the admin to post to my talk page but he refuses a simple request. β^_command 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot, since you say it's been fixed. I have to say that I agree that blocking it isn't an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with problems (particularly if the block is set to indefinite, as it was in this case), but you haven't provided much of an alternative. Perhaps you could implement a shutdown feature that would allow admins to tell the bot to stop if it's causing problems? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Betacommand: I can see why this is frustrating, but in my experience at least it's pretty unusual to have to wait so many hours to have a bot unblocked. I would say that, in these cases, any admin could unblock a bot once the issue was fixed. The sticking point for me is that bots have one operator, but any admin can unblock. The chances of getting a hold of a specific bot operator are naturally much smaller than the chances of getting a hold of any admin, so the block-contact-unblock arrangement makes more sense than contact-wait-maybe block. Natalie (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot

Something might be broken with this bot. See User talk:ShowToddSomeLove. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the large print edition of the usual warning, customized for those who have the "vision-impaired" flag set to TRUE in their preferences. Pay it no mind. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot is leaving gigantic icons on user talk pages...[108] [109] [110]. It looks like it's been doing it for the last few days at least...Is this normal? --Smashville^BONK! 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really a bot error. The image has been deleted at en.Wikipedia some hours ago, and the image displayed afterwards was the larger scaled one from Commons with the same title. I've restored the image for now, even if the bot's code is changed for future messages, all messages that were previously made would display the large scaled version. --Oxymoron⁸³ 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat blocked again

I've blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued trolling after Jimbo explicitly asked him to stop. He continued here and was reverted by User:Crum375. As a result, I've blocked him for a week. Since this editor's conduct is currently being discussed in an above section that may be archived soon, I have started a new section for further discussion. Nakon 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the first of this user's blocks that I actually endorse. Which is a shame, since I think that were it not for the previous ill-advised blocks, he might never have stooped to the level of deserving blocks. But he's responsible for his own conduct, and today his conduct hasn't been good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from Zenwhat. He has been posting tripe like this at the Village Pump for some time, and its been getting tiresome. This is not new behavior since the last blocking above, and I do not expect this to stop when the block expires. I would really love Zenwhat to prove me wrong, but his past behavior has not led me to believe that that will happen. I endorse this block, and pray that he returns from it with a better attitude. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta endorse Nakon's actions. When Jimbo says "stop trolling" you stop trolling. A week (as opposed to a longer, perma block/ban) is being generous. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snarky, but if all he wants to do is discuss meta issues, perhaps someone should point him to an offsite area to do this, like the mailing list, forums, blogs, or whatever. I'm just saying the guy really likes talking about Wikipedia, maybe he can blow off steam elsewhere. daveh4h 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If he put that energy into article editing-- wow. I think he has problems not necessarily related to Wikipedia, and that he should better spend his energy elsewhere. The one week block is fine for the sake of reducing the disruption level. I don't foresee any change in his editing patterns after the block expires. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dave, he seems to have done just that and moved some of his efforts to Meta (m:Special:Contributions/Zenwhat), but aside from some possibly license-breaking copy-and-paste moves, his contributions there seem to be on the up-and-up. --jonny-mt 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I cannot bring myself to see his posts as anything else than a bit distressed and eccentric, but also rather interesting meta comment. That someone who adores Ayn Rand has considerable difficulties sharing that perspective doesn't come as a big surprise. User:Dorftrottel 10:55, February 12, 2008

If I were a meta admin, I'd probably be inclined to do something about [111]. --B (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dorftrottel, for the most part. My only concern is that repeatedly banning this user will make him back come more outrageous than the last time and eventually turn him against the project entirely. Some may say that he is already against the project-but I disagree. If he were, he wouldn't spend so much time commenting on it. That said, I don't see any of this ending well, unfortunately. :-( If he is doing this for attention, then the offsite alternatives like meta, mailing lists, and message boards won't provide him enough. I find it easy enough to avoid his commentary if I find it annoying. Violating the sanctity of Jimbo's talk page seems to be the latest offense. If he said it elsewhere it probably would have gone unnoticed. This user either has other problems or he just hasn't understood the subtleties of how to interact here yet, which is something to consider. I still think he should be encouraged to read and interact at other meta sites, maybe he can find something positive to do. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, particularly with the word encourage. That's the key, imo. Discouraging him is definitely counterproductive. Maybe his energies can be gently directed into more appropriate channels, so why not give it a shot instead of jumping the gun on him (npi)? User:Dorftrottel 17:50, February 12, 2008

Much as I apperciate Jimbo, "the sanctity of his Talk page" seems a bit excessive. Regardless, I do think Zenwhat is a tragic case of what happens when a Wikipedian is brought low by what we call Wikistress, and a downward spiral of incivility between editors. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I've seen a lot of discussions come up about Zenwhat in the past few days. To keep all discussions centralized and in one place, I think it would make sense to have discussions located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Zenwhat. Opinions (note, I will move this discussion if users below agree). Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will be necessary, especially with the most recent block. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. (In general, I dislike moving discussions to sub pages, as the discussion is then fractured and the audience narrowed.) --Iamunknown 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can only think of one other instance where it was done, and in that case there were issues with th user inquestion being able to edit pages >32K and extreme formatting difficulties. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Duke53 edit warring and being uncivil

Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been perpetuating an edit war at Phil Ford, continually restoring material that is questionable under the WP:BLP policy. However, he has not crossed the 3-revert threshold in his recent edits. A short while ago, Duke53 left a rude note on the talk page of an anonymous user who reverted him at Phil Ford, which I view as a violation of the civility policy.

He has also recently edit warred at UNC-Duke rivalry, though a resolution to that dispute was reached by some patient editors. Duke53's behavior is worst at articles on whose subject he has a strong point of view: these two articles, for example, are related to Duke University, of which he is a strong partisan.

This comes a few months after a Request for comment on Duke53's behavior stalled, which happened after he basically dropped off the radar for a month or so. Upon his return he showed some improvement in his behavior, but this is a serious relapse.

I'm not sure whether to re-list the RfC (which was never resolved), to escalate this to Arbcom, or to let an admin here take whatever action they deem proper. Advice in this regard would be appreciated. I will notify Duke53 of this thread as a courtesy. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, alanyst, here you go again ... why don't you acknowledge exactly why you keep stalking my every move here at Wikipedia?

I view your continual haranguing of me as harassment ... you can call it whatever you choose. Did you ever stop to think that I make those edits because I am correct? Seems to be like the pot calling the kettle black; your behavior is worst on the pages where you expect everyone to accept your edits as gospel, even when there is much disagreement about what is factual.

We both know that this all goes back to the 'issues' at Temple garments and Undergarment and my not kowtowing to your attempt at censoring items because of so-called 'sacredness'.

Again I will tell you: "you do what you have to do and I will do what I have to do". What I don't have to do is accept any guff from you, so don't expect me to take it lying down. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. as far as "dropping off the radar": look to your own house first. Your M.O. seems to be 'attack & disappear'. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. I am just waiting for your usual 'gang' to start swarming this page. Have you notified them yet? Ho-Hum. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not your edits are correct, you are edit warring on Phil Ford. I would suggest that you actually try to discuss the sentence in question on the talk page rather than continuing to revert, as you will be blocked if you continue. I have no comment on the claimed incivility - the diff seems borderline incivil at worst, but obviously others may have a different opinion. Your comments here, however, are quite incivil and completely fail to assume the good faith of another contributor. If the two of you have problems this is not the place to solve them. If you do not, then I am at a loss to explain Duke53's hostility. Natalie (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from arguing anything here. I'm asking for admin advice or at least a look into the issue. If you want to start discussing things you know where my talk page is, and there's also the RfC page. If an admin has any questions for me, I'd of course be happy to respond here or on a talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block

I indef blocked Crapitsalec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for attack page/inappropriate page creation as a VOA. Please unblock or reduce block if I was overly zealous. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block based on the deleted contributions. Also, the user name is rather inappropriate so either way, that account's future isn't a bright one. --B (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User unblocked in response to feedback. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I have blocked PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours (originally 3) for disruption. His recent behaviour has been far from civil, he has been attacking Durova and has now decided to troll the Matanmoreland RfC. Block was originally 3 hours, but when i checked my watchlist to post this notice (quick link rather than typing) I notice he had re-added the trolling after it was removed. Thus block was extended to 24 hours. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock. Editors are allowed to disagree with me. We were having a civil difference of opinion. I would have complained if I thought he'd gone overboard. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That went beyond disagreement, and is just one part of his recent problematic behaviour. Hd has been very caustic about the whole issue, so in the spirit of Jimbo's recent "tough on incivility" stance I blocked. I would liek to hear some more opinions however. Viridae^Talk 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This (inserted twice despite being reverted) is pure trolling for instance. Viridae^Talk 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He's also asked me to courtesy delete the section of my user talk, and promised to walk away from the conflict. I'd prefer to have people come to me with their opinions and express civil disagreement without fear of getting blocked for it. Please do a good faith unblock. Durova^Charge! 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae is on the opposite side of the dispute with PouponOnToast...he is NOT a neutral admin in this situation.--MONGO 08:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

leave it out MONGO, I appear to be in a dispute with the whole site in your eyes. Viridae^Talk 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I second Durova's request. Or going back to the original 3 hour block. Maybe he can think and edit more clearly then. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unblock. "It's a witch, burn it," is neither uncivil nor disruptive under the circumstances. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. Durova^Charge! 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(40th bloody ec tonight)NOte that was one of many exchanges that caused the block. He is now unblocked however having agreed to stay civil. Viridae^Talk 09:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea...next time, (and there is bound to be a next time), don't block anyone you have been in a dispute with again.--MONGO 09:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a dispute MONGO...Will you EVER get that one? Viridae^Talk 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Another block review: User:CBMIBM

I've blocked CBMIBM (talk · contribs) (former User:Wikinger) for a week for this and related stuff. This is a bit of a complex history involving various forms of disruption, a lot of sockpuppeting allegations (some true, some not), and difficult to see through for the outsider, so I decided to take the quick route and do the block myself, even though on a different unrelated level I'm currently involved in some content disagreements with this user. Therefore submitting for review here. Will gladly provide more background explanation if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request reads"admitting that my retaliation was totally wrong, possibility of editing articles" DGG (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is: he was ostensibly insulting another user who some people believe is in reality a sockpuppet of himself. The suspicion is that he made those insults only in order to demonstrate they are not the same person. So, either it's a rather schizophrenic but quite elaborate sockpuppeting scheme, or it's a case of quite egregiously losing control of himself. In either case, it's a very deep-rooted personality problem. This guy reminds me of another disruptive user I used to be dealing with, who it later turned out suffered from Asperger's... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AntiVandal Bots and the Bot flag

I thought policy was that AntiVandal bots under no uncertain terms do not get the Bot flag? Has this policy changed? Q ^{T C} 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they have the bot flag set so they can edit faster. Their edits are not marked as bot edits, though, so they do show up on the watchlist. Policy seems to be "anti vandal bots have a bot flag, but their edits don't". Kusma (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case for all bots. Q ^{T C} 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Kusma's understanding checks with what I know. AV bots didn't used to get the flag, so that they would show up in recent changes (etc) for some measure of supervision. With rollback in particular, there was some interest in getting them bot flags so that they could be exempted from the rollback rate limiting; with that in mind, an optional URL parameter was added to allow bots to flag particular edits as non-bot (the idea being that AV bots could get flagged, but mark all edits as non-bot, thus hopefully having their cake and eating it, too). Is there a specific bot you're asking about, by chance? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, just working through WP:VF and was curious as why some bots weren't showing up anymore. Q ^{T C} 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an account has the bot flag or not has no effect on whether it shows up in the IRC Recent Changes (which VF uses). It's possible that VF automatically whitelisted the bots—you might want to remove them from the whitelist if that's the case. Gracenotes^T § 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's what it was, some of the AV bots getting added to the greylist since they have the bot flag now. Q ^{T C} 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

143.235.215.* harassing Ckatz (talk · contribs)

A range of IP addresses seems to be coming around simply to harass Ckatz (a prospective future admin) and interfere in articles he's involved in. See [112] (deceitful edit summary) [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]. Very likely socks of banned user EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another revert. JuJube (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Article has been semi-protected. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistent edit warring/POV pushing, pesonal attacks, 3RR violations, etc.

Someone please tell me what we should do with User:Esimal. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Esimal. He unapologetically edit wars against consensus and pushes a fringe point of view (see Talk:Religion in the United States‎), accuses everyone with whom he agrees of being a "radical Evangelical", and just willfully violated 3RR using socks at Religion in the United States (for which he was not blocked, because I'm less interested in reporting him than seeing a solution). That being said, I'm not entirely convinced we can work with this user on en at all unless we get some major promises of attitude adjustment. For admins, just look at the deleted versions of his userpage to get an idea. I'm reluctant to report this here at all due to the fact that the comments are certainly meant to illicit a m:Don't be a crybaby effect. Some help? And, BTW, please actually read the comments at the Talk:Religion page before commenting here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The account has barely been used since December, though the IP's are obviously and admittedly related. They're not obligated to log in, but if there's an issue with edit-warring then the options are to block the IP or to temporarily semi-protect the page. I'm not sure what else can be done beyond encouraging the user to utilize the talk page, which has already been done. Is there a particular action you think is appropriate at this point? MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits: User:Iwanafish

For over two months now, Iwanafish has repeatedly inserted POV material into the I Ching article. Here's the history:

• Iwanafish adds unsourced text [120] on December 5, 2007. His addition is reverted [121].
• He re-inserts the text and is reverted[122] with the edit summary: "undid changes made by iwanafish, as he attaches his own personal opinion to the end of the opening paragraph." Iwanafish again re-inserts the text.
• On December 9, 2007 User:64.186.47.226 adds a note on the talk page, stating that the material shows a lack of objectivity.
• On December 11, 2007 User:Antifamilymang edits and moves the text [123]. Iwanafish reverts.
• A total of six editors, other than Iwanafish, comment, on the talk page. All agree that the text is unacceptable, referring to it as original research. On December 16, 2007 it is proposed to give Iwanafish until the end of December to find citations for the text. All those who comment on this agree. Iwanafish responds with scorn for "Westerners view of the I Ching" but does not comment on the need for sources.
• The pattern of reverts continues. Edit summaries refer Iwanafish to the talk page [124], and then warn him that if he doesn't discuss his edits on the talk page his reverts will be treated as vandalism [125].
• On December 17, 2007, a note on his talk page describes the problem of lack of sources, explains that editorial decisions are made by consensus and warns him he could be blocked if he continues his actions.
• No sources are provided but the pattern of reverts slows in late December and early January, then starts up again on January 30, 2008
• On January 31, 2008, Iwanafish is given a 4th level warning. He ceases to edit the I Ching article as Iwanafish.
• On February 10, 2008 209.166.90.180 adds the identical text with the identical MO as Iwanafish. A 4th level warning is added to the IP talk page. On February 10, 2008 209.166.90.180 reverts again.

I recommend that a block of several days be given to his IP address. Sunray (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been a victim of more than one setup in my history on wikipedia, and having an interest and expertise in Chinese, this post caught my eye. When I investigated I found Iwanafish was not alone in wanting some of his edits included, despite Sunray's portrait. Indeed Iwanafish sourced one of his edits to p131 of Needham's classic. Sunray's rejection of Needham is most unwarranted. Needham's is one of the modern classics of world and China related scholarship. If his views on Chinese mysticism are not relevant then it is a very sad day for wikipedia. Having said that, I do not condone Iwanafish's style - though I point out that Sunray equally shares a tendency for reversion, and further, a tendency for ownership of the page in question. I recommend guidance for Iwanafish and Sunray, not the penalty Sunray seeks. Mccready (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mcready has done a creditable job of advocacy here. However, I think he needs to go over the history of this more carefully. At least six editors have either reverted Iwanafish, (pointing out his POV), or tried to edit his text. Each time he has reverted, insisting on his version. Also six editors (not all the same ones) have commented that they were concerned with the bias he had introduced into the article. Iwanafish's comments on the talk page have generally been to express his distain for the I Ching and the "western Yijingers [who] think you can have your magic book, shake you coins and no one will laugh at you."

I don't own the page. I do monitor it, though, and responded to the concerns raised by other editors. While I might have handled Iwanafish more gently, I've tried many different approaches and his intransigence related to this article continues to be a real problem right now. In my first warning note to him on his talk page, I did suggest that we could work on it:

"If you wish to participate in the discussion on the talk page, that would be welcome. I believe that the paragraph could be re-written, sources found and many of the ideas included."

Instead he continues to insist on his text, with its original research and one problematic source. Note that I don't say "block Iwanafish." It is his IP that is being disruptive. A short block might send the message that he needs to work with others if he wants to edit the "I Ching" article. Sunray (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

persistent personal attacks and deliberate vandalism

Resolved

 – User reverted and issued final warning.

I have been subject to persistent personal attacks from user User:Masalai who has taken exception to my edits of articles of Saskatchewan. Evidence of personal attacks can be found from edit summaries of [126], [127] [128], [129], [130] and a few other occasions. this user persists with the notion that I am not a native English speaker, which I clearly am as noted in the most recent personal attack on me [131]. Their recent revert changes refer to my proper labelling sections as "Notes and References" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions which Masalai continues to revert in deliberate violation of these rules and I believe solely because of my role as a contributor. I have tried to ask this user to stop with no success. [132]. Masalai was given another warning today as well by another user [133] Masalai has previously tried to attack me as another user warned them about this last year. [134] Michellecrisp (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin... but the edit summaries of Masalai's edits look downright idiotic. :\ JuJube (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the disruptive behavior and personal attacks, they are utterly ridiculous. The user has been warned. Another incident should result in a somewhat lengthy block, in my opinion. I'm looking further into the content issue. Lara❤Love 14:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail from user about taking legal action

I've been on an undeclared wikibreak but just received an e-mail from a user about a vandal I've blocked and how s/he continues to "commit acts of libel" and how the person intends to proceed with legal action. I don't know how to respond and haven't really the time to investigate it; would someone be so kind as to handle this for me? Cheers. -- Merope 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just tell the person that you are not active in Wikipedia right now and direct the user to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No legal threats. That should be enough (we need to identify who the person is in order to prevent the person from editing Wikipedia according to our policy). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't reply to the email and reblock them with email disabled. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the emailer is the one who's blocked, so that wouldn't really help. Natalie (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appears right, I misread it. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I block the user from whom the e-mail came? Or let someone else know? -- Merope 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I reckon they need a warning with a link to WP:NLT first to let them know policy (especially if it's a new editor), but might be worth posting the name here to see (obviously not the content of the email, that's private). —αlεx•mullεr 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, the editor is User:CamCham, and the dispute seems to focus entirely on the Miss Alabama USA article. Have fun. -- Merope 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice (I think, at least...) note left on the user's talk page. I guess we'll see where it goes from here? —αlεx•mullεr 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw I was the person who added the content to the Miss AL USA article in the first place and who reverted CamCham's removal of it, basically on the grounds that two reliable sources are cited to verify it. In edit summaries CamCham came very close to a personal attack on myself. Last night I received an email from that user stating:

"Regarding your last edit to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Alabama_USA&action=history. You'll need to send those sources because I can't find those references."

I quickly replied with the copy & pasted sources (they come from a news database I have access to through university and thus I can't post urls. This morning I got a very strange reply:

"We are reviewing these sources. Thanks for the quick response."

My query is where does the we come into this? Hmmmm. Anyway, that's my take on things. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be a role account, or it could be someone trying to make themselves sound more official or intimidating. Natalie (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird contributions

Can someone have a look at this users contributions starting from the beginning of this month. Something seems a bit fishy looking at some of the contribs. Could another user/admin look at the contributions and see what they think? D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How very strange, few of this users edits seem legit, but they don't seem malicious. Perhaps a small child?--Jac16888 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um. This AFD creation stands out to me as it is not formatted properly, yet they can create pages, for instance Slowinski's Corn Snake‎, Red Owens‎ and Zeke Zawoluk. Maybe more than one person is controlling this account? D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really get that impression. It's a tricky one - one one hand, it looks as if all the edits are made in good faith, but on the other hand, much of what they're doing is disruptive (albeit in a fairly minor way). Maybe we should encourage them to apply for adoption? Waggers (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. However, the user has a lot of CSD warnings on their talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some which have now evolved into at least usable stubs, others of which include a notable settlement in Senegal (but mis-spelled) and a reference to a Pokemon character, which arguably could have been at least stubified. The others, well, they are just nonsense redirects and come across to me as good-faith attempts to contextualise some local slang. I'd support adoption if the editor is willing, because some of his more complete articles have potential to be useful additions. * Meanwhile have advised editor of this conversation here --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my apologies, I forgot to do that. While scrolling through some more of the users contributions, this article creation seems bizzare to say the least. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. What I see is a new user, keen to get on with article writing, but unfamiliar with our policies and ways. Some of the templates may seem to him to be a bit bitey, but he's still here. Other users might have given up in frustration. The above edit says to me that he's not familiar with {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} and wants to defend against having his article speedied. Hence the misplaced stub. I say he should have a chance, preferably with adoption, but once he knows what he's doing a little better, I see him being a useful editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the repeated creation of articles solely for the purpose of nominating them for AfD a bit concerning. On February 9th, s/he created Forest Avenue Plaza at 1:45 and created an AfD for it within a minute. (Itself since deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Avenue Plaza). At 5:43 that same day, s/he created Rockafella records. At 5:45, s/he created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockafella records(also since deleted). The AfD s/he opened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Bomb for the article s/he created, Tiger Bomb (February 7th) is still ongoing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfamiliarity with {{db-author}} would explain this.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• How? The Tiger Bomb page was created with the AFD template attached. Its not like the user created the article, then AFD'd it 15 minutes after. The user created the article with the AFD template. D.M.N. (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• CSD is usually within an hour; AFD gives the author five days to get it into shape. Desperate, perhaps, but I don't think it's useful to speculate further until we've heard from the editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is partially the reason why I think the account is being used by 2 different people. S/he created Zeke Zawoluk, which seems to be a solid stub article a month ago, yet now seems to be creating what look like test pages, hence my concern about two possibly people using the account. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's something that needs to be looked at, but I don't see any need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible that the user misunderstands the purpose of deletion discussions and is trying to confirm rather than delete the articles? I had a peek at the deleted AfDs, and neither of those nor the existing one actually indicate a desire to see the article deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility, although it would be a pretty masochistic editor who understood AFD who would do this. As I say, speculation is unhelpful, but it may be that the editor, having had a few articles CSD'd already, is trying to have their articles peer-reviewed, using the wrong process. Can we see what the editor has to say before getting into too much mind-reading, as I'm trying to work towards the best outcome here? I don't see any need for admin intervention at this stage. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone here is not trying to work towards the best outcome here. Indeed, it seems possible that we all are. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Anglepush

Anglepush (talk · contribs) is known for his POV and propagandist material pushing into different Armenia-related articles. Currently that user made a redirect from Andranik Pasha to the Andranik Toros Ozanian and attacked me at the Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide ("modifications of the Andranik Pasha"), made some denialist statements and then deleted a large part of sourced text and bibliography on Armenian genocide denial [135]. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated tactics

[136] If they dont get it its not my fault.Megistias (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question - do you have a concern of some sort? D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They refuse to interact and simply keep on reposting rejected material.Again on my ethnicity ,denying ,irony and ignore my postings and of any user or admin rejecting themMegistias (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias is mixing up complaints against two different users: User:Dodona, who is indeed a disruptive editor and forever in danger of earning himself a renewed ban, and a new guy User:PelasgicMoon, who has so far not done anything outrageously disruptive by Balkanic standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In which case, can we have some diffs so that we can resolve, or try to resolve the problem. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty frustrated.This is like deja vuMegistias (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona is a loooooong story. I've been trying to guard him through a "second chance", that's the only reason I'm not just joining in with Megistias' cry for bans, but I have doubts if it's going anywhere. I somehow don't know where to start with the links :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD moved and vandalized

I nominated several pages in User:Jay Turner's userspace for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints. He moved the MfD to Wikipedia:Miscegfc,mnfdjkndkfjsfkjfllany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints and blanked the page. I need an admin to move the page back and would request a 24 hour block of User:Jay Turner for purposefully disrupting the MfD. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete a page on someone's userspace? Bstone (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The set of pages relate to a game the user created where people earn points for doing things on wikipedia that are redeemable for barnstars. I feel this is an inappropriate use of the userspace as it is a WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. I've nominated for MfD to allow a discussion on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved back to correct place and blocked Jay Tuner for 31 hours for needless page move vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this page [137] seems germaine to this discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good find, now the tough question, since their both from the same IP address (no checkuser needed) do we trust the anon. IP or not? MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And now the old-user name request User talk:Jaytur1 MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this count as using a sockpuppet account to evade a block? Wouldn't that result in extending the block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess so. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, he's new enough and the link betweent he 2 names is rather obvious, that I really don't see a need to extend the block. Now if he continues with frivolous unblocks, then maybe. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of User_talk:ScreenagerPresents, I'm tempted to file an WP:RFCU to see how many other sleepers we have on this IP. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Resolved

 – user unblocked, but placed under community ban against uploading images files

• Sportman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is requesting an unblock to their indefinate block. The block was instituted for repeated image copyvios, and repeated refusal to abide by Wikipedia's image policy. They have been blocked for months at this point. I have proposed that he be unblocked if he agreed to a community ban on uploading any files at all, since that was the particular problem that led to his block. The user would be allowed to edit articles in good faith. Would other admins agree to endorse a conditional unblock, under the specific rules that this user is not allowed to upload any more image or other media files, and that doing so would result in a return of the block indefinately... Comments? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock - Per WP:AGF. Agree to the terms. Tiptoety ^talk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

*Decline unblock but implement the 2nd chance template. D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • What good would second chance do? The user wasn't blocked for bad editing of articles, but for image violations... Second chance proves nothing with regard to reforming their prior behavior? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Totally with Jay here. Plus, 2nd chance sucks, it's impossible to review those unblock requests, and it's asking people to jump through aggravating hoops for no reason. Mangojuice^talk 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, he was blocked for image copyvios, not articles. Tiptoety ^talk 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock - Seems like I was wrong. I thought 2nd chance would be better so that he can prove himself before unblock, but either way I guess it doesn't matter. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock. The user clearly still has no understanding of WP:IUP and so any image uploads are pretty much guaranteed to be problematic. But I think it is entirely reasonable to unblock provided the user refrain from image use or uploads. --Yamla (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock - After reviewing the situation, I have to agree with Yamla that the editor does not understand WP:IUP, however if the user agrees to stop the problematic uploads I am all about giving him another chance. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock - His comments still show a lack of understanding of policy regarding images (promotional photos ok for living people). Let him edit articles instead. Woody (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Based on the above consensus, I have unblocked the user in question. They have been informed that they are under a community ban against uploading any more image files, and have agreed to abide by these terms. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Relata refero

Complaint about this user who is deleting information, even if sourced, here: Western Goals Institute and here: Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley. He lectures other users and tells them what he will permit here: User talk:Chelsea Tory as though we have just arrived. He may, of course, be someone's puppet. But we should not be bullied by editors who are effectively vandalising articles and deleting things they simply don't like. Chelsea Tory (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over content and Ownership issues. No admin action required at this point. A reminder about discussion being useful, and free of speculation over motive, would be helpful, though. Relata refero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree this appears to be a content dispute. Chelsea Tory, please remember that personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source. Take these issues to the article talk page, rather than reverting each other repeatedly. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ovi Online Magazine

Can someone look into Ovi Online Magazine and the recent edits that have taken place there? Apparently there are two sites calling themselves Ovi Online: ovimagazine.com, and theovimagazine.com, which are apparently quite different. An IP user has repeatedly changed the link back and forth; it's clear that one of those two sites copied the other but I have a hard time determining which. I presume ovimagazine.com is the original and correct one, but my reasoning isn't very good: that's the link that was first in the article when it was created in 2006. Also, I'm a bit concerned about potential WP:COI issues here. Mangojuice^talk 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious COI issue, take a look at Ovi ace's contributions. D.M.N. (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and inflammatory disruption by JustaHulk (talk · contribs)

1. Warning given to JustaHulk (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI by Jehochman (talk · contribs).
2. Harassment on Wikinews
3. AFTER the warning notice by Jehochman, JustaHulk posts again - to talk page of Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). JustaHulk calls the subject heading: "Wikinews is a crack whore".
4. Twice calls me a "propagandist"
5. JustaHulk claims to Jehochman that he is done with his inflammatory actions, admits he reneged on Jehochman's warning
6. Justanother notes that his own comment to Thatcher was trolling
7. That then gets reverted by Thatcher
8. JustaHulk creates an attack page (That page was deleted by Jehochman (talk · contribs) with the comment: "Appears to be an attack page with no encyclopedic purpose." )
9. Again making disruptive comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales

Durova (talk · contribs) comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales: JustaHulk, twice now you've proposed that Cirt is a "paid propagandist". Do you have anything more than an edit count to support that very serious accusation?

More recently, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) has posted an "announcement" at both the userpage for User:JustaHulk, and the userpage for User:Justanother, where he says: I found myself objecting strongly to a prolific propagandist successfully embedding him/herself in this project and at WikiNews where s/he found some willing cohorts and little moderating influence. -- Again, though not directly mentioning a particular user, this use of this language "prolific propagandist", again, is a blatant violation of WP:NPA.

1. "prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for Justanother
2. "prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for JustaHulk
3. He calls attention to his "announcement" at the talk page for Jimbo Wales

This user does not seem to be able to stop, even after comments from Administrators of both Wikipedia and Wikinews, and a recent warning from Jehochman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have posted this here, due to a comment by GRBerry (talk · contribs) at WP:AE. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Centennial College

There is a slow-motion edit war at Centennial College starting here, mostly consisting of IP editors adding arguably POV material on how badly the college is run. This included addition of a "CC is run by monkeys" image. Most of the recent IP edits are from within CC istelf.

Now a new user has entered the fray: User:Ccrbm They have created a userpage with picture of a monkey, created the redirect Ran by monkeys and started re-inserting the POV content. I again reverted this here and added a note to the user talk about unsourced content. The user has responded by removing existing content here and here, apparently making a WP:POINT about unsourced content. I've added another note to their talk. My second-last note was in-between Ccrbm's last two edits, hopefully they will now get the message and cool down a little.

Waited a while, message only partly received, the user added some {{tl:cn}} tags, which is OK, but now adding the original unsourced POV statement c/w "cite" tags. Please review for WP:UP, WP:UN, WP:POINT, edit warring, blah-blah. Franamax (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (put this at WP:AN first, should be here I think!) Franamax (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)