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

User:Purgatory Fubar

Please examine the history of User talk:Purgatory Fubar. I am a long time anon editor seeimingly being "harassed" by the above user (User:Purgatory Fubar). I attempted to engage in conversation, specifically about WP:RED policy (see [1] which was reverted) but find my edits constantly reverted and marked as "vandalism", on his talk page, without even a token attempt to engage further.

This has progressed onto my user talk page (see the history, I have removed what I consider to be "bad faith" templates placed on the page by the above user), and now onto any other articles I have ever edited - such as Halloween (film) ([2] claimed to be "reverting vandalism" but in fact nothing of the sort).

here is the user attempting to "block" me as a vandal: [3]

here is the user again removing warnings claiming it is "unwarranted": [4]

here is the user attempting to engage another user (in barely grammatical language) in the war: [5] - claiming "trollery"

here is the user reverting yet another page without any expln other than I was the last editor: [6]

another one: removing notability tag [7]

removal of all red links from Hong Kong action cinema: [8]

removal of valid "do not claim vandalism when it is not vandalism" warnings from userpage: [9] and [10] (using vandalism tools to revert the messages without any expln.)

I note the user claims to "hate anonymous editors" which may be an underlying cause of his issue, or perhaps he is unhappy with me that some of his college clubs were marked as non-notable as they failed to assert the importance of their subject. I would have preferred his anger to spill out as discussion rather than using "vandalism" warnings and reversions where they do not apply. I hope somebody can have a word... 86.31.156.253 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

According to your contribs, you just started editing today. And your edits are somewhat to be desired. See 86.31.156.253 Talk for more insite. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of 86.31.156.253's edits do leave a bit to be desired, but many are constructive and the ones that are not are simply because they don't follow the style guidelines. As you point out, this user has only begun editing today and so cannot be expected to know all of the style guidelines. I don't see anything (point it out if I'm wrong) that indicates vandalism. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right then, so as far as I can see, both of you are attempting to make good faith edits, but reverting each other as vandalism. Purgatory Fubar, I'm a little disapointed in you reporting the IP to WP:AIV in an attempt to get them blocked, I would also suggest you let the red links stand, they allow users to see what articles they can create. Both of you I suggest take a short break from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The report was submitted due to the annon page blanking. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't page blanking it was a content dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Page blanking from annon. Blanking out reversions by said annon using multiple IP's (happing now) on User talk:86.31.156.253

User:(aeropagitica) Got blanked User:Savant13 Got blanked User:Upholder Got blanked As well as me. This has nothing more to do with content dispute. not since I reported it to AIV. User:Savant13 also reported the page blanking. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Three points: 86.31.156.253 posted a comment [11] which he signed as being from me. I was the user that removed the speedy delete from Fightin' Texas Aggie Band that the IP editor placed. As far as I can tell from here, the IP editor was reported to WP:AIV by User:Savant13 ([12]). -- Upholder 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

see ryan postlethwaite removing false AIV notice by purgatory fubar and| aeropagitica removing incorrectly restored false AIV notice. User:Purgatory Fubar using AIV as a tool to win edit-wars is a strict no-no. Be very careful from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.144.47 (talk • contribs)

Any comment on why you signed a message left on Purgatory Fubar's talk page as if you were Upholder? Many of your other edits can be easily excused by assuming good faith, but that one is troubling. --OnoremDil 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

didnt know i did... but checking my history, it seems when i copy&pasted someone else's template i copy&pasted their username accidentally as well! oops ;)

i should also mention Upholder became very upset when i *dared* to put a notability tag on his apparently non-notable band's page, claiming the addition of the tag to be "bad faith" and "vandalism" ([13]) and angrily started issuing me vandalism warnings as a result [14] (claiming vandalism) [15] (again claiming vandalism), [16] - several more vandalism warnings. is this user simply unware of what constitutes vandalism, or is it a deliberate bad faith attack by a user angered about the question of notability of their favorite band?

I have no connection to Texas A&M University nor the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. The notability of the band is covered by the entire first paragraph of the article and in addition the band has been awarded the Sudler Trophy, as I noted on the talk page for the article. I noticed the speedy delete because I have edited the article before, but I did not create it. Concerning your allegations that my warnings were placed in bad faith, adminsitrator (aeropagitica) noted that removing valid vandalism notices on your user talk page is in violation of Wikipedia policy [17]. -- Upholder 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues, removing warnings has had community consensus for a number of months now. It is in line with our current policy and considered a sign that you read it. -M^ask?

20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see where this community consensus is located. It has been my uderstanding that blanking warning templets was a blockable offense. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that I have not made any personal attacks but the IP editor in question has made personal attacks against me here in the comment this is in response to as well as on his talk page. -- Upholder 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• The same goes for me as well,The only one who has madepersonal attacks is the annon. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating User:Upholder time left on my talk page 15:53 [18] but signed it 15:44, not very smart [19] and know editing under another IP? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The annon has resorted to Trolling via Sock puppetry to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint.

86.27.68.151 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [20]

86.31.159.179 (talk · contribs)WHOIS report [21] 86.31.156.253 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [22]

86.31.144.47 (talk · contribs)WHOIS report[23] 86.27.130.242 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [[24]] All have had their hand in this. Not trying to assume bad faith here but my guess is that this annon is a banned user. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a non-static IP address doesn't equate to sockpuppetry. - Bobet 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It does when each IP is talking in the third person. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a walk. This was left by the annon (talking in the third voice fashion) at AmiDaniel VP Abuse.

• [25] - no explanation of random revert with vp given

VP does not allow for personal comment in the summary At least not that I am aware of.This delinking by annon is what started this. PF

you have failed to explain what the revert was for. vandalproof is for vandalism. can we assume, therefore, that you treated this edit ([26] my edit summary "undo some unnecessary linking") as vandalism ([27] your edit summary "Reverted edits by 86.31.156.253 (talk) to last revision (127941606) by LionheartX using VP") ? yes or no?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.64.139 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalproof is not just for reverting vandalism but test edits and GFE that are not considered helpful. P.F

comment: actually it was these edits ([28] [29]) you seemed to take objection to. a merge on the "Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets" page from the "Senior boots" page based on the merge discussion at Talk:Senior boots. i had no objection to your edits there, though your reverts were later undone by other users, but after that, you began to stalk the address that dared to merge something (from somebody else's request), and began reverting legitimate edits. regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as the were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. pleas explain why, therefore, you treated it as vandalism?

See this edit summary page to explain. P.F

• [30] user warning given with vp, despite no vandalism having occurred anywhere.

Test1 not vandal1 was given due to the delinking of legit link (wuxia) and (Hong Kong). At that point I was assuming good faith. PF

please expain how issuing a vandalism warning, using a vandalism tool, is assuming good faith. have you read WP:VPRF#Abuse? regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as they were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?.

Test1 templet is NOT a vandalism warning. P.F

• [31] attempt to discuss issue on user's talk page ignored and reverted using vp

User being civil went out the door with this "attempt to discuss issue". PF

did i read that right? WP:CIVIL NEVER "goes out the door". if you have been ignoring it, i seriously doubt your judgement. See WP:KETTLE. and please explain what you found so offensive about the comment on your user talkpage that you decided to revert it without acknowledgement or reply?

If any one else read that in conjuction with your edit they would know that you are the one who I was talking about. P.F

• [32] same

again

Removing 3RR notice as there was no 3RR, I simply reverted delinking of valid links as per above. PF

• [33] again removing attempted user talk page discussion using vp

Removed personal attacks. PF

• [34] using vandalism reversion with vp to revert non-vandalism edit on another article

Rollback edit by annon no test or warning was given, and later Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) did the same. (revert speedy tag from notable article) P.F

• [35] when the other user clears *their* user talk page suddenly its vandalism and he uses vp to revert

See user page link below. P.F

• [36] he issues a "last warning" to the user with vp

to be fair let's see he whole user page F.P

• [37] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Rollback annon removal of a disambiguation. No warning was given. P.F

• [38] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Revert unexplained removal of image with false edit summary. P.F (Vandalism) and user page blanking Final warning given. P.F

• [39] attempt to "block" the user as a vandal (subsequently removed by administrators [40] and given warning by User:Ryan Postlethwaite [41])

No warning was given to me by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) See my above comment. P.F

• [42] removing valid warnings (abuse of vandalism templates) from user talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

• [43] - removing valid warnings from somebody else's talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

Update, annon is now moving my comment out of order of conversation. Even knowing full well that the comment was directed to another user as see here

Edit summary

Follow the evidence. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Purgatory still not explaining his actions

Dear User:Purgatory Fubar,

making edits like this [44] while your edits are still being investigated for abuse is not wise given your current situation. your vandalproof privileges have already been revoked, and given that much of your current predicament is caused by unexplained reversions on the user talk page, doing so again seems mighty foolish. it seems you have still not learned any lessons from this episode about WP:CIVIL or WP:DICK or WP:AGF.

You have still not explained the reasons you made the edits that have caused this case to be raised:

1. why you used vandalproof reversion tools in an edit dispute [45]
2. why you assumed bad faith and claimed vandalism (a personal attack) [46]
3. why you used vandalproof to ignore and revert an attempt to discuss the edit issue on your user talk page [47]
4. why you then claimed that the attempt to discuss with you was "vandalism" and issued another warning[48]
5. why you again used vandalproof to revert your usertalk page in a renewed attempt to start a conversation [49]
6. but when someone other than yourself makes a reversion on their usertalk page, then its not ok [50]
7. despite the fact that removing warning has had community consensus for months now, as i'm sure you're aware, you chose to treat it as vandalism again [51]
8. again using vandalproof tool in an apparent edit dispute - here not even explaining what the edit dispute is [52]
9. and another throughly unexplained revert with vp [53]
10. here using AIV to attempt to win the edit war [54] (thankfully removed by diligent admins) - already received ryan's "slap on the wrist", yet i have still seen no explanation from Purgatory about why this was done ?
11. abusing vandalproof to revert usertalk warnings about "claiming vandalism when there is none" [55]
12. claiming "edits are somewhat to be desired" yet presenting no evidence of any vandalism [56]
13. snide insinuations [57], accusations being a troll [58], later claiming to have made "no personal attacks"
14. why did you choose to begin reverting the usertalk page AGAIN, despite all the comments in this ANI? [59]

its probably in your better interests to defend your actions here, rather than attempt to "shoot the messenger" (by the way, do you know what dynamic IP is? dont you think it would be prudent to understand such concepts to deal with vandalism?), this will reflect better on you in the long run. i honestly can't see any legitimate reason for the above, other than a complete screw-up, or maliciousness. if you can explain the rationale behind each of the above edits, which you have so far completely refused to do, i'd like to see it. if its a complete screw-up, then, hey, people make mistakes - in that case you should apologise and keep cool. but refusing to accept you have been incompetent, and have broken wikipolicy left, right and centre, has probably already blown your chances in any future adminship bid i'm sorry to say.

The following comment was moved here in an attempt to keep the chronological order of comments in sequence. The comment was not indented, so I assume it was no a direct reply to anybody, in which case it belongs here chronologically. User:Purgatory Fubar, I as you not to move it again. Thankyou.82.3.64.139 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And the comments has again been moved by User:Purgatory Fubar (with edit summary "RVV"). I shall restore it as per my comment above. 82.3.64.139 21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And again Purgatory uses RVV in an edit dispute. Please read the italicised expln here before angrily screaming RVV and making edit summaries like this [60]. keep cool. 82.3.64.139 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory has now moved the text above this one for the fourth time. He has also failed to respond at all to the 15 specific points questioned above, and continues to protest that he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He appears to be grudgingly admitting treating an edit dispute as vandalism, using vandalproof inappropriately, using vandalism warnings inappropriately to intimidate an anon user, attempting to block a user as a vandal that he has been edit-warring with, breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, reverting and ignoring userpage discussion, but he refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions or offer any kind of apology. The question of whether his actions were mere incompetence, or maliciousness, remains open. The user has already been stripped of vandalprood privileges, has been warned about misuse of AIV, about removing redlinks, about issuing vandalism warnings for usertalk page edits, by other editors. Any future adminship bid has presumably also been scuppered by his actions here. His bitter comments here speak for themselves. I will now defer to administrators to take the appropriate course of action. Thankyou. 86.31.103.208 11:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory Fubar, Here's the guideline about removing warnings. See also full (=huge) discussion here. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

My bad, thanks for the heads up Bishonen. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, that means [this] was for nothing? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User Purgatory Fubar has now been blocked from editing wikipedia, by administrator User:AGK. As the block notice is likely to be removed by Purgatory after the 24 hours, as it reflects negatively on him, the diff may be found here [61]. Nevertheless it will remain permanently on his user block log. Reason for the block was repeated vandalism. Hopefully when he returns his attitude to the encylopedia will have improved, and he will be prepared to contribute contructively.

User Purgatory, please note that blocks are a period to reflect, an opportunity to show understanding and and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter be learned from. If you continue to refuse any responsibility for your disruptive actions to date, to apologise fully and frankly, or to show any humility, you will not only lose your vandalproof privileges, receive numerous warnings, be blocked, and further destroy any hopes of future adminship, but you will also be in severe danger of a long-term block. Bear that in mind. We have assumed incompetence on your part this time. That may not be the assumption a second time. 86.27.129.210 09:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading this complicated mess, it is of my opinion that the anonymous editor should receive the same block for edit warring. Let's not have Wikipedia be a double standard.

---

Actions explained (P.F indicates my reply)

REPOSTED FROM ABOVE

Let's take a walk. This was left by the annon (talking in the third voice fashion) at AmiDaniel VP Abuse.

• [62] - no explanation of random revert with vp given

VP does not allow for personal comment in the summary At least not that I am aware of.This delinking by annon is what started this. PF

you have failed to explain what the revert was for. vandalproof is for vandalism. can we assume, therefore, that you treated this edit ([63] my edit summary "undo some unnecessary linking") as vandalism ([64] your edit summary "Reverted edits by 86.31.156.253 (talk) to last revision (127941606) by LionheartX using VP") ? yes or no?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.64.139 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalproof is not just for reverting vandalism but test edits and GFE that are not considered helpful. P.F

comment: actually it was these edits ([65] [66]) you seemed to take objection to. a merge on the "Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets" page from the "Senior boots" page based on the merge discussion at Talk:Senior boots. i had no objection to your edits there, though your reverts were later undone by other users, but after that, you began to stalk the address that dared to merge something (from somebody else's request), and began reverting legitimate edits. regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as the were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. pleas explain why, therefore, you treated it as vandalism?

See this edit summary page to explain. P.F

• [67] user warning given with vp, despite no vandalism having occurred anywhere.

Test1 not vandal1 was given due to the delinking of legit link (wuxia) and (Hong Kong). At that point I was assuming good faith. PF

please expain how issuing a vandalism warning, using a vandalism tool, is assuming good faith. have you read WP:VPRF#Abuse? regarding "delinking legit links", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as they were already linked several lines above. i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?.

Test1 templet is NOT a vandalism warning. P.F

• [68] attempt to discuss issue on user's talk page ignored and reverted using vp

User being civil went out the door with this "attempt to discuss issue". PF

did i read that right? WP:CIVIL NEVER "goes out the door". if you have been ignoring it, i seriously doubt your judgement. See WP:KETTLE. and please explain what you found so offensive about the comment on your user talkpage that you decided to revert it without acknowledgement or reply?

If any one else read that in conjuction with your edit they would know that you are the one who I was talking about. P.F

• [69] same

again

Removing 3RR notice as there was no 3RR, I simply reverted delinking of valid links as per above. PF

• [70] again removing attempted user talk page discussion using vp

Removed personal attacks. PF

• [71] using vandalism reversion with vp to revert non-vandalism edit on another article

Rollback edit by annon no test or warning was given, and later Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) did the same. (revert speedy tag from notable article) P.F

• [72] when the other user clears *their* user talk page suddenly its vandalism and he uses vp to revert

See user page link below. P.F

• [73] he issues a "last warning" to the user with vp

to be fair let's see he whole user page F.P

• [74] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Rollback annon removal of a disambiguation. No warning was given. P.F

• [75] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Revert unexplained removal of image with false edit summary. P.F (Vandalism) and user page blanking Final warning given. P.F

• [76] attempt to "block" the user as a vandal (subsequently removed by administrators [77] and given warning by User:Ryan Postlethwaite [78])

No warning was given to me by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) See my above comment. P.F

• [79] removing valid warnings (abuse of vandalism templates) from user talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

• [80] - removing valid warnings from somebody else's talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

Update, annon is now moving my comment out of order of conversation. Even knowing full well that the comment was directed to another user as see here

Edit summary

Follow the evidence. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong venue, should be at RFC

In a discussion with mangojuice via my talk page, mango said that this should have been at RFC. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing of references

User:Tankred deleted a section from the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, under this: "A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002."

The incriminated section:

"Dusan Čaplovič, the vice-president of the Smer party, has called for the banning of singing the Hungarian national anthem in Catholic Churches, claiming that this is disloyal to Slovakia. Even Robert Fico, current prime minister and leader of the Smer party, has made controversial statements in this regard as well."

In reality, the references, as the whole section was NOT added by User:VinceB, whom the "banned user" refers to.

It was just moved from Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article, by infed banned User:VinceB. Into Anti-hungarian sentiment article, indef banned (for two month - LOL) User:Juro moved [81] from Slovakization article.

So in fact, this section was added into Slovakization article, as well as the refences, by User:Alphysikist [82].

The fisrt parto of deleting reason (A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002.) is obviously wrong then. About inaccuracy: as you see, the deleted section does not claim, what Tankred states. Section says, Caplovic was "vice-president of the Smer party". No "Caplovic was deputy minister" is written in that, nor dates, so "Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002." part of the deleting reason is an obvious misleading for the recent changes patrollers.

All in all

• It was fully added by another user, User:Alphysikist, not a banned one.
• The section does not claim that Caplovic was prime minister (or any similar). Nor mentioning 2002 or any date, and nor in that kind of a context, so it is, as deleting reason is an obvious misleading.
• Tankred claimed many times before, that he's not speaking Hungarian, but here, claimes the sources are inaccurate. Well, they're not. http://www.stars21.com/ - a good page or text translator. for en-hu-en.

Please, block him, this was the 7th time, he abused references. --195.56.28.249 00:18, 44 May 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing issue that needs to be resolved

It started here: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Wii Points doesn't need to be listed, a month ago. A short-lived poll by some users solved nothing (plus Wikipedia isn't a democracy, polls don't control content in articles). A few days ago I made this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Wii Points: (to list or to not list). To sum it up (if people don't want to read all of those mass discussions): two video game systems (Xbox 360 and Wii) have download services for games. The download prices are listed on several articles. Myself and others are against listing the prices, while another group of editors are for the prices staying in the articles. I really don't think Wikipedia should be used as a price guide, as there is plenty of other sites around that are used for that. RobJ1981 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles the prices are listed on: List of PlayStation Network games, Xbox Live Arcade, Wii Points, Virtual Console and List of Virtual Console games (all 4 regions listed on that page). Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide, due to prices for games being different. Prices are different for lots of things! It doesn't mean an online encyclopedia should be used for this content. RobJ1981 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prices change over time, this smacks of recentism. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not with online online products like this. A song released on iTunes 2 years ago is the same price it is now. TJ Spyke 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote a reliable source for that assertion you've just made? Carcharoth 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lose the prices and add guidance to what Wikipedia is not. Carcharoth 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just remove the prices right now, but I know people would just revert my edits. Can an admin resolve this and determine a solution? RobJ1981 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, so the editors involved need to sort it out. Admins only need to get involved when bad-faith editing is going on and an edit war is in progress. I've removed the prices on some of those articles and added my voice to those calling for the prices to be removed, so let's see what happens next. If discussion ensues and consensus is reached, fine. If not, well, then things will be a bit clearer. I left the Microsoft Points and Wii Points stuff alone, as though those are effectively prices as well, the articles on the credit systems are interesting. Still, quoting prices in 'points' is still recentism. Ultimately, they could all be removed as unsourced material. Ask those adding the prices to find reliable, stable references for the prices. My guess is there are none, because prices change. Carcharoth 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "short lived poll", the poll has been open for over a MONTH and Rob was the only one who objected. The Wii Points pages are sourced (look at the references section of List of Virtual Console games (North America), it has links to Nintendo/Hudson Soft/Sega's websites on VC games, all of which have prices). I especially object to remove the Japanese VC one since the prices are really varied. The prices are a vital part of the service (same with Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network), and are just as encyclopedic as the developer or ESRB rating. Does Rob want to have the ESRB rating removed just because most are rated E? TJ Spyke 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to quote some comments from that poll? Try this one on for size:

"It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue??"

I could advertise that poll widely and then we would really see how many people would !vote to remove the points listings. Anyway, talking about the poll misses the point. ESRB ratings and the name of the developers are quite different from giving the price of a game, even if the price is in Wii Points or Microsoft Points. The price of a product (be it a retail video game, a downloadable video game, a CD, a book, an item of clothing, or whatever) is a perfect example of ephemeral information that has no place on Wikipedia. In five years time, that pricing information will be useless and misleading. And before you suggest updating the price as it changes, or that the prices in 'points' will remain constant, that also misses the point. The key question you have to answer is why prices should be listed at all in the first place? There is nothing wrong with a short sentence saying that the games were sold using a 'points' system, rather than 'real' money, but listing the individual prices is close to being a form of advertising. I would ask anyone who has an opinion on this to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not a sales catalogue or price guide. Carcharoth 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ESRB and the other things are fine, so don't assume I just want the whole table gone, that's just rude. Prices aren't a vital part of the article: as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a price guide. TJ Spyke is the perfect example, on why this situation needs an admin to resolve it. TJ (along with most people that are for listing the prices) refuse to listen to how it violates policies, and keep bringing up a poll that was done in the past. RobJ1981 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policies exactly does this violate? -- MisterHand 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia is not an advertising service"? Where do you draw the line between giving (with sources) a manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), and opening Wikipedia to charges of advertising the price of a product? Carcharoth 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1)It's not advertising and 2)That's not a policy. Rob, the Wii Points price is just as vital as the developer or ESRB ratings. Also, there is no evidence the price of games wil change since that hasn't happened with Xbox Live Arcade games of iTunes songs. TJ Spyke 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) In what way is it not advertising?; (2) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically mentions advertising several times. It doesn't specifically mention prices, but that appears to be an omission. At the time that document was written, it was probably thought to be too obvious that lists of current prices are not an encyclopedic piece of information. In my opinion, prices are acceptable as either well-sourced and discussed historical information (eg. 1920s prices of Ford Model Ts), or as notable one-off prices (eg. an expensive diamond/artwork etc.), but you are defending an indiscriminate list and giving current prices for products on sale on the open market. This, if not advertising, is perilously close. One thing I am surprised at though is the lack of response from others. Does no one else reading this noticeboard agree with my views? I realise this is not the right place to debate this, which is why I have started the disscussion here. Again, I would urge the discussion to be continued over there. Carcharoth 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Merely listing prices (and in this case, the prices are not even in real world currency) does not constitute advertising. As I see it, there is no policy being violated here -- it's a content dispute, pure and simple. And to quote the top of this very page: "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." -- MisterHand 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking him to open a Wikipedia:Request for comment? Cbrown1023 talk 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I really? On all the editors that voted to keep the prices in that 'poll'? :-) Seriously, if I get enough consensus at WT:NOT, that should be good enough. I don't have a particular interest in video game pages, but I don't want to see them (or any other Wikipedia pages) suddenly starting to proliferate lists of prices. And to answer MisterHand directly, "the prices are not even in real world currency" - that doesn't matter at all. They are still prices! And you pay real money to buy Wii Points and Microsoft Points. Anyway, my position on all this (a bit more nuanced now than it was a few days ago, thanks to productive discussion over there, is found here. I hope to have a draft wording up soon for people to review and comment on. Carcharoth 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A RFC isn't needed, once that What Wikipedia is not addition is added (which I'm thinking will). Why should Wikipedia be a price guide, when there is many sites that do that already? It doesn't matter if its game prices, movie prices, car prices or anything: it's still not suitable for an encyclopedia... period. Once it does indeed pass, TJ Spyke and everyone else can't use that poll as an excuse anymore. Keep up the good work Carcharoth. RobJ1981 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – Please comment. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z continues to revert any updates to the following articles: Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces Command, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. Also his information is outdated, unsourced and he has done about 15 reverts in the three last days. He doesn't read any discussion post: here, here, here, here and here, but resorts to threats, insults and user page vandalism here. Some of his remarks to other editors:

on my (noclador) talkpage:

• "I will take further actions" Gon4z 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)
• "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

on user MrMacMan talkpage:

• "I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians" Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures." Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• "I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article." (unsigned, but once gain by Gon4z)

in the edit summary of Albanian Land Forces Command

• "I am clearly the only one here providing proof from my figures unlike you two whore are spreading bate propaganda"

My information is based on the following sources:

• The World Defence Almanac 2006, page 95, Mönch Publishing Group; Bonn 2006;
• The IISS Military Balance Report 2006- 2007, page 80, Routledge Publishing; 106 edition (May 24, 2006)
• SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Oxford University Press, June 2006.
• Centre for SouthEast European Studies: Albania’s Armed Forces- 2002 Data]
• Bonn International Center for Conversion
• Albanian Land Forces Command

All this is ignored by Gon4z, who bases his information on the same homepage he criticizes as "Greek anti Albanian website". Also the same kind of edit war and personal attacks is waged by him at the article Serbian Air Force, where he keeps reducing the number of active Serbian airplanes, substitutes the correct grammatical tense with the present tense, vandalises the syntax and tells a fellow editor: "this is the last time i will warn you get a profile because if not then your IP address will be suspended from editing any article" Gon4z 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, according to user MacGyverMagic Gon4z is a “editor who has a history of vandalism, POV and unsourced edits.” comment can be found here.

As Gon4z in continuous violation and a repeat offender of the following Wikipedia rules:

• Unsourced material
• Vandalism
• Three revert rule
• Edit warring and
• Personal attacks against at least three fellow editors

I strongly urge to block him for an extended period of time. noclador 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I am not involved in this issue with this user and today I reported the editor to the Admin 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:24h.29 which resulted in his/her 24 hour block. I have really tried to get this editor to explain his reverts and his rational for using his older sources and his actual, apparent lack of sources. I think that this user has disregarded the newer and better sources put before him and has completely ignored all information not coming from his own older sources. When bringing up this newer information he ignores us and makes accusations that I'm biased or using other information that he says is biased (which I wasn't using anyway). I don't understand why he insists without explaining his reasoning so I have to conclude he is not acting in good faith. If this user was explaining his rational for reverting the changes this would be a content dispute but his disregard on this dispute and instead he's been very unresponsive to any comments that have been made to him. I would also say that his blocking period be expanded. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought this out of the archive because no one ever addressed the issue Noclador brought up for discussion. I would like to see someone else look over this users edits and tell us what action or their opinion is. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not excessively optimistic in that regard. I've previously reported Gun4z twice on this page for exactly the same reason and in both cases nothing happened. As I said back then, Gun4z's incivility doesn't seem to confined only to his dealings with Noclador, but also to other users. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's horrible. While is why I hope to get some response about this user here and so it doesn't get archived again. MrMacMan ^Talk 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to when he posted this and no one made any comments about it -- it sits in the archive uncommented upon. MrMacMan ^Talk 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The first post got the same fate. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez I didn't even think to search that far back for another incident. Wow. Can someone please notice this Incident report(s) now? MrMacMan ^Talk 09:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the Rules I'm going to completely abuse the system here and plead at the bottom of this page where apparently people are being much more helpful. I will now use a section break to separate my, Valentinian and noclador's messages from 3rd party editors who are not involved with this editor. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

User:RMc update

See my archived report. He just removed my last notice from his talk page. This is not the action of someone committed to getting along with others. Daniel Case 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Misbehavior continues. This time he removed both the original discussion and the {{blankown}} warning from his talk page. Daniel Case 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, folks, I'm getting a little tired of snooty little Danny Case ordering me about and then crying to daddy. I let him have his way on South Blooming Grove and Michigan Corners, New York, but, no, that's not enough...apparently, his little feelings are bruised. Here's an idea: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP HARASSING ME. And it's called a life...get one. RMc 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia community and its collegiality are injured by your actions. They demand satisfaction, given that you have already been blocked for this behavior once before. If you want to engage in personal attacks on this page, you've earned whatever happens next. Daniel Case 17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "Wikipedia community" isn't as thin-skinned as you are, ace. Good grief. Won't somebody please get Case off my daniel...? RMc 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Users with truly thick skins don't try to cover up their past misdeeds as much as you seem to. Wikipedia is not, in any event, about who can shout the loudest or out-revert the other person. There are plenty of other websites for that. If you continue to treat WP:NPA and WP:CIV as if they only apply to other people, I will continue to press this. I have, in fact, contacted some of the same admins and users you dealt with before to look at this situation. Daniel Case 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good gravy, man...do you ever read your own posts? "Misbehaviour continues"..."collegiality injured"..."demand satisfaction"...come on. You're doing a perfect impersonation of a pompous, braying jackass. If anyone's violating NPA and CIV (not to mention "don't make threats" and "don't be a dick") it's you, not me. Chill out. Please. RMc 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, he's not obligated to keep your comments on his talk page if he doesn't want them there. It's not necessarily polite to remove talk messages without archiving, but it's not against the rules, and everything will remain in the page history anyway if people need to find it later. I also have to say as a third-party observer that Daniel's attitude here seems to be more confrontational than might strictly be necessary, under the circumstances. I suggest that you both let it drop, and just go about your business, though you're free to take or leave that advice as you see fit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to let this drop if Mr. Case is. [/olive branch] RMc 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, this is the first time RMc has been willing to climb down and stop being confrontational. Live and let live. Daniel Case 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* Had to get one last shot in, eh? Whatever. RMc 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring and actively sabotaging by deleting links that are found on Scientology related pages

The pages that so far have been sabotaged: Golden Age of Tech, Patter drill, Scientology controversy, Rundown (Scientology), Fair Game (Scientology), Study Tech, Mary Sue Hubbard, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, Scientology: A History of Man, Xenu, Disconnection. The history pages of these will fold out that which is deleted and will also tell the reason they give for removing them. For the first 4 pages listed in the above the argument has been forwarded that these discuss New World Order theories, which is an erroneous and absurd claim when one consults these pages where these external links lead to. On his talkpage user Tilman writes: "I see the words "new world order" on the page, THAT is enough to put this in a fringe corner."

On user Tilman's talkpage one can read that both user Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring to remove a variety of external links and referencing from Scientology pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tilman#Reverting_valid_links A few quotations: "These Snoeck pages should be pulled from other articles' link sections as well. wikipediatrix 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" & "I know there's a script for this somewhere. I want to run for the "Debernification Project Force" (getting rid of links to the anonymous "Bernie" page) --Tilman 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" (please consult the supplied link for various data about their position on this)

Noted is that both these persons are antagonistic towards Scientology and intend and are removing links that directs to information that may oppose to their personal ideas and convictions, or sites that provide for objective studies. It can be clearly seen on various of these altered pages that socalled critical 'personal' sites are left intact. See for example page Fair Game (Scientology), section 'Critical sites' is left intact. Section 'Other studies' is however deleted. On page Altered texts in Scientology doctrine we see that user Wikipediatrix left various external links to personal sites intact, why were these not deleted together with the others? The same we can see on page Xenu that lists a long list to critical 'personal' sites that is left fully intact. In particular the links and the referencing that lead to Bernie's site, and Michael Snoeck's site have ALL been systematically removed from these pages. Both these sites represent independent studies attempting to be fair and objective about matters. These are about the only sites around that attempt to view matters from various angles and give an abundance of referencing. Neither of these sites make in particular a case in favour or against the Church of Scientology. They represent studies. The argumentation from user Wikipediatrix that they are blogs is erroneous as they are studies (see definition of Blog). Both these sites (esp. the Snoeck site) provide for unique material and research not found or available anywhere else. Is this a personal vendetta of Wikipediatrix against in particular these 2 sites? Wikipediatrix is highly invalidative in particular to the Snoeck site.

The Wiki rule for these is Wikipedia:External links: "When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article."

Please can any administrator have a look into this rather serious matter! I also would propose an investigation into these 2 users as to their intent and approach, and to establish if these oppose the aims of Wikipedia. --Olberon 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for the administrators would you please post the external links in question here? Anynobody 11:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Both the Bernie's as well as the Snoeck's site are fairly large. The main index of these sites are respectively found here http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm & http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/INTRO.html#popup. From there you can find the various pages that have been linked to from the respective Wiki pages (all listed at top of report). --Olberon 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for an administrator, but these look like personal opinion sites that don't cite sources for the most part (and when they do it's not a verifiable source because it's an argument between unknown users on an internet forum. Anynobody 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am astonished by the utter ignorance of this evaluation. The Snoeck site provides for a tremendous amount of source materials and documentation. This is just absurd. Nothing happened because of my report and no one gives a damn anyway about this. I fear that Wiki most certainly has no future.

The rule seriously violated is:

"When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article."

But who cares about that? No one as it appears! The serious people around have no interest to play these silly Wiki battles with illiterate individuals. No article is ever safe!! --Olberon 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know it can be frustrating at times, but personal sites such as the ones you've linked to aren't good sources for Wikipedia. Those links seem to fail most -- if not all -- of WP:RS. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Olberon's edit history suggests something rather the opposite from his accusations: namely, Olberon is pushing links to these sites on the pages in question, and he does not like it when other Wikipedians remove those links for the reasons already stated. --Modemac 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Olberon you probably want to know why your link is not verifiable or reliable and something like Ron the "War Hero" is. The answer is in the link, it has lots of verifiable references. The site you mentioned makes assertions, which right or wrong, are not referenced. This means we as the reader have to either take the author's word for it that the site is factual, or assume they are his opinions. Neither option works with the mentioned policy and guideline. Anynobody 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, the fact that that particular non-notable article has lots of references to make its POV case does not make the site a reliable intermediate source. Material may be hosted on intermediate sources and could be used for creating articles if (big IF) the intermediate is non-biased and has itself a reputation for fact-checking. So a University site may be alright but some wildly POV anti-Scientology attack site cannot be an intermediate source. We, as editors, can use that biased site to save us the trouble of locating material only to the extent that we then actually find and read the source and reference that. To do less is just lazy. --Justanother 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is fully ignored here what user Tilman and Wikipediatrix have been doing, their claims, their arguments, their behaviour etc.. It is also fully ignored that in fact these Scientology articles REMAIN TO LINK TO A WHOLE VARIETY OF CRITICAL 'PERSONAL' SITES!!! Instead I am attacked by user Modemac whose own opinion and track of posting in regards to Scientology is documented on his contributions and talkpage. I for sure am amongst illiterates that run a propaganda of their personal likes and dislikes.--Olberon 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Olberon just lost whatever credibility he had here -- and he did it all by himself. --Modemac 14:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olberon you honestly haven't been ignored, you're being disagreed with. I know it's not what you wanted to hear, but accusing editors who have responded of ignoring you is not the best way to attract an administrator.

Ironically enough Justanother, I addressed your concerns about WP:NPOV elsewhere on hereYou admired the box I put it in. Anynobody 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lilkunta, block request

Lilkunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm requesting that an admin indefinitely block this user for repeated WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP, WP:USER violations, as well as failure to discontinuing to use HTML mark up on talk pages (and even a request to discontinue it as well. This user's idea of dealing with such warnings is to claim that the user is vandalizing their page, stalking her, and the blanking the warnings. She has been blocked twice now for such actions, and has continued her incivility and has refused to remove her comment about the Virginia Tech massacre, and continues to use inappropriate HTML font tags. Here are some examples of warnings that she has received:

• [83]
• [84]
• [85]
• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]
• [93]

She has proven that she will not follow policies, and when warned, she becomes incivil and makes wild accusations. Please consider either an indefinite or a long term block for the repeated violations. Thank you. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. There are some trouble users that nothing short of indeffing will cure. Any good contribs Lilkunta makes are overshadowed by their inability to discuss. ~Crazytales 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section title to be shorter. Still awaiting input from an admin. ^ReviewCASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an indef block is in order here. I saw the whole color on the talk page thing awhile ago and how reluctant the user was to even speak to other editors about it other than she should be allowed to. After reviewing the case further I have decided to block the user indefinitely to prevent further disruption. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked indefinitely: resolved. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ gone rogue

Admin AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just went rouge, blocking Ryulong and deleting the main page. A couple people and I are in the stewards channel working to get him desysopped. Sean William 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Eagle 101's deletion of the main page was an accident and in good faith. Sean William 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean, that's rogue not rouge. There's nothing wrong with Rouge admins. Rogue admins on the other hand... WjBscribe 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He's already been desysopped I think. I do believe I saw User:Drini over at meta change group membership for User:AndyZ from sysop to (none). --24.44.158.33 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, to be precise he was desysopped at 1:37 UTC. That's about 10 minutes ago and three minutes before you posted here. --24.44.158.33 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For explanation, his first edit summary was, "My password is password!". Tell me it's not true.. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was. It seems the account was compromised. Sean William 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, I thought that the devs indefinitely blocked every user account with weak passwords. (Or maybe that was just where the password=username.) --Iamunknown 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Since another admin logged in, changed the password and unregistered the mail address, I am guessing it was true. Now I wonder how long it took this vandal to guess the password. A dictionary attack maybe, although MediaWiki should have a protection against such attempts. -- ReyBrujo 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "fortunately" he blocked an admin and deleted the home page, things could have been much, much worse. -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's Robdurbar (talk · contribs), who happened to go on a wikibreak at the same time as Andy, and went on a similar rampage last month. -- tariqabjotu 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Wikipedia:List of administrators, added to Wikipedia:Former administrators. Picaroon (Talk) 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh - Sorry about the confusion, I intended to delete and restore the page back to the original state, problem is my broswer froze. I did the action in thinking that there was edit history missing, and that needed to be restored, frankly it went so fast that I did not think that a simple "go to history, restore revisions" would work. Again sorry for the mistake on my part. My account is not comprimsed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Full credit for keeping a look out and doing your best to act in our interests. Mistakes are easily made. The important thing is that (again) the damage from a sysop account used to attack the Wiki was minimal. WjBscribe 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2 questions, is a checkuser in order to check if the account was compromised, secondally, is anyone in contact with AndyZ to see what happened? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mark Ryan has already e-mailed Andy and that Dmcdevit is currently working on the CU. Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the clarification. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that is correct. Things are moving a mile a minute at #wikipedia-en-admins. Sean William 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still have no idea how I'd go about getting access to that channel - I'm pretty much a luddite as far as IRC is concerned :-). WjBscribe 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I can determine from the CheckUser evidence. AndyZ (talk · contribs) had two logged actions, one on each of two IPs. The first, deletion of the main page at 01:32, May 7, 2007, was using the Tor proxy 88.198.175.78. At 01:33, BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs), on IP 24.185.34.152 (which appears not to be an open proxy; it's the only IP he has used for hundreds of edits over the last month) makes an edit creating the main page [94] (the diff is misleading, since the history was restored after it). One minute later, 01:34, AndyZ's second action, the block of Ryulong, was also on the same IP as BuickCenturyDriver: 24.185.34.152. The conclusion is that AndyZ's two admin actions were done by the same person as BuickCenturyDriver. What I can't determine is whether BuickCenturyDriver hijacked the AndyZ account, or whether both are AndyZ, since all of AndyZ's older accounts are too old. We should compare their editing and see if there are any clues as to whether they are the same or different. There does not seem to be any connection to Wonderfool/Robdurbar here. Dmcdevit·t 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disbelieve that BuickCenturyDriver is behind this. He is a very good editor in standing, who would probably be the last person on my mind to delete the main page and block an admin. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is unexpected. Then again, who would have thought that Robdurbar (talk · contribs) would have done those things... WjBscribe 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the only thing we can look for is any behavior simularities. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, maybe his account was comprimised? Is thereany way of working this out from checkuser? Was it his usual IP? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BuickCenturyDriver's IP is not compromised. It is the only IP he has been on for months. Someone needs to look at the two accounts. Do they have similar edit histories and interests? Similar quirks? And importantly, has AndyZ ever revealed where he lives before, because we don't have any of the IP evidence from before his wikibreak, so I can't tell if his account was compromised, or if he is BuickCenturyDriver. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar behavior? How about the fact that Buick just happened to be the first person to put something on the Main Page after Andy deleted it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why Andy would not have just created the page on his own account. -- tariqabjotu 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, either Buick's account was compromised, or it was him all along, Andy and Buick on the same IP, sorry, but that too much of a coincidence. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If Buick was using that same IP for months, then yeah, that's hard to refute. My question is, what IPs was AndyZ editing from previously? If we could find those, maybe we could figure out if the account was compromised or not. Either way though, Buick is looking pretty guilty. Grandmasterka 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was just the main page, I could AGF. But not with the other things that have happened. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC) and I changed the heading

Buick appears to be currently in charge of his account (per his unblock request), and checkuser says he is editing from his usual IP, which appears to have been static for months. The only credible explanations are either Buick hijacked AndyZ's account, or is AndyZ. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just declined an unblock on User talk:24.185.34.152 until this is all sorted out... — Scientizzle 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may have simply been a mistake. People screw up, using open proxies but then connecting sock accounts by accidentally editing with the same proxy for multiple accounts, all the time. Dmcdevit·t 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need is, buick and andys normal IP whois reports - then it might be obvious. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Andy's from New Jersey. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Buicks from New york, are they near each other?? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Optimum Online (which is what the IPs are from) is a large north-eastern ISP with a large range of dynamic IPs. The IPs will probably geolocate to random locations, anyway. Sean William 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But Buicks appeared static didn't it? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple contrib checking on the IP shows that Buick was the only one to have any noticable edits from that IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we publish CheckUser evidence?? RxS 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's frequently necessary for investigations and blocking IPs. All IPs are logged and usually out the IPs of the intended vandal. The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Frequently, when's the last time Checkuser evidence was made public?? Investigations within checkusers certainly, but at ANI? And wasn't the incident over when the info was added here, how is that a suicide pact? RxS 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree here with RxS. There was no need to publish the static ip. However, everyone makes mistakes. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. All IP blocks are logged publicly, and that is unavoidable. The information is important for the investigation. Think of most banned users who have used sockpuppets: their IPs are outed, and rightly so, because this is the only way admins can deal with them. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

God how I hate the drama that comes with any use of Checkuser on any established contributor. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just the drama of John254. —Centrx→talk • 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He tipped his own IP address right here so what is the problem? IrishGuy ^talk 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

if it makes anyone feel better, it seems to be a dynamic IP, as the user came on IRC with a different IP address. hombre de haha 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Interesting. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the privacy policy does explicitly say that the information may be released "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers". In addition, the IP is clearly that of a large ISP and is not personally identifiable "where they're one of millions of users" and is "unlikely to be personally identifiable". —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done a separate CheckUser which confirms, without any reasonable doubt, that BuickCenturyDriver edited using AndyZ's account. I don't know if they have always been the same editor, but they certainly are now. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather belated and unnecessary, but editing times indicate that sockpuppetry was possible. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I was asked to do a second CheckUser, and I did so. What do you mean by "sockpuppetry was possible"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean I'm inherently distrustful of anything that I can't see the raw evidence for, so I make sure that the results of the Checkuser were possible. The checkuser still definitely confirms it. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out what happened, and I'm terribly sorry (definitely learned something). Normally my passwords aren't this stupid, but keeping track of various passwords does get quite annoying, and having my WP account hacked was one of the hacks I was least expectant of. Also funny, my IP address has always been 71.something; it never was 24.anything. By the way, I have never interacted with User:BuickCenturyDriver before. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up (after going through pages of discussion on this), I also strongly disbelieve that User:BuickCenturyDriver was involved (with all evidence being coincidences); and that my account was hacked by somebody taking advantage of my terribly weak password (same for the other ~3 hacked admin accounts). Definitely not a sock/meat/etc.puppet with BCD, as Ryan noted above I'm from NJ (see WP:NJ). I concur with most of the discussion around here, esp. those regarding weak passwords. Sorry for having caused [even if indirectly] this mess. After I get a complete hold upon this situation, I'll apply (can't think of better terminology?) for an unblock, and I'll leave my adminship position up to the decision of the community. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on

Wait a second... I got blocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel honoured. He chose you above all others... :-). WjBscribe 03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep. Right after the main page was deleted. Sean William 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider

Right, I've just looked at Buicks contrib list -[95], he makes an edit after nearly a day off, 20 minutes before andy deleted the main page [96], 1 minute after the main page was deleted (and after a 20 minutre break), buick creates the main page stating where is the main page, another minute ater, Ryulong is blocked under AndyZ's name but on Buicks IP. Buick has also stated on his talk [97] that he doesn't have a weak password. I'm struggling to assume good faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to assume good faith too, but unless there is a bug in the log system, or he is sharing the ip with someone else, recreating the page and blocking with the same IP passes the duck test. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right Reybrujo, the fact that he made the first edit after it was deleted is just something else to consider, the fact that the block occurred with his IP address is the hard evidence. I am thinking that is difficult to occur, unless there is a known glitch that causes some kind of false logging of actions and associated IP addresses. hombre de haha 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, maybe a year or so ago, there was a weird quirk with Wikipedia's proxy network that allowed spoofed addresses to appear in the logs, but the real address was still available in the proxy logs. And, IIRC, the devs plugged the hole back then. It might be a good idea to ask them to check for a regression, just to rule out the possibility that Buick's Pc wasn't actually involved. --71.162.93.43 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

MARMOT got banned for spoofing addresses to impersonate other editors. I'm sure it's been fixed since then. — MichaelLinnear 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if he didn't delete the main page with it, it seems possible that Buick saw the deletion summary ("my password is password"), and took advantage of it. Seems crazy unlikely that he didn't do the block, unless there's some technical glitch. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems unlikely; we'd have two rogue editors, one coming back only to delete the main page, and the other only to block. The evidence is overwhelming, but I'm just curious: Did Buick ever have any disputes with Ryulong? Grandmasterka 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember hte time when an admin accidentally deleted the Main Page. It was restored, but without protection, and an anonymous user managed to hit twice before protection was reinstated. It isn't unheard of, though CU evidence > likely coincidence. hbdragon88 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm struggling to assume good faith. " Me too. Well, user got into irc a couple of minutes after the incident, playing the "I'm not technically savvy, I onlyu know how to use a browser" attitude... and eventually he ended up assuring us he had just switched IPs using the ipconfig DOS command (I wonder how much people know it exists let alone use it properly) to get out of the "bad IP". -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can switch IPs? Viridae^Talk 04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DHCP Release, then Renew. That is, drop the DHCP lease, and then ask the ISP for a new one. With most ISPs, excluding the few with static IPs, this will do it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Woudln't "ipconfig /renew" be?. Ues Crustacean, but he specifically said he used ipconfig. Moreover, when someone suggested the possibility of his computer being rooted, the technically unsavvy user said

<BuickCenturyDriv>	It's not rootes
Used a proxy-checker I have no malware Please, I promise no bad will come from me

So... talking about ipconfig, proxies, etc, doesn't really makes me think of an unsavvy user, rather a cracker wannabe playing the dumb card. By the way, did we mention that he knows how to use TOR? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Drini summarizes it very well. A pity we lose an apparent good contributor, though, for a one-time mistake (I will assume good faith and think some cracker through TOR breaks into AndyZ's account and deletes the main page (32'), BCD discovers the fact and creates a temporary main page (33'), reads the edit summary and notices the password of AndyZ account, logs into it and blocks Ryulong (34')). -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that the two users were sharing an IP address at the time. Both pieces of evidence are circumstantial on their own, but when put together... --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that AndyZ no longer has admin powers, isn't an indefblock a bit harsh? hbdragon88 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounts that have been compromised are always indefinitely blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page protection once deleted

When the Main Page was deleted today it was recreated and edited by 7 IPs and 3 registered users in the two minutes before it was protected. Am I correct in assuming that adding the Main Page to the protected titles list may prevent this from happening the next time the page gets deleted? If so, are there other pages we want to protect from recreation by non-admins should they get deleted? NoSeptember 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but you'd need to get rid of the big "DELETE" button.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:PT can only protect non-existent pages. If the page exists, it'll be equivalant to full-protect, which doesn't work if the page is deleted via "the big red shiny button", as Ryulong stated. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was tried by several admins after the last 'problem' and the main page can't be protected with cascading protection from WP:PT. -- Nick ^t 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can still transclude the page and protect it, which is how I believe the protected titles pages works. I'll play around with the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding protection? Ryulong... If that works, then anyone can salt articles... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a "bug" that came about with cascading protection. If you transclude a non-existant title onto a page that has cascading protection, that page is protected from creation. That is how the protected titles pages work, however one needs to actualy edit a page that has had cascading protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I see how it works now... So every page that is linked to a cascading-protected enabled page has full protection? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Only pages that are transcluded like templates. If {{cookie}} was on the page, Template:Cookie would be protected from creation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately designed the {{protected title}} template to only protect nonexistent pages, but this is an artificial limitation. To protect the main page against re-creation/editing by a non-sysop, we need only transclude it by placing the code {{:Main Page}} on a page with cascading protection enabled. Note, however, that anyone with malicious intent and access to a sysop account could simply remove the transclusion or delete that page when deleting the main page itself. And of course, such an individual could just as easily...well, I'll refrain from finishing that sentence (for fear of invoking WP:BEANS), but let's just say that there are worse things that this would do nothing to prevent. —David Levy 12:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. A rogue admin is likely going for the bang per buck in rogue actions given their limited time to act. I doubt finessing an extra minute of unprotection of the Main Page has sufficient "bang" value to make that extra step worthwhile to them. So this little extra protection may just be worth doing. NoSeptember 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially if it's transcluded on, say, five or ten cascading-protected pages instead of just one. —Cryptic 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into specifics, my concern is that this would encourage a rogue admin (or a hijacker of an admin's account) to do something worse than simply deleting the main page. If this were to occur, the cascading protection might actually work against us. —David Levy 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what you're thinking, and I agree. Cascading protecting the main page wouldn't accomplish enough to remove the risk. --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins with obvious passwords

If there are any remaining admins stupid enough to have obvious passwords, perhaps we should write a script to locate them and send a list to meta for them to be summarily desysopped on security grounds. This isn't funny. --Tony Sidaway 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate precaution, perhaps, but I'm not sure how much it'd accomplish. I'm not convinced these accounts sit around for ages with obvious passwords and then do stupid things. I think it's likely that the passwords are being changed shortly before the rogue activities. --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your suggestion could be done, Tony. If we can program a script to find obvious passwords, a hacker would have done it before us and compromised the security already.... If we could do it, so can they. Unless, we actually base the script in Mediawiki software, which could be potentially hazardous if something goes wrong... --Kzrulzuall 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because we know that this can be done that we should ensure that we do it first. The Mediawiki software should stop people using stupid password, that goes without saying. --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly a past review did reveal several admin account with blank passwords whilst they were still allowed. --pgk 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the Wikipedia Signpost story on disabling of blank passwords. Graham87 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious or not, all passwords are still vunerable to (censored by the Cabal) attacks. AmiDaniel suggested something similar to a captcha on bugzilla (here) to prevent attacks like that. Sean William 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... did we just get another one? – Riana_ऋ 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell just happened to Jiang? He's been blocked indefinitely now for deleting the Main Page and blocking Jimbo. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, another one went batshit insane. Desysopped in 4 minutes thanks to Cyde and a steward. Sean William 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there's some Star Trekesque Admin psychosis going on. Aside from the obvious guess that it's a concerted effort to compromise admin accounts, is it possible that these are all sleepers? A concerted effort to infiltrate through socked RFAs? Anchoress 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

pretty doubtful - Jiang had an 5 year old account and had over 32,000 edits (placing him 62 on the list of contributors) - straight forward account hacking I think. --Fredrick day 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiang reports that his hacked password was "fuckyou". NoSeptember 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see something simple like a how-to on how to make a good password when users first start an account. I don't think we have it. And I'd suggest that all admins change their password immediately. Letters AND numbers if possible. And longer the better. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed security policy

See Wikipedia:Security.

Please edit and discuss. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide [some] protection to Main Page

While I'm not too familiar with CSS and all that, would it be possible to hide the "Delete" link from admins on the Main page using CSS (like we hide the Main Page heading)? While this wouldn't prevent deletion of the main page, it would at least take longer to do so and may deter those unfamilar with MediaWiki. Unless we want the Main Page to be the obvious target as its easier to notice if its gone. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Seem like all you'd have to do is enable "edit on double-click" and get to the edit page where the "delete" tab would be visible again. John Reaves (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On Robdurbar

Has the checkuserable info for Robdurbar (talk · contribs)'s last edits gone stale? Is it possible to assess whether that vandalism spree was a test run for the current rampage? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that it would seem unlikely, since User:Robdurbar's vandalism was a lot more damaging that that of my hacked account. If we were both hacked (assuming that Robdurbar's account was also hacked), then since mine was hacked second it would make sense that the vandalism would surpass one block and one deletion of the Main Page. Of course, I'm just starting to piece together what's happening, so don't take my word for it. APR _t (User:AndyZ's semi-bot account) 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Checkuser on Robdurbar, by the way. If there is a link between the hijacking of Robdurbar's admin-enabled account and today's desysoppings, someone might want to look into the confirmed accounts listed in that Checkuser... Aecis^Brievenbus 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Like other sites, should we have one's account lock for a while after 3 incorrect attempts to log in? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The maliciously-minded could use that to lock out every administrator at once, so that's not a good idea. Don't forget that our usernames are on display every time we make an edit. -- ChrisO 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand blocking an IP for a few hours after a number of unsuccessful attempts to login might be helpful Alex Bakharev 08:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Duck test used at checkusers

I think, this is one of the worst things, that can be used for proving sockpuppetry. Why? If two ppl are saying the same, then they can be banned as sockpuppets. This bans opinions, not disruptive editors !!! Sockpuppet is what a checkuser proved, that it has the same IP as an other registered user. --193.224.247.34 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if the checkusers were all idiots, maybe it would do that. But they aren't. When they say "duck test" they mean "it's the same pattern as his last 600 sockpuppets, just block him and don't waste our time with formalities". --tjstrf talk 06:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is easier for Wikipedia that we do not differentiate between users who are in fact the same person or have been acting like another person. This is the definition of "meatpuppet"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If a guy has a moustache, like Stalin, same height as Stalin, and even he's Russian, then Stalin is the one, who's editing? --193.224.247.34 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And if a vandal is smart enough to use only public IP addresses, then the only way to decide that some other user is his sock-puppet is using the duck test. Od Mishehu 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Duck test has a logical fallacy in it, called ignoratio elenchi. And it is a serious problem. --193.224.247.34 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the checkusers are not idiots. And if you are acting exactly like a guy who is banned for sockpuppetry, then you deserve to be summarily blocked anyway. --tjstrf talk 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone's Russian, has a moustache, was born in the 1870s, and wants to give the proletariat power, then he's Stalin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone's Russian, they can't be Stalin Zocky | picture popups 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I've blocked the IP utilizing the duck test that if he's complaining about being subject to the duck test through checkuser, he must be someone blocked as the result of a checkuser.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Do people seriously not think we'll be suspicious when they make what is supposedly their first real edit to AN/I? They might as well just start their posts "Hello, I am a blocked user and would like to complain about you all..." Now if he were posting at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, then maybe I'd be more inclined to believe his story about his "friend". --tjstrf talk 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Oh the irony" you just proved him right, the above ip address has been blocked for the crime of editing here. PS i'm complaining about the duck test therefore i MUST be a banned user? If not what EVIDENCE do you have for blocking this annon.Hypnosadist 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody was proved right! We should semi-protect or say "New users or anons complaining about processes used to prevent sock puppetry or vandalism will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 1 week!" in big red letters on the top of page. :P Funpika 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the duck test works, but you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet. Block 'em all anyway. Moreschi ^Talk 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, in my understanding, checkuser are using hard evidences to prove that a user is a sockpuppet or not. Obvious socks are (normally) not handled by WP:RFCU but by WP:ANI or WP:SUSPSOCK. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Block 'em all anyway" Says it all really, fine you've still banned a user for the crime of posting on here, no "hard evidences" were given just asumptions. When the anon requested unblock the second admin said they did not have enough good faith in the anon to un-block but still no evidence that this anon was a sockpuppet as claimed.

Once no evidence is needed to hand out one week long blocks just "i believe its a sockpuppet" (remember they don't know which user it is ment to be) then this is open to massive abuse. Just a warning!Hypnosadist 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the IP belongs to the banned User:VinceB. They have the same location (Budapest, Hungary), the IP has edited an article about VinceB's school[98] and this thread was created after VinceB's most recent sockpuppets User:Pannonia and User:Odbhss were blocked indef.[99] Tankred 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the evidence of his sockpuppetry Tankred.Hypnosadist 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that evidence to be a lot less solid than it looks if you scratch the surface a bit. The duck test more or less works in that case, and Moreschi's observation above may also be right (i.e., that these guys are "meatpuppets"). However, I fail to see how this justifies "block'em all": the original offender was blocked for his behaviour (policy violations), so if any new guy – even if it turns out he was asked by VinceB to come here and promote the same views – does abide by the policies, blocking them is a violation of WP:BITE rather than anything else. I think the IP is actually right about this point (even if it's Vince, which is pretty plausible even though there are hundreds of thousands of IPs in Budapest – tens of thousands at the ISP owning this particular range – and several thousand students in this particular school). KissL 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't commenting on this specific case - about which I know nothing - I was just making a general comment about socks, meats, ducks, and checkuser. Apologies for the confusion. Moreschi ^Talk 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understood you well, Kissl, there are thousands of students in VinceB particular school in Budapest and one of them, just by coincidence, found WP:ANI and complained about a duck test just after another innocent Hungarian newbie was blocked. By coincidence, the style of his/her complaint was extremely similar o VinceB's style (bolding, several exclamation marks, silly historical metaphors, citing logical fallacies). I am sorry, I cannot buy it. Tankred 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... You haven't understood me well, I'm afraid. Look what I've bolded above. KissL 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The duck test basically means it's so self-evident that it's not necessary to run a checkuser. From what I know of checkuser, it's not a magic button that you hit and a screen comes up saying "X is a sock of Y!", and it takes a lot of work to run one. There are a lot of obvious cases we don't need to waste a checkuser's time with, and that will let them concentrate on cases where it really is needed. As to VinceB and company specifically, Odbhss contacted me by email, and after talking to him, I see no reason to change my mind. He's a sock, a meatpuppet, or is so close in behavior to someone who ended up banned to make no difference. As for any sock cases, I've never relied solely on a checkuser saying it's a duck test, you have to examine it yourself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with 2-3 SSP cases to try to informally mediate. In short, I tried to gain consensus between the alleged sock and the user initiating the SSP complaint. So far, the informally mediated consensus has held up for a few weeks. While I am not commenting specifically on the editors mentioned above, I consider that some alleged sock cases may be resolved by allowing discussion instead of trying to shut up the alleged sock. If the alleged sock is shut up (blocked), this can escalate problems for wikipedia. I must add that it is possible for administrators (and has happened, though I'm too busy to gather diffs unless there is a formal arbitration complaint) to game the system by "This bans opinions, not disruptive editors !!!" as the original complainer noted. Note: this comment should not be considered support for extreme POV editing or vandalism. I've personally reverted enough vandalism.VK35 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've done quite a few sock cases, and I have never once issued a block solely due to different accounts sharing the same opinion. On a project this size, it is almost inevitable that more than one editor will share a given opinion. I'm not going to spill the beans as to how socks generally do reveal themselves, but they tend to do so far more conclusively than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep² (talk · contribs) - major WP:DISRUPT, trolling, and personal attacks

I'm starting to get tired of Eep² (talk · contribs). This user has a history of personal attacks including referring to admins and other users as "wiktators" ([100], [101], [102], [103], [104]), as well as trolling deletion discussions such as the Bob Dobbs DRV and the MFD on his user page ([105], [106]). The user has also made some clear WP:DISRUPT moves, such as creating Wiktator (which I deleted per G10), User:Eep²/eep (now deleted) and User:Eep²/Cathy O'Brien shortly after their respective XFDs opened (despite the fact that the latter will likely be kept); as well as Template:Userbox-wiktators-suck, which I deleted as G10 and T1 although a substed version is on his user page.

I left the user warnings for incivility and trolling, and a final warning after I deleted the userbox. He proceeded to respond with more incivility. I'm posting this here because I've been involved in trying to deal with this user and shouldn't block him myself, but it's a good case for a long-term or indefinite block, in my opinion. --Coredesat 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Can't disagree; I remember him from the deletion debate of Eep a while back, he was pretty tiresome back then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eep (7th nomination) Guy (Help!) 08:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• I also noticed a bit of recent edit warring where they were trying to slap "voting icons" all over deletion discussions, like this one, and this one. It's tough to believe they're not being intentionally disruptive at this point. WarpstarRider 10:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep underway. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note here to say that the WP:DISRUPT shortcut used here is very confusing. I'd expect it to point to our Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, not the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline. Disruption of Wikipedia is always a bad problem. Doing so to make a point is seductive, and the guideline simply emphasizes that such disruption isn't excused by the wish to make a point.

But this serves to underline the importance of using English as much as possible when writing on Wikipedia. If we want people to understand what we're saying (and if we don't, we shouldn't be editing) then we should try to communicate as clearly as possible. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Eep^2 blocked a while back? I seem to remmeber a Long Term Abuse section on him. ~Crazytales 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I say just go ahead and block. Unless this user has some seriously awesome contributions to the encyclopedia that I'm just not seeing, they need to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would have to agree. The RFC has failed miserably (as evidenced by his 24-hour block for revert warring on AFDs). 24 hours isn't long enough. --Coredesat 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove improper DYK entry

Hi. Would an admin please remove the current DYK entry on "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics". That is not appropriate for DYK as the rules for DYK specifically state that it is supposed to be NPOV, not topic-centric, and of wide interest. I am disputing the neutrality of the relevant section of the article. The author of the book as a disgruntled ex-partner of Hubbard and his views on Dianetics cannot be taken to be neutral. Thank you. --Justanother 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean this? "that the non-fiction book A Doctor's Report on Dianetics criticized L. Ron Hubbard's prescription of vitamins and glutamic acid to Dianetics subjects?" That's totally NPOV. It doesn't endorse one view or another on whether the practice is good or bad, it just says that this book criticized it. Mangojuice^talk 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Whether or not the book itself is NPOV, the fact appears to be. The article also doesn't look too bad to me. J Milburn 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My only objection to the article is that it is part of a campaign by mostly one editor to fill this project with "reviews" of one-sided books, articles, and reports; essentially short-circuiting the concept of NPOV, i.e. if a highly POV book is being reviewed how can you make that NPOV? That is not a problem for this board though I am curious about what others think. I will be addressing that at some point to gauge the feelings of the community. That said, if we take a POV factlet from that POV book and stick it on the front page, I think that we are giving undue weight to some 50-year-old criticism that had only extremely marginal notabilty before the Scientology critics got hold of it. --Justanother 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Justanother is a Scientologist, and he works to actively censor anything that doesn't paint it in an extremely positive light. --Cyde Weys 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Justanother is a Scientologist, and he works to actively break the hold on the Scientology-series articles by a small group of off-wiki critics that effectively act as meatpuppets to misuse this project to forward their own highly-biased agenda. And I challenge anyone to point at one of my edits that illustrates Cyde Weys misrepresentation of my activity more than it illustrates my representation of my activity in the Scientology articles. Cyde Weys would marginalize me, something that would be obvious if I were a gay editting articles of gay interest or a black editting articles of black interest but for some reason is acceptable behaviour against a Scientologist editting articles of interest to a Scientologist. And neutral editors and fair-minded critics alike know that I do not censor criticism of the Church of Scientology nor is that my interest. My interest is simply that the Scientology articles are encyclopedic and comply with key policies here. In other words, my interests align with those of all good editors here. --Justanother 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To say that JustAnother "works to actively censor anything that doesn't paint it in an extremely positive light" is not only untrue, it's irrelevant to the matter at hand. Trying to cast aspersions on another editor in that manner is something that wouldn't even fly on a high school debate team. wikipediatrix 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that particular DYK entry. It's a statement of fact (though admittedly not a particularly interesting one from where I'm standing). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda my point too; topic-centric and little broad interest. This is part of a series of similar POV-pushing DYK items that have given criticism of Scientology undue weight and over-representation in DYK. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#Did you know? (which was started by a fair-minded critic of Scientology.) So my objection is not so much that this one is really really POV but that it is of little interest and part of a pattern; an agenda. --Justanother 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the pattern exists, that's a problem. I know very little about DYK, but that doesn't sound like a very informative entry, and could be seen as disparaging, when taken in a broader context. Criticism of Scientology is not exactly an unknown hobby, or profession... -- nae'blis 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If we assume 1500 DYK entries per year and given the vast universe of information that Wikipedia deals in and the no doubt large numbers of articles started or expanded on a daily basis; given all that, how many DYK entries critical of Scientolgy might we expect to see each year absent any pattern or agenda. I have my own ideas but I would like to hear from others. --Justanother 14:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you all above for the comments stating that the fact/article are NPOV. I work hard on article creation to make sure that the facts/sentences are backed up by multiple citations from reputable secondary sourced material, as was the case with this entry. Thank you for your time. Smee 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I think MOST of the DYK entries about Scientology are improperly skewed to the negative. It doesn't matter if it's properly sourced or not, Smee, I could find plenty of air-tight sources that say all kinds of negative things about any given subject, but that doesn't mean we have a free pass to load them up everywhere we can on Wikipedia. The subtleties of undue weight are, as usual, being recklessly ignored when it comes to articles about controversial subjects. wikipediatrix 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I share the same concerns as wikipediatrix, but it's difficult to find positive sources regarding Scientology. Other than Scientology and its associated groups (CCHR, Narconon, etc) and the various personal websites put up by Scientologists, there's very little positive regard. At least, if there is, I haven't seen it yet. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

V, there is plenty of positive material in the press and other reliable sources about Scientology and making good NPOV articles about Scientology is not really a problem. The problem is that a number of professional critics have written scandalous books about Scientology (and other alleged "cults") and one editor in particular has made a mission of creating articles about those POV books and then taking a POV-pushing "fact" from them and submitting it to DYK. That is the pattern, the agenda, and the problem, and the only thing I started this incident to report. I like to say that you cannot make NPOV stew out of POV meat. These books are wildly POV and I am really not sure how to tackle this. Imagine if we started articles on every book on Holocaust denial and then pulled a "fact" from the article for DYK.

Did you know . . . that, according to the book, Did Six Million Really Die?, the scale of the Holocaust had been fabricated by the Allies to, among other things, hide their own guilt over such things as the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities?

Certainly I am using a hyperbolic example there but many, if not most, of these "cult" books are no less wildly POV. Scandalous sells and these are books for the general public and heavy on the scandalous. I an not talking here so much about "Doctor's Report" as that is a silly inclusion of a 50-year-old nothing but I am talking about DYK such as this one.

Did you know . . . that TIME magazine's Gerald Loeb Award-winning article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" highlights the suicide of Noah Lottick?

I can show you more in the recent months. --Justanother 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the case. Scientology has a remarkably negative reputation in the press, in scientific literature, in the legal system, and in public discourse. It is not Wikipedia's job to whitewash this reputation or to make Scientology out to appear more praiseworthy or well-reputed than the sources present it. Rather, it is Wikipedia's job to correctly report the facts of the matter -- and the facts include the reputation.

Neutrality does not mean constructing an artificial balance between "sides" that are not in fact balanced or equal in the real world. It means avoiding prejudice -- but not all judgment is prejudice. When the press, the scientific community, the courts, and outside scholars and historians present an organization in a negative light, it is Wikipedia's job to represent that reputation truthfully -- not to cover it up. --FOo 15:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of respect for Scientology in "the press, .. . the courts, and outside scholars" along with goverments and other religions. Scientology is not hard science, it is a philosophy, so I do not think "the scientific community" has much to do with anything and I have not seen much from "historians". Yours is a broad and untrue generality, Foo. And we are not talking about covering anything up here, we are talking about undue representation of criticism of Scientology in DYK, a "fun" little feature that is supposed to be NPOV. --Justanother 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have said my piece above - that is, I try my best to make sure that the facts/sentences in new articles I write/create are backed up to multiple reputable secondary sourced material. I appreciate the dialogue and comments made here by other editors, and this will be all for me in this thread, seems like we have significantly discussed this issue relatively well already. Smee 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

• I'm still not sure where this positive press is. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are links in the various articles; lots of links. Please talk to me on my talk page if you would like me to point them out. --Justanother 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FOo, I agree, wikipedia has a responsibility to report accurately and fairly in its articles. However, it seems to me that DYK implies that it contains interesting tidbits (trivia) about insignificant or rarely known things about interesting things. As in.. "Oh, by the way, did you know that Dr Smith discovered that a mouse actually has 3 eyes today, in 1412?" or "Oh, by the way, did you know that the stunt double for Mavrick was born today? If Scientology has such a negative opinion in the press and seems to be rather controversial, why would DYK be interested in featuring things from the articles written about it? Why would DYK want to be involved in controversial subjects? In doing so, it risks unfairly supporting one side or the other in the controversy and that would be POV, even if it isn't intentional. Just my thoughts.

For what its worth (from above since someone felt that Justanother's Scientology connection somehow made his views less relevant), I'm not a Scientologist. I know virtually nothing about Scientology or their beliefs or practices. Lsi john 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive/Negative balance required?

When I read the WP:NPOVFAQ part of NPOV which says:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

I take it to mean that if verifiable sources only have "negative" things to say about a subject we are not required (or supposed to) artificially balance the POV of said subject's article. Is this correct, if so wouldn't it apply to DYKs? Anynobody 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice box. --Justanother 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Gets the policy across rather concisely. Thanks. Smee 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

If I may add...

DYK has had a "problem" of sorts where it got overloaded with subject-centric topics from time to time. I recall sometime in the Summer of 2006, there was a alot of Eurovision nominations and a few managed to get onto the front page. If I may suggest, if there is an issue of subjects having undue "Weight" in DYK nominations, perhaps a proposal should be made at DYK to "Limit" subject-centric articles.

And for the record, I am not a Scientologist, I think Battlefield Earth would've benfited from mroe nudity and less John Travolta, and Tom Cruise is gay as much as he wants to deny it.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that either positive or negative, you'd like to see less Scientology DYKs and more variety for the DYKs in general? If so I can agree with that for the sake of variety. Anynobody 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• No i'm just saying, what some people are complaining has happened before. If they wanna complain about it, and want to cite a previous case, then take it the DYK discussion boards, not here. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Admins take care of this when selecting their DYKs to go on the main page from the available nominations. The rules state to avoid commonalities among entries at a time. Smee 06:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Did you know? WP:DYK comes from new articles. (or expanded)

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the DYKs are picked from new articles. If we want new DYKs we have to create new articles. Anynobody 08:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. And that is what I love doing the best here on the project - researching reputable secondary sourced material on new and interesting topics not covered on the project, and then writing/creating new articles with the citations. Smee 09:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Anon users vandalising Featured article and other articles

These anon users whose IP are 59.95.30.220, 59.95.17.75, 203.94.192.142, 203.94.200.55 are removing cited information even after several requests have been made not to vandalize. Please put anon lock on these articles below and block their IP's. The user with IP 203.. seems to have created an account User:Deccanwala and is continuing his personal attacks on me.

Vijayanagara
Origin of Vijayanagara Empire
Talk:Vijayanagara Empire-->personal attack
Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri
Talk:Political history of medieval Karnataka-->personal attack
Rashtrakuta Dynasty(FA)
Political history of medieval Karnataka
History of Karnataka Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. I intend to question the doubtful and dubious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.33.220 (talk • contribs) 12:32, May 7, 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot to look through all at once. The Vijayanagara edit war seems to be over the addition of an alternate name, surely not Wikipedia:Vandalism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the above user 59.95. is a banned user User:Sarvabhaum. Also, Vijayanagara is a city in Karnataka state, India. The alternate script being used is from a language not official in Karnataka. The official language and script is Kannada whose text has always existed there and is being removed by anon users.Dineshkannambadi 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats like using Italian language/script to write the name of a place in France.Dineshkannambadi 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir morever yadavas of devagiri are a maratha empire and its kannadi origin is disputed. A whole lot of section is devoted on it whereas similar claims abt Rashtrakutas are disposed off. 59.95 is shared by whole city of mine.

Disputed by whom? Can you show the diffs of disputes if at all they are there and how the disputes are resolved? If you have something legitimate to say, come up with valid references and argue over in talk page. Simply adding tags to an already well written article is not the way to go for it. There are already enough references provided for all points you've been tagging. What are you trying to prove without any citations or references? Your empty rhetoric just a disruptive behavior. Gnanapiti 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are not Sarvabhaum why dont you log in? Also being Anon, perhaps protects you from 3RR which is why you dont login.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I request the admins to revert the anon's edits and sprotect the page. For people who know, its very clear that this is the indef banned (sarvabhaum) trying to circumvent his block. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the fact that this anon user 59.85 is the same as User:Sarvabhaum or one of his sockpuppets comes from the fact he has left a message for admin User talk:Utcursch regarding one of the above articles I have mentioned. Admin Utcursch was the one who arbitered the case of Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri for us late last year-early this year. If 59.95.. is not Sarvabhaum, how did he know which admin to approach.?Dineshkannambadi 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch had himself contacted with me. 59.95 is shared by whole of my city. The earlier users have presented the citations and i can produce it too. The citations which these kannadi editors are using are disputed. If Kannadi script is justified on Yadavas page why doesnt Marathi script in Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas?

Let me explain this for the last time. Kannada was the major language of administration along with Sanskrit in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta rule. It was also the language of popular literature. There is no shortage of citations to this fact and have been provided. However, There is no proof if Marathi even existed at that point. There is not one shread of Marathi inscription or literature from the above period attributed to the above kings. The first Marathi inscription (which is disputed) is from 983CE. So Marathi cant be included in those articles just to please your ego. In the case of Seuna Yadavas Empire, the situation is different. Most of the Seuna inscriptions are in Kannada, their coins from an early period have Kannada legends and Kannada was a popular language of literature in the Yadava court along with Sanskrit. Marathi literature started later aroud 1190 CE. Several citations from English sources have been provided for this in the respective article. We have been through this with you repeatedly. I dont intend to explain this again.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people both Telugu Marathi and Tamil have made it clear that they dont find suryanath kamath's works correct or dependable, who is nothing but Karnataka govt sponsered self-congratulatery historian. feel free to use in kannadi articles not in Marathi. Rashtrakutas did have kannadi as major language but as pointed out before (i can produce the evidence again) that a branch of rashtrakutas had Maharashtri Prakrit as official language. Chalukya were of Maratha origin and even had works in marathi as pointed by C.V Vaidya. His views should be included and if no Marathi script can be allowed at chalukyas and rashtrakutas than kannadi script will not be allowed in yadavas of devagiri. Yadavas of Devagiri have nothing to do with kannadi language their ancestors might be but not they. kannadi bragging and its script will not be allowed there. Its a matter of pride of our state and history. dont kannadize each and every article u come across.

User:Prester John

User:Prester John has been removing every mention of the word "God" in Islam-related articles, even when next to the word "Allah". Obviously, he wants whoever reads these article to believe Muslims believe in a god called Allah. See his contributions for more detail. He has even created a userbox entitled "Allah is Satan". People like this have no place in Wikipedia, people like this have a certain agenda that they wish to apply. I hope immediate action is taken regarding this user. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See this as well. He has been warned too many times. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the user to explain the "God" removals. We'll see what comes of that. Some of the userboxes may be T1. I've already taken User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate. ··coelacan 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman was only intended to inflame. I don't know why I didn't catch that the first time around. ··coelacan 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest, if it's technically possible, looking very carefully through the history of articles this user has requested be speedied? I've noticed that the third of three ways listed on his talk page to "welcome new users" reads, "When a Liberal writes an article you may need something like this: {{db-author}}." He may be tagging things he doesn't like with spurious db tags in the hopes that admins won't look very carefully at the speedydelete request. --Dynaflow 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh Dynaflow, please look through my history to aleviate your fears. Klaksonn People may have a different opinion than yours that doesn't compromise their ability to edit in a "Wiki" fashion. There is no agenda. The referencein the incident you are refering to uses the quote "Allah". Why would we not use the phrase that is part of the reference? It is POV to render this to "God". There has much debate for over a thousand years as to if this is true. Many scholars conclude that Allah is in fact Satan, another POV, albiet the polar opposite POV. To avoid confusion or favoring one opinion over another, let's just use what the reference uses shall we? As per Wiki normal procedure. Prester John 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Klaksonn. about being "warned too many times", I think you are refering to other past incidents, where I have actually complied with the final ruling. In great contrast to yourself I might add. Prester John 01:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He is in violation of WP:MOSISLAM.--Kirby♥time 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Read it again. This time pay real hard attention to the phrase "unless used as part of a quote." Prester John 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These edits were not inside quotes. ··coelacan 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. They are WP:OR. Prester John 03:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To cut to the chase: you are engaging in tendentious editing and promotion of the notion that Allah is Satan. The word اﷲ translates to God in English, and there's no original research in that fact. If you continue to remove "God" from Muslim articles without gaining consensus on the articles' talk pages, I will block you to prevent further WP:POINT disruption. ··coelacan 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Your contention is that it violates WP:OR to equate the word "Allah" to the word "G-d"? Does that apply as a matter of linguistic schism, meaning that 'Dios' 'Dieu' 'Gott' and so on should be eliminated by the same rules, or as a matter of religious schism, meaning 'Ad-nai' and 'El-heynu' should be removed because they might not translate into 'G-d'? Your coments that 'Allah' is actually Satan suggest the latter. If so, how do we handle matters of Latin and Aramaic/Amharic words for 'Supreme being'? Do we go by chronological manifestation, or by 'this is the English wiki so use English'? ThuranX 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is very offensive to Arab Christians.--Kirby♥time 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Both of you. Here's what you are going to do. You are going to go and read, and cognitively understand, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Once you have realised that these issues have been dealt with long before us, you will accept that all quotes (per general wiki procedure) and all WP:OR will be rendered as per wiki policy. Threats of blocking just do not cut it. Especially from admins. Prester John 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to be resolved until you understand that "Allah" is an Arabic word. Nobody in France prays to God. Neither does anyone in Germany. They pray to Dieu and Gott, respectively. It's the same fucking thing, except in a different language.--Kirby♥time 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I don't know that "Allah" is an Arabic word? Like I said, This issue has been resolved in Wikipedia many times before us. Please read, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). In summarry If Allah is used in the quote we use Allah. Prester John 04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So then... [107] canbe explained how? ThuranX 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the MOS page on Islam-related articles, and I understand the quote exception to be intended to prevent tampering with text taken directly from sources (in line with common good journalistic practice). I do not read that to apply to all texts referencing the quote, which seems to be (and forgive me if I am mistaken) Prester John's assertion. I find the justification of the above edit as application of the no original research policy rather odd and would appreciate further explanation of this. What's more, I'm very unconvinced that simple transliteration of "Allah" into "God" is at all a contentious editorial decision. I'd like to point out that Christianity does not own the word "God", even the capitalized form. -- mattb 05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this [108]. A greater attempt to offend a class of people I have not encountered. Prester John 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Should a person like him be allowed to edit this encyclopedia? ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's our model and we are incredibly lenient in most issues. If he continuously violates consent then he can be blocked but a preemptive permanent ban is not something we do. For better or worse we are very liberal in that regard and many users who probably hurt article quality are allowed to edit but 'kept in check'. I would say attempts to provoke are very unhelpful... but, that's life on our little Wikipedia. And that's not good. Even when Prester is making good edits such as his recent cleanups on Sahaba from (R) and Prophet attacks his edit summaries are "dream on", "yeah yeah yeah", and "wikify". Removing "Prophet" is not wikifying... you should be clear in your edit summaries especially when you're doing useful work. gren グレン 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another rogue?? Conscious (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

First reporting, etc.

EMERGENCY DESYSOPPING Main page deleted

Looks like it's happened again, User:Conscious deleted the main page. I attempted to restore but someone thankfully was quicker.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully somebody desysopped him. This is getting a little ridiculous. New age of vandalism perhaps? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted the page. It appears to be compromising of his pass word or he left the system logged on. Please do something fast otherwise history shall be repeated. --Bhadani (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: we are purging admin accounts with easily crackable passwords. -- ReyBrujo 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured this was the result of a hack; after years of nothing like it, two admins would run amok in this fashion so close in time to one another? --Fuhghettaboutit 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And in the processa are getting images of tubgirl in the site notice.... I know, I'm not looking on the bright side --Iamunknown 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar thread on WP:ANI I suggest keep it at one place. :) --- A. L. M. 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that administrators should be careful about their passwords. Moreover, it is a cause of concern that such incidence has happened at an interval of hardly few days. The Main Page was deleted by User:Conscious at 18:15 and undeleted at 18:17 by me. Still about two minutes had elapsed and few more minutes before User:Conscious could be desysopped. It was faster compared to the last incident, but still a cause of concern for we all. Yes. we should keep the thread at one place. --Bhadani (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that all admins should change their passwords to ten or more characters, and we should implement something in the software so that any admin after a certain time passes, say 4 months, who has a password with less than ten characters, cannot edit/access admin powers until the password change is made (or something along those lines). I haven't the foggiest notion of whether this is technically feasible.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am copying this at WP:ANI to keep the comments at one place. --Bhadani (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this happening a little too easily and often? HalfShadow 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another rogue??

See here. Main page deleted. Currently blocked but for how long? Can someone get on IRC and try to get a Steward's attention? - Alison ☺ 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• De-sysopped already, but not before deleteing the mainpage and blocking a dozen admins - Alison ☺ 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wtf is going on here?? So many comprimised accounts / rogue admins.  :\\\ --Iamunknown 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An admin Conscious (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been blocked indefinitely after a report to WP:AIV about him going on a rampage, does anyone know the circumstances. Was he on a rampage? The Sunshine Man 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. Blocked a bunch of admins. Deleted main page with "Bet you can't guess MY password!", etc, etc. *sigh* - is someone out there brute-forcing admin passwords? - Alison ☺ 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Conscious was compromised and deleted the main page five minutes ago. Can we poke the devs to hurry up with the password scripts? Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So... when's that password cracking thing going to occur? -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was blocked. This is getting ridiculous. Will (aka Wimt) 18:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick questions, what happens to these admins that get emergency desysopped? Is that game over for them completely even though it's just there passwords that have been cracked? Also, what about if the devs password cracking finds your account has a weak password? Will that be a permanent desysopping? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel a little uneasy about all this. Who will this fiend strike next? --LuigiManiac 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If certain administrators are irresponsible enough to have such simple, vulnerable passwords (such as "fuckyou" which apparently was the case for Jiang), I no longer can trust them with adminship. Desysopping and banning is certainly in order. They can always create a new account without the stigma of the compromised account. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All this was said yesterday. Simple solution, folks, and this is no-brainer stuff. No passwords in plain English. Add non-alpha chars if you can. Use a language other than English. Make it greater than eight characters - Alison ☺ 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-adminnning is up to the discretion of the bureaucrats. I assume that they can choose to re-op an account if they are satisified that the original user has regained control, or they may take the view expressed by Tariq. You might want to pop over to WP:BN and see what's up. Thatcher131 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping such accounts I can understand, banning seems harsh and unnecessary (assuming we can be reasonably certain they are no longer compromised). Once the account is desysopped, it can't do harm of this sort anymore, and I find it unnecessary to consider such a user banned for doing something stupid, but not malicious. Heimstern Läufer 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, banned users would not be allowed to "create a new account without the stigma of the compromised account" as Tariqabjotu puts it. Leebo ^T/C 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite banning goes too far, even indefinite desysopping goes too far. It's not intentional vandalism, it's not criminal recklessness like actually giving out a password, it's just carelessness in not picking a strong enough password, which, frankly, isn't a skill that everyone could be assumed to have learned in grade school. Leaving blocked and desysopped for a few days until the developers run a utility and implement the requested feature may be useful (writes someone who quickly changed their password a few hours ago, just in case...) :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mine was in mostly-Gaelic (which even I have a hard time spelling!), but fixed now to something completely incomprehensible. -- nae'blis 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest leaving a talk page in every admin page to suggest immediate change of password if it has less than 8 characters or only letters. I would suggest a checkuser to see whether the same individual is cracking, or if this is a global attempt. Who knows, maybe someone learned how to crack passwords with PS3. -- ReyBrujo 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Solution

To limit damage, couldn't we get the dev's to remove the delete button from the main page? At least fr the short term. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, why would we even need a delete button on the main page? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If losing the main page for a minute is the price for catching a compromised account, I think it is worth the cost. -- ReyBrujo 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, and I got blocked in this one... and I was actually trying to undelete the main page as it was already deleted at the time I was there :( Dangit! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I imagine whoever's stealing accounts would have no problem making a delete URL without benefit of the button. Friday (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with ReyBrujo: it gets restored in 20 seconds, and it's a fast and easy way for us to see who is compromised. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing a button won't do anything. You can just go to another article and click delete, and then replace the title with "Main Page". Perhaps it would be best if the Main Page couldn't be deleted at all, unless you get in contact with a developer or something. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is easily done with CSS. But that wouldn't remove the possibility of deleting it, though. Jon Harald Søby 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to automatically resysop the compromised admins, even if they can prove who they are (which seems very unlikely to me in the general case). The presumption should be, I think, that someone stupid enough or lazy enough to have his account compromised should go through Requests for adminship again. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, 100% agreed. These compromised sysops aren't entirely innocent victims. --Cyde Weys 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Being technically savvy isn't really considered by most as a requirement for adminship. Friday (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing enough to pick a good password damn well should be. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Friday. Picking a good password isn't a skill that was taught in school until a few years ago; we do not want to effectively limit adminship to twenty-somethings and below. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Picking non-random passwords is entirely different from picking passwords that any naive person can simply guess. Not choosing "11111" as your ATM password is pretty obvious, and ATMs have been around for forty years. —Centrx→talk • 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well as a thirtysomething arts graduate I certainly know about password security - as anyone would who's worked in a large office for the past 15 years.. There's no excuse for this and it puts the site at risk. Secretlondon 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed. We cannot punish people for something we did not warn them about. I would suggest keeping a history of email addresses for Stewards to contact if an account has been compromised, and to upload public keys at a Wikipedia server so that people with compromised accounts can prove they are themselves and not crackers. -- ReyBrujo 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Tony - protecting one's password and having a strong password is an implied attribute of an administrator though I do believe that this must be a case of compromised password as I had indicated immediately after undeleting the main page. We should look to the future and try to advise all the administrators to be more careful. --Bhadani (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And I am inclined to agree with Friday. I must have 50 passwords, some of which I have had for years and have never changed because they don't seem like the kind of accounts that someone would spend the time or effort to try to crack. I suspect many people haven't historically thought of their Wikipedia account the same way they do their PayPal or bank accounts. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting immediately, every new admin needs to be instructed in RfA's to get a decent password. Obviously it doesn't guarantee that they do but in most cases I think it will be enough, I think this is just something that most people don't think too much about. As for the cases we have seen today, I don't think these admins need to be permanently desysoped. If they can establish beyond doubt that they have regained control over their accounts we should forgive and forget, there was no malicious intent on their behalf. But it also needs to be made clear that in the future, the response won't be this lenient. --Bjarki 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"A weak password = 5 minutes to crack". "A stronger password = couple of weeks to crack". Please read suggestion by SFC9394 below. That is best solution with stronger password. --- A. L. M. 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stronger passwords take repeated brute-force attempts by a computer program. These passwords are simple enough that any naive person could log in with them, even accidentally. Having captchas or delays after x attempts does not prevent that. Admins still need to have decent passwords. —Centrx→talk • 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of a day or two at ANI should make clear which admins the community is ready to restore promptly and which they are not. Bureaucrats are selected for their judgment, they can interpret consensus from reading the discussion. We do not need any sort of precedent that emergency desysoppings must go through RfA, that should only happen if ArbCom requests it or no bureaucrat is willing to resysop at the user's request. Plus if we think of these as preventative desysoppings, once the password situation is handled by the developers, where is the risk of a repeat password failure with the same admin? NoSeptember 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To A. L. M. - yes, a system where admins are forced to change passwords periodically, and use passwords of a prescribed minimum characters using special characters, etc. --Bhadani (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, why can't I see the IP I am logged in? I either use the static from work, or the dynamic from home, both resolving to Argentina. AOL users may, this way, understand they must change ISP ;-) -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just log out and make a sandbox edit. -- nae'blis 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can also use [DNS Stuff, It will show you your IP in the upper right hand corner.Cascadia 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These suggestions that we shouldn't be "punishing" administrators by removing the bits that they couldn't be bothered to protect from compromise are really beyond the pale. If someone cannot be bothered to protect Wikipedia, they shouldn't be an administrator. If they're too stupid to do so, they shouldn't be an administrator. If we cannot tell whether they are the person we sysopped, they shouldn't be an administrator. If they feigned a compromise after a spree, they shouldn't be an administrator. It costs us nothing to ask them, politely, to go and ask the community for their admin bits back. Doing anything else is asking for trouble. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one

Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? - auburnpilot talk 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Is it possible to re-assign to all admins passwords? And e-mail them or something? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to have any admins left. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be scared to send plain-text email, wouldn't you? User:Psu256 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah we will :) Those of us with secure passes :) Don't worry about that —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So what does this guy do when there are no longer any admins with weak passwords? Hopefully not go after normal users. Funpika 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, looks like it. Someone is systematically cracking all admin accounts with weak passwords. I knew this day would come ... Cyde Weys 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is they are wasting their time just deleting the mainpage. I won't violate BEANS, but it strikes me there is far worse that could be done if they had any intelligence. Should the login code not be modified to make this more difficult? I don't have intimate knowledge of the process, but presumably brute force means just that - why not allow 5 login attempts per hour (coded at the login level not at the html level) on an account? A brute force attack on that would be a waste of time. SFC9394 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia will need to follow the ways of SOX type security for admin counts. Every 90 days new pw, etc.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to reduce security like that? The single biggest result of requiring frequent password changes is that people will use passwords that are easy to remember, and therefore easy to guess. --Carnildo 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot have it lock out users after X tries, for the simple reason that if I did not like you for some reason I could simply set up a program to "fake" login to your account, and you would never be able to log in again. It has to be tied to the IP that is attempting to log in. The best option albit broken for those that can't see, is captchas. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An other idea thrown in the wind could be to require all admins to have their e-mail address filled in, and to send a confirmation email after, say 3 unsuccessful logins? And you need to click a link in the e-mail to reset your password. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That would work - I would say that the email link just takes you back to the login, no password reset - that way the security stays on our side not on an email system of unknown quality. It also basically solves the problems that Eagle brings up - an "attacker" can knock you out but you can control at what point you go back in - a DOS attack is the only way that would be vulnerable, but then the whole of WP is vulnerable to that. SFC9394 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the best suggestion so far. Well said SFC9394. --- A. L. M. 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn it. Someone should spam all the admins to get stronger passwords.--Pharos 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to that. —— Eagle 101 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the IP is? Is it still the same as BuickCenturyDriver? The Evil Spartan 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, except for Buick's block of Ryulong, its all been done through open proxies. Thatcher131 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't assume all the compromised accounts have been used to vandalize yet. Ideally we could check if there have been a lot of attempts at logging in over the last two days for all admin accounts, but we may not keep those logs at the moment. It would make sense for "someone" to check how many admin accounts have had their email changed since this started - such a change, especially if the password has been changed too, could indicate a compromised account. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816 has been made, not sure if it's a duplicate yet, since it's so new. -- nae'blis 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sending a msg to all admins to change any weak PWs seems like a good idea to me. Changign the code in future to forbid setting weak PWs (with some reasonable def of "weak") on any account might be a good idea. Code to block more than a certian small number of login attempts within a fixed tiem for a given account would be reasonable -- such a block should extend only over a few minutes, but that is enough to significantly complicate a pw cracking script. Use of captcha after say 5 unsuccesful attempts to log in within, say an hour, might be a good alternative, but if so, there must be visual and audio versions at least, and if possible a text version. We need to avoid compromised accoutns, particularly compromised admin accounts, in future, however, lets not go overboard. A requirement to change PWs on a regular basis would make things very hard for those who take extended breaks, or are otherwise only occasional editors. DES ^(talk) 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they started the day with these passwords. I would assume the worst, that they have more. hombre de haha 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, my password was hacked and my admin powers stripped. I started with Wiki years ago and at that time did not even think that someone would want to hack into the Pedia to do some harm. Since then the Pedia has grown and is subject to such childish behavior of these hackers. I have changed my password, but would like my admin powers returned. I have never abused them and only used them when there is a persistent vandal. I invite you all to look at my user page and you can see my dedication to the Pedia. Is there someone who can return my powers? Tony the Marine 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You need a bureaucrat. Try the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat's noticeboard. For what it's worth, if you absolutely guarantee you picked something no other human being will imagine without seriously strong medications, or can pronounce without a mouthful of marbles, I support your reinstatement; you have done a lot.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I find that to be inappropriate at this time. Securing a password is a basic step to being a Wikipedia editor, not administrator. Someone who's account had such a weak password which did such blatant damage to the encyclopedia is hard to trust as an admin in my view. // Pilotguy 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm certainly not resysopping any compromised accounts at the moment. For one thing we have no idea whether you are really you. This is also a MAJOR security breach not something to be brushed off with a "very sorry won't happen again". It's up to the community to decide whether they think you should all go through rfa or not.Secretlondon 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
        • • I'm all for strong password protections, but lets not beat up too much on the admins who've made a mistake. The fact is that until the last few days, Wikipedia didn't have a secure log-in function. We could also have easily set the system to require strong passwords. On a personal level, I've known Tony the Marine since I first started at WP and he's as good an editor and admin as there is. He made a mistake with his password, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the admins here have weak passwords. I'd support him regaining his admin abilties. But that said, I do understand the need to sort through all this before doing that. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse this product or statement. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you mean you set a weak password and you haven't changed it in all this time? And you don't see anything wrong with this? --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. He was wrong to set a weak password, the Wikipedia community will be doublepluswrong to strip his hard-earned adminship in punishment for something someone else did. I mean Christ, a war didn't start, nobody died, a hacker did some vandalism to an online encyclopedia. I figured the admins would be emergency desysopped, at the longest desysopped until they proved their identity somehow, but another Rfa? That's punitive, vindictive, and just silly. Let's realize the actual gravity here. --Tractorkingsfan 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I've been using my passwords-set for insecure sites (ie, don't care if I lose it, I'll generate another) for wikipedia, especially since it gets transmitted in plaintext. (People don't take plaintext passes as seriously.) --Kim Bruning 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (On the gripping hand, my GPG key is signed by one of the devs, so it's not like you couldn't confirm my identity really quickly by email if you really really had to :-) )--22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I very strongly feel that Tony and the others who were victims today should get their sysop status back, after successfully proving their identity of course. It never been policy that poor password choice = permenent desysopping. Considering how egregiously bad a user's behavious has to be to be desysopped, such a punishment for choosing a lame password is ridiculous. Furthermore, whoever is behind the attack clearly wants to disrupt Wikipedia, and while silly crap like deleting the mainpage causes a few moments of annoyance, removing a number of perfectly good admins would have a negative effect on Wikipedia for quite some time. Why let a vandal win? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I was just made aware of this incident, but from my years on this website, I only can validate that Tony has been an extremely responsible and dedicated administrator on this site. Apparently a vandal has stolen his identity to cause harm to the site's mission, however, I feel that Tony should be given the benefit of the doubt that he is not responsible for such vandalism. Feel free to contact me if you like and I can provide you with countless time has has come to assist, mediate, and contribute to the site. I feel that in this time and age with identity theft on the rise that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and that his powers be restored. --XLR8TION 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• As a contributor to Wikipedia who has added a lot of value to pages, I find some of the responses brow-beating Tony for his weak password (what IS weak today? hackers are getting better and better) to be absolutely uncalled for. Some of the responses above that Victim blaming remind me of why admins like Lucky 6.9 and others have left Wikipedia. Instead of banding together when one of our most valuable contributors is under assault, we take the opportunity to give them a tongue-lashing. This is why people leave Wikipedia. If Tony isn't given his SysOp status back, I will reconsider my own contributions to Wikipedia, because to not get it taken care of, without blaming Tony for an oversight (Wikipedia isn't our bank account, stock trading account, e-mail, etc., so it stands to reason a person wouldn't think it a high priority to put in a Fort Knox-worthy password), then it will say a lot. To those contributors who take the opportunity to blame the victim: spare us all your bizarre schaedenfreude and superiority diatribes. --David Shankbone 01:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I second David Shankbone's statement. As I said previously, Tony has been a great editor and admin. There is no reason for excessive victim blaming, especially when Tony has admitted his mistake and corrected the situation and when Wikipedia hasn't been set up to be a secure log-in system. Are we seriously going to let a hacker win by driving out one of our best?--66.219.188.165 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, it makes no sense to punish someone for making an innocent mistake. But we just better have good ID verification before we restore any of the compromised accounts' sysop bits.--Pharos 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree as well. For what it's worth, I also had a non-picture-perfect password up until a few hours ago, when I caught up with this drama. I or any of (I guess) a number of other admins could just as well have been the victims of this attack. Since admin rights are conferred indefinitely under our current policy, subject to ArbCom removal only, there's no basis in policy in denying resysopping to hacked admin accounts once their identity has been confirmed to the bureaucrats' satisfaction. Sandstein 05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Anyone having the nerve of bullying (YES, BULLYING) Tony the Marine and chastising him into not doing the fine job administrating WP he has done because of his reportedly poor choice of password is just as despicable as the hacker that stole his password in the first place. This is beyond pathetic. I knew bureaucracy in WP goes beyond anal retentiveness at times, but as Frank Zappa said once, this is the equivalent of curing dandruff by decapitating the patient. I'm extremely furious by this. Demf 13:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Notification idea...

Lets drop a note on all of the admin-action screens. (Ie, the delete/block/protection) about this latest rash of password hacking? I know I'm about to go add some complexity to my already long password. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I recall once setting up an account somewhere (If I could recall where I would pass it on), and they had a script that would test the strength of a password - giving you a red "weak" meaning you couldn't use it, a blue "medium" and green "strong". something like that might not be a bad idea, as it is true that not everyone even understands what a strong password is. Pastor David ^† 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft uses one for their websites, such as Hotmail. I don't know what the script is, I'll see if I can find one. Cascadia 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft's is here --Ed (Edgar181) 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they claim copyright on the code, and possibly a software patent on the algorithm. ··coelacan 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, it may not be good to try and include it in wikimedia software, but, if we can get admins to run their passwords through, they can get an idea and change as needed. I've also created an essay on Password Security at WP:PASSWORD or WP:FLY, including links to the password tester (thanks ed) and a Microsoft KB article on password security. Cascadia 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good example. A few moments' testing shows that it primarily tests on having 1 or more numbers, one or more letters, and one or more symbols. That triggered it to 'Best' so long as the password was about 14 characters or more. Anything else was Strong at best, not something I'm sure I agree with. -- nae'blis 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to point out the perfect password, just one that is hard to guess and hard to crack right away. It's up to the individual to use a combination that works for them but is strong in design. Cascadia 20:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, measuring strength on (a) length, (b) use of letters, symbols, & numbers, and (c) combination of capitalization seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not sure what esle you would use to measure the strength of a password. (Thanks for finding it Ed). Pastordavid 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Guessability". As per a very recent edit to Password strength, "Password123456" is not particularly strong. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another site which seems rather interesting regarding pwd strength checking: http://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php -- Avi 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm worried those password checkers are set up by hackers...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They claim to run only in the browser window. Do as they say and unplug your internet connection if you are paranoid. Don't forget to hide the keyboard from the people and nanobots looking over your shoulder, and pretend to type a few extra random characters in so no pattern can be spotted... FWIW, I typed in 'hello' and 'password' and was told those were weak passwords. Interestingly, they thought that 'aaaa...' (60+ times) was a "very strong" password. In some ways it is, though in some obvious ways it is not! Carcharoth 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a very strong password for internet usage (if the site accepts it, of course). Although it may seem trivial, the cracker would have to guess first the character you used, and second the amount of repetitions. At school I used to use ********. With only Pentiums Pro around, it was a pretty strong password ;) -- ReyBrujo 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a strong password at all. Say there's 80 typeable characters and you allow the password to be up to 100 characters long. that's still only 8,000 different possible passwords to check for all repetition lengths of any individual character. That's extremely weak. By comparison, if your password is only 8 characters long but it is selected out of a sub-set of all 80 possible typeable characters, the number of passwords that would need to be check by exhaustive search is 80^8. That's 1,677,721,600,000,000 — over one quadrillion possible combinations. Now do you see why any one character repeated is a very weak password? --Cyde Weys 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the reason I brought this up is to counter the recommendation to use a single repeated character. That's terrible advice. Nobody should do it. --Cyde Weys 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more like 400k combinations for all lengths between 6 and 100, but yeah, orders of magnitude less secure than multiple characters. -- nae'blis 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not cool, Carcharoth, you just cracked User:AAA!'s password. ··coelacan 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't recommend the Microsoft password checker. It's unbelievably poor. "Password1" is not strong. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Password123456" is BEST! —Centrx→talk • 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(not sure how much to indent) re: an online password checker; it would still be possible for a very malignant, clever program to log your keystrokes in the form even if you'd unplugged your internet connection, unless a) you had excellent protection software (a duh, but, duh, not everyone does), and/or b) cleared your internet files etc before plugging it back in. But on another note, you can check your password by just substituting something similar and fairly equivalent. Interestingly, I did this on the linked site with a series of progressively more difficult, random passwords, and they all got the same rating, although the more complex passwords did so with progressively shorter strings. Anchoress 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - concerning - according to that tester -- all my banking/email/sharetrading passwords are very weak. Of course, I can't think of a strong one that is also easy to remember (and convenient to type). Gosh security is hard. novacatz 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Which site, M$ or Rumkin? -- Avi 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumkin. Anchoress 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And, on the same topic, A warning for AOL users. Anchoress 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Hotmail/Microsoft is not the only company to use the strength meter to determine password effectiveness. I've seen it someplace else, as a normal part of setting up an account (I think it may have been my banks website, or possibly one of my credit card companies). Furthermore, if it's possible for someone to write their own code, it should be possible to create a list of "bad passwords", which you could add things like "password" to. The system would automatically tell you "no dice, junior." The Parsnip! 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Securing e-mails

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but e-mail passwords need to equally secure. Having a strong Wikipedia password won't help if your e-mail password is weak and a password reset can be done. Ideally, everyone should have their WP account associated with a non-public e-mail address so e-mails can't be cracked. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many weaknesses which could be exploited. Wikipedia wasn't designed in a secure fashion, probably because no one imagined a day where there would be complex technical attacks against it. We don't even use any sort of encryption for authentication. In many cases, it would be a simple matter for an attacker to find the password of an admin regardless of the password strength. This also applies to many email servers, which we don't control, and saying that email passwords need to be secure isn't very helpful if the server the editor is using transmits in plaintext. --Philosophus ^T 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion...

Would it be possible to reset the create an account function to not accept any new accounts unless their passwords are over X characters long, to at least prevent new accounts from choosing weak passwords? I realize this doesn't help the current situation much--VectorPotential^Talk 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029976.html. John Reaves (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, those are all good, but it seems like restricting the shortness of a password during account creation might still be a good idea, I mean it doesn't take many tries to crack a password that's only one character long (-:VectorPotential^Talk 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Something seems fishy here. We already have 3 or so admins blocked for having their accounts compromised. Might there be a group of hackers or something prying into accounts and doing these horrific things? bibliomaniac15 00:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Captchas

If you login incorrectly the first time, there are now captchas on the second try. This should help. --Aude (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks devs. the wub "?!" 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (briefly off Wikibreak to change my password!)

People using the "e-mail my password" on admin accounts

I just got a mail saying that IP 74.68.21.121 had requested a new password mailed to me. Of course the one requesting it won't get this new password, so it's no big deal, and it has happend me before several times. But I just thought I'd mention it this time here in case it's part of someone now going over all admin accounts requesting passwords to increase the chance of cracking them. As I understand, both that new passord and the one I use will now both work for some time forward, making a cracking attemt twice as likely to succeed. Looking at the password sendt to me, it's not a very strong one. Weaker than what I use here, but I'm sure it will hold up. Shanes 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've applied a 3 hour block to the IP. It shows no history of contributions, so there shouldn't be any collateral damage. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive admins

Does anyone else see this as a good argument for desysopping inactive admins after a certain period? At the risk of BEANS, if someone cracked one of those accounts they might do a lot in the shadows before it came to light; and because they're not active the owners of such accounts aren't noticing this and aren't changing weak passwords (as, I hope, active admins are doing now). Marskell 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I hope that everyone else is well informed and the answer to your question is "No.". Active accounts are by far the greater risk. To avoid providing any ideas to the attackers that are clearly present and attempting to crack accounts right now, I'll simply state that there are numerous scenarios in which active accounts can be compromised in ways that simply do not apply to inactive accounts. Uncle G 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• This would have no effect, depending on who the admin is. If some IP started posting that my account was taken over, we would not know if this was in fact a troll or the real me. All they have to do is do it at a time when I change IPs, and CheckUser evidence is meaningless (or if it were taken to be meaningful, then it would be possible for a troll to get someone desysopped just by doing this). —Centrx→talk • 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• In any case I'm not so sure about the effectiveness of any brute force hacking as has happened before due to the fact that we now have login captchas. Any attacker now has to fill in the captcha, so its not as easy to just cycle through a list of passwords, so as long as the pass is reasonably secure (not "password" etc) breaking into the account by means of Special:login should be harder to do. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Brion's action yesterday of cracking the passwords of admins and locking the accounts out is all that needs to be done about inactive administrators. Those with good passwords don't need to be locked out, and who knows they may choose to resume work one day. If security standards change then the scan can be repeated to the higher standard and more locked out. --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – User was blocked until legal threat rescinded.

For legal threats like this one do we block immediately, or allow one warning? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked until they rescind the legal threats. Thanks for the notice. ··coelacan 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be making edits anonymously as 72.205.193.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Debv 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Account hijacking

I have come back from my wikibreak, after my original account AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was blocked. Someone told me about this today. This is my new account, and the password is secure enough to prevent a repeat of the horrific hijack.

Is it at all possible to allow me to have admin status on this account.

Thanks, guys for your work. --Speakmans Hour 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)How do we know you are the same person? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am doubtful that this will be done at all, especially without proof that you are who you say you are. I know of many who are pretty upset with you have (and have lossed their trust in you) by that neglectful mistake. This would need more discussion and a proof of you being AndyZ first. Cbrown1023 talk 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Check User will not be possible. So, no matter what, even if you are who you claim to be, you're kinda screwed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to recommend checkuser, why not? ST47Talk 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Odds of this actually being AndyZ ... roughly 10%. Sorry, but we don't just hand out admin accounts to anyone claiming to be a former admin. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is, he'd left: why would he want it back now suddenly? Majorly (hot!) 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Cyde. This brings about the issue that there is no official system in place to identify admins. The current situation seems to dictate that there should be one. A discussion should be initiated on this. hombre de haha 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If AndyZ had enabled email then he would have been able to reset his password and post a notice on his talk page identifying his new account. Unfortunately, he didn't do so. -Will Beback · † · 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't do. Surely the hijacker could have changed the email... WjBscribe 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arr, how so? Biometric identification? Phone number storage? I suppose e-mail authentication would work, but then you have the possibility that someone has the same password there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How does one identify who you say you are "in real life". Generally through the use of Identification numbers that correlate to that person's account. Whatever the IT synonym to that is should be thought about. Or just make admins install really awesome thumbscanners on their computer before they log in :D

Of course, if these people and others that are put in the same situation are expendable, and should be punished for their carelessness, then we should just act like we don't need a way to identify admins. "Adminship is no big deal." hombre de haha 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

roffle, this reminds me of the time that someone registered the account Rick Kerrigan or something, claiming to be RickK, and asked for his sysop bit back. It didn't fly because users pointed out that RickK never gave up his sysop powers. Ah, here we go: From ANI on BJAODN. hbdragon88 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"AGF is not a suicide pact. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)" That is applicable in so many ways to so many things. Nice link. Teke 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange. It seems that someone removed it, because I Googled the exact term and I didn't see it in an ANI archive. Fortunately it still lives on in BJADON. hbdragon88 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This problem makes for a good argument that we need more Wikimeetups. Meet each other in real life, get to know each other, trade phone numbers -- or at least email addresses. I happen to know (I'm guessing) several dozen Wikipedians well enough (unfortunately, none of those who had acompromised account) that if one had their account compromised, I'd be able to vouch that they are who they claim to be -- & hopefully vice versa. -- llywrch 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention keysignings -- Avi 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for hiim to log onto the AndyZ account to apologize and request an unblock? That's what I'd do, if my account were hijacked. And then I'd change my password. Instead of "password," I'd make it "drowssap." -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mark, as a secruity measure, logged into the compromised account and changed both the password and the email.[109] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that AZPR (talk · contribs) appears to be a long time semi-bot account operated by AndyZ, and AZPR is now requesting that AndyZ be unblocked. That would convince me, unless the password to User:AZPR was also "password". User:Mark knows what AndyZ's original e-mail was before he blanked it, so I guess Mark will ultimately know whether or not to unblock. Thatcher131 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (as I noted on my talk page), my password was password too. (The idea behind my login was that I could show that I am aware of my activities before I took my wikibreak) I did e-mail Mark though, so hopefully he can clear up the entire situation. Oh and btw, I just happened to notice the post that started this thread - that is NOT me. APR _t 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's really bad that we have 2 users claiming to be AndyZ, does anyone know AndyZ by email so we could get clarification of which account is his? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Speakmans Hour as an imposter account, there were only 2 edits, it seams clear they were only after the admin bit. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(Its fairly obvious that the aforementioned user is making false claims, his contribution list is 2 edits Edit conflict: thanks Ryan) I have e-mailed Mark. I would e-mail someone else who e-mailed me before, but that leaves User:Bobblewik (emailed regarding his date/unit fixing scripts as an inclusion in the PR one) who has left and a bunch of trolls (like User:Titanicprincess, User:Rptng03509345) who send e-mails around regarding some evil admins. APR _t 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is where other people need to weigh in, Andy - I didn't know you before (sorry), but you've got to understand the trust that has been lost with your account being compromised - it's not we don't trust the original user, it's the fact that we don't know who is actually attempting to use the account now, or want's to be known as the user formally known as andyZ, I haven't got any suggestions. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you had a second account known to be yours. That would be a good countermeasure for hijacking, although I would prefer keysigning. -- ReyBrujo 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree completely with Ryan, but also we're discussing reinstating a user (hopefully not also resysoping) that used the word "password" as their, well, password. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So? People screw up royally, and you're talking about having "password" as a password as if it were a crime. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOT policy saved me here :). APR _t 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, and I would go thru the same exact steps as you have if I were dealing with someone who returns right after his account was hacked for vandalizing the main page. I don't mind at all the suspicion; I probably would be suspicious myself if this had happened to someone else. Thanks a lot for your understanding, APR _t 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspicion? Lets see if I can overdo it. Isn’t it ironic that AZPR is a quite famous piece of password recovery software from ElcomSoft? --Van helsing 09:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User verification

One problem is to get some verification of a person's identity, such as for restoring control of a username. What permissions should be given that user is a different problem. For users whose identity is unknown, there may be some information which could be used for verification within their Wikipedia contributions. For example, if they've used some obscure books for sources and they still have those books they can at least verify that they are a person who does have those books. They can quickly look up any desired section of a book, and others can verify the information (even if it takes others a while to get a copy of the book, the quick reply to a challenge helps verify access to the source). (SEWilco 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Once again, an argument for setting up something like a web or wiki of trust. -- Avi 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than books as a source, I would suggest uploading own-work images of similar topics to images uploaded by the user before and where the metadata can be verified as being same camera, same date, ... Eg if you have provided an image of a place, you possibly have available more images of that place that you haven't uploaded.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest full body shots. Men need to scrawl "Wikipedia Rules" across the chest in Sharpie.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Commonsusage100 / User:JoanneB upload oddness

Commonsusage100 (talk · contribs · count) claims to be some sort of bot, created by admin User:JoanneB to upload a bunch of images, which so far all appear to be scantily clad but non- images of women in/around bars. This is just a bit odd... JoanneB has not responded yet on her talk page. Is she on IRC or other contact methods? Georgewilliamherbert 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That user was blocked. I think there is some process thingy to go through if that were to be true. Besides, the way things happened, it just doesn't fit like regular bots. It was probably just an impersonator. --24.136.230.38 23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The name didn't end with BOT, and User:JoanneB is an administrator, so I trust that she knows her stuff. Anyways, it just doesn't add up (should have been created by Joanne herself, bots don't upload pictures, wasn't approved or given trial, tag was placed by bot, etc). --24.136.230.38 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

turned out to be a complete impersonation. Blocked indef by another admin, obviously... Georgewilliamherbert 00:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PCE

PCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been an issue with professional wrestling related articles since he first appeared last year, just looking at his talk page should give an idea of how mny people have attempted to stop him as well as a block for disruption. This users only edits, apart from sporadic vandalism, is to make up false information (namely names) for wrestling moves and then add them to articles. He has received countless warnings (at least six test4's), never uses an edit summary and is impossible to deal with because he never responds to any person trying to communicate with him. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone help me out? –– Lid^(Talk) 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ElBuentada

ElBuentada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious User:Danny Daniel (A banned user.) sockpuppet. See contributions for evidence and User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for information about this vandal's sockpuppets. Pants^(T) 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The user recreated Coca-Town, an article created by a indefinitely blocked Danny Daniel sockpuppet. Pants^(T) 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though one of this vandal's hoaxes have been deleted from Wikipedia (in it, the admin acknowledges that this is a sockpuppet), this user is still active and hasn't been blocked yet. Pants^(T) 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Children of Curpsbot

Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (now retired) created a multi-function adminbot starting circa September 2005. The most well known function of this bot was to watch for pagemove style vandalism and counter it by issuing rapid blocks. In doing so, Curps countered a major problem Wikipedia was having at that time, and this use of his bot was widely endorsed and openly celebrated. However, Curps's bot did not stop there and he also added functions to counter vandalism with reversions and blocks and to block newly registered accounts with questionable names like Mr.AssShitHead. These later functions, which Curps never publicly explained in detail, were more controversial. In particular, many criticized him for using the vague statement "user..." in issuing username blocks and not clearly identifying which actions were being done by a robot versus which actions were being performed manually. Even back then, engaging in these sorts of actions with little discussion or approval was not really in keeping with the spirit of the bot policy. Curps retired in July 2006.

However, unknown to everyone (as far as I can tell), is that two other admins had secretly started running Curpsbot derivatives before Curps's retirement. On the plus side, this meant that page move vandalism was still protected against. On the negative side, these bots continued issuing username blocks and engaging in other activities (like vandalism reversion) without being identified as bots, or being acknowledged/discussed by the community. I only realized what was going on after reviewing Wikipedia log data. In each case the bot has been modified and evolved from the original Curpsbot design. For example, in one case the annoying "user..." summary was eliminated, and in another case the operator apparently scaled back the level of antivandal activities. However, I consider the log evidence incontrovertible that two admins have run Curpsbot derived adminbots for large stretches of more than a year.

That is until recently. One of these two admins has recently announced his retirement. The other has apparently disabled most (all?) of the adminbot's functions during the last few months (possibly deliberately, possibly because Mediawiki changes caused those functions to stop working, and possibly because I told him I was going to start this discussion). Given that the bots are now largely inactive, I am going to refrain (for now) from revealing the two admins in question. Rather than trying to lynch the specific operators of these bots, I'd rather have a discussion about adminbots in general and Curpsbot functionality in particular (there are plenty of examples from Curps' logs). Are these acceptable activities for bots to run, and if so how should they be discussed and approved? What should happen to adminbots run in secret (p.s. these two are not the only bots in the logs)? If we are going to give more than lip service to the notion that bots need to be approved, we would need to both send a clear signal that secret bots are not okay, and provide a viable forum for handling these issue. (I think the amount of hassle and unnecessary overhead created by past adminbot debates largely encourages such activities to be run in secret.) Dragons flight 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand is the most recent discusion that had some discussion on the use of semi-automated tools that users with administrators powers used. hbdragon88 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The community seems unwilling to discuss the idea of an admin bot without resorting to hysteria, so it is possible that these admins had to ignore the rules to improve Wikipedia. I cannot be sure without looking at the log evidence itself. Is there any particular action that seemed incorrect? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few examples of things I would consider mistakes. Things analogous to blocking "ThePenIsMighter" because the bot saw "penis", come to mind, but the problems I saw were quite rare (probably less than 1% of actions). Also, it is worth noting that if adminbots can run from many months without drawing attention to themselves, then they clearly aren't doing much harm. If I thought they were harmful, I would have blocked them already and the above would have been a much different post. Dragons flight 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm hoping that I'm inserting this into the proper branch of this discussion.) The situation that led to the ArbCom discussion about Betacommand grew out of the fact that Betacommand never uswefully responded to concerns about his automated edits. I mention this only to point out the lesson there for anyone wanting to run an AdminBot: explain yourself often & completely -- & be willing to admit mistakes & be overruled from time to time. Do that, & I expect opposition to AdminBots would decline. -- llywrch 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of adminbots, and I like the idea of secret adminbots even less. If these were autonomously blocking people, we need to come down on it hard, to prevent a recurrence in the future. The operators should both lose whatever bot flags they have, and also their seats on the BAG (if they have them), at a minimum. As for the other stuff, it's hard to discuss acceptable degrees of functionality without knowing exactly which tasks the modified bots were performing. Can you provide a list? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that (pending community consensus otherwise) admins should not be using fully automated bots. I have no problem with admins using scripts and semi-bots to expedite deletions and so forth as long as each action requires a final manual confirmation, and with the understanding that if the admins screws up by confirming things he shouldn't have (using bad judgement in other words) he can't blame it on bad bot code or something, but has to take full responsibility. Thatcher131 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem though, if we outright bad the legitimate uses of adminbots (there are a few places they could help), then people are going to feel strongly enough and run them "underground". The only way to stop illegal adminbots, is to legalize some, and provide restrictions. It should increase quality, since the code will be reviewed. It reminds me of Prohibition, where people would drink alcohol regardless of legality, and the lack of standards in the illegal distilleries made for toxic concoctions. Prodego ^talk 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That analogy's not great, since people here feel more strongly (and uniformly) against adminbots than the average US citizen did against booze. Given that this is the case, we also have an option that wasn't open to the US Gov't regarding alcohol sales: extremely draconian penalties for violators. If it were public knowledge that anyone running an unauthorized adminbot would be desysopped (if appropriate), permanently lose the approval to run bots of any sort, and pick up a lengthy block (i.e. several months at a minimum), I doubt we'd have much problem. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And that would be a very ridiculous response to actions that were A) intended to improve the encyclopedia and B) did improve the encyclopedia. Whatever else I may believe, I certainly wouldn't stomach giving out months long blocks unless someone's actions were actually shown to be harmful. Dragons flight 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't think that ignoring policy and running an unauthorized bot would do harm to the encyclopedia, or that people can inadvertently cause problems while intending to improve the encyclopedia? For example, if there's an admin running an unauthorized bot that blocks bad usernames, and the bot gets a screw loose and blocks a big run of reasonable names for valid contributors, how would that not damage the project? It'd damage our credibility, it'd bite newbies, it'd drive away good contributors... the list goes on and on. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an editor for months because their bot might have problems and go on a rampage is a lot different than blocking someone because they did go on a rampage. Dragons flight 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd be blocking them for a month for betraying the community's trust and doing an end-run around the processes designed to regulate a very controversial area of the site. In that sense, blocking for what the bot might do is much better than blocking for what the bot did, since it's preventative rather than punitive (insofar as someone who got caught with an unauthorized, malfunctioning adminbot is extremely unlikely to have any positions of authority to abuse in the future). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that process and transparency matter. If an admin wants to improve the encyclopedia, he has lots of ways to do so that don't involve breaking the rules and violating the community's trust. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as being in no way an AN/I issue, and should be brought to a wider audience if possible. A number of compromise suggestions have been proposed in previous "adminbot" requests, such as strictly limiting the number of sysop tools the bot had, and providing some sort of throttle/panic button for admins in case the bot goes rogue. Overall, though, I have to wonder (emotionally, not logically) if the recent wave of compromised administrative accounts will make people less likely to support adminbots in the future. There's a wide latitude of valid opinions between "I for one welcome our new robot overlords" and Skynet-related hysteria, and dismissing it all or arrogating decision to a subset of users seems counter to Wikipedia tradition. I in no way endorse the use of unauthorized adminbots though; if we need more admins to provide these 'automatic' functions, we should be trying to promote them, until such time as the Turing test is met. -- nae'blis 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an incident regarding admin privileges. For the record, as well, I prefer to edit-summary my username blocks as User... in a tribute to curpsbot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• pops head out of locked room labeled 'work'* Many of you likely do not know me, some of you may... my feeling on the whole issue regarding this is that there are some functions which are legit. Auto-unprotecting and protecting pages, or performing page moves for certain reasons. I do have a suggestion on the whole matter of an adminbot: Since the majority of the functions require an administrator flag, any adminbot must publish its source code so that users who have an understanding of the code can interject when they see a potential problem with the code, as like any other OpenSource software. Anyway, that's my two bits on the issue. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with the above, there would also be some disadvantages to publishing the complete source code to a "Curps-like" bot. In particular, I believe part of the reason why Curps never made his bot code publicly available is that, if the vandals had known exactly what rules it used for detecting bad usernames and pagemove vandals, it would've been trivial for the vandals (at least some of whom were also using bots) to avoid them. After all, if you know the bot will block you if you make N page moves a minute, all you need to do is to program your vandalbot to make N-1 moves a minute instead.

That said, it would certainly be possible and reasonable to publish most of the source code, except for a few configuration details that need to be kept secret. There's an interesting analogy here: MediaWiki itself is, of course, open source. However, MediaWiki contains a little-known feature that prevents anyone from saving any page that matches a certain regex. This regex is specified in the site configuration file, which, on Wikimedia wikis at least, is most definitely not public information.

Of course, my personal opinion on adminbots in general, which I've stated before, is that it shouldn't matter how you do your edits or your admin actions — what matter are the results. If I block an account named JimboWalesFucksLittleBoys, who cares if I do it with a bot, with a script or entirely by hand? Conversely, if I go and block Jimbo himself for no good reason, or do something equally silly like deleting the Main Page, I expect to be blocked and desysopped for it — to prevent further damage — just the same regardless of whether the immediate act was done by a bot or by my own fingers.

I don't run any bots myself, nor have I ever, though I did think about setting one up once. (I ended up patching MediaWiki instead to prevent the problems the bot would've been watching out for.) I have, though, written and used a lot of user scripts, including some for doing semi-automated admin tasks. In any case, I'd consider myself equally responsible for my actions whether I did them manually or with the help of a bot or a script. After all, I'm the one who made the script do those actions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• This situation isn't nearly as bad as some people think. There was an RFA nom for an admin bot about a month ago that would have passed if it were not withdrawn just before the ending date. There was some hysterics, but not much, and overall the community accepted the idea. The main quibble is that people wanted the bot to be open source. >Radiant< 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• ProtectionBot was needed to solve a major problem at the time and its task was relatively uncontroversial. I don't think we can expect to enjoy the same level of support for an evil fair use-deleting bot, or rampaging proxy-blocking bot. – Steel 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Try it. Do not a priori assume that the community will reject it. Do not base that assumption on incorrect evidence. Try it. >Radiant< 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that adminbots are The Way Forward and the quicker we get rid of this ridiculous, irrational skynet-type hysteria the better. If admins have to run bots in secret until then, so be it. Philosophical objections along the lines of "I just don't like adminbots" are equally unhelpful. – Steel 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not, nor has there ever been, such a creature as a "Curpsbot derivative". —freak(talk) 22:00, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta

Resolved

 – Certified.Gangsta temporarily blocked, ArbCom asked for clarification. Sean William 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[110] [111] [112]

I'm just curious as to whether the ArbCom decision for one revert per week per article applies here or not. Nowhere in the decision does it say it is limited to mainspace. --Ideogram 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above applies, but the following certainly does apply:

• Political status of Taiwan
  • Revert at 2007-05-08 18:55:55
  • Revert at 2007-05-08 19:04:22
• Lara Veronin
  • Revert at 2007-05-06 08:02:31
  • Revert at 2007-05-08 19:00:21
• Republic of China
  • Revert at 2007-05-08 01:09:45
  • Revert at 2007-05-08 18:59:17
• List of Chinese Americans
  • Revert at 2007-05-06 09:25:30
  • Revert at 2007-05-08 18:55:02

To admins who are not aware, User:Certified.Gangsta is under revert parole where he is limited to one revert per article per week. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Remedies. And please note that he had just been blocked for 24 hours on May 6th for parole violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Certified.Gangsta for 48 hours, in line with the ArbCom decision. Pending clarification from ArbCom (which I believe Ideogram already asked for), I won't be counting userspace reverts. Sean William 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole applies to other project spaces like talk pages, WIkiprojects, AfD, and so on. I doubt the arbitrators intended for it to refer to his own user page. Frankly, edit warring over the practical joke box seems more disruptive than the box itself. Thatcher131 03:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from ESPN?!

I just reverted a clear case of vandalism from IP 192.234.2.80. Checking on the whois, it looks like it's coming from ESPN HQ in Bristol, CT. Can someone verify this or am I going nuts?--Ispy1981 03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not nuts. WHOIS says that the address is registered to ESPN. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably some mail room summer intern with a computer. If you're feeling ambitious, contact their abuse address. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks--Ispy1981 14:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is new to me. User creates account to hand out barnstars with no previous contact with the recipients.[113] Also has been warned for other vandalistic edits. [114] User:ZeroTheLoser seems to be the focus of User:Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly's obvious vandalism. Timeline of events:

(13:24, 7 May 2007) New user account created.

(13:27, 7 May 2007) Within first 3 minutes of account creation 4 unabashed acts of vandalism.

(20:36, 7 May 2007) Three hours go by (must of been nap time) and the unusual handing out of barnstars begin.

(21:34, 7 May 2007) Tops off the barnstar handing out by awarding the user page they vandalized first with a barnstar.

Strange. --Knowpedia 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the signature displays his name as "Can't we hate our allies and love our enemies". Definitely someone who knows his way around WP. --Masamage ♫ 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one, and was very leary. I thought it was a joke, or a poke. I need a lot of info to take things for granted. LOL. I do think it's mean though, for those who believe this is legit for Wikipedia. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was was very odd as well... at first I thought it was legit, then I looked at his edit history... and he's handing out the same exact one to many other people. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was weird, I guess. The random awarding is maybe a form of vandalism, but since it's all on talk pages anyway I would say it's pretty harmless. - Rainwarrior 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar flooding is an uncommon form of vandalism, but I've seen it before. Usually it's ten or twenty barnstars per person, instead of just one. It's still a vandal-only account imo. Anybody object to an indef block? ··coelacan 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about a indef block. I do think it's semi-harmless, to a degree though. It is a hoax, in a way, so in that respect, not cool at all. Perhaps blocking the user name, and not an IP, since it just seems to be on user talk pages? Lets keep this open for a while, so others have time to comment. Some may be in bed, at work, out, etc. JMHO. Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say give the guy a fair warning, first, that the semi-random barnstarring is kind of weird and that he should stop. Don't ban him unless he fails to comply. --Masamage ♫ 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also just noticed user has edit summary for all 31 edits, this is not common for a new user but most established user will not press "save page" without the edit summary. Noted the edit summary for my barnstar is different from the rest... weird!--Knowpedia 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If this person's not going to use the account for anything but awarding, then it's pointless to let him continue this weirdness. Wikipedians are here to improve the articles, not to give random awards. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk}

I agree with the block here. This user reminds me too much of Buenoma (talk · contribs) and Payple (talk · contribs), both of whom I blocked for the same thing (well, they were actually the same user). --Coredesat 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a silly award. I don't know why he gave it out? Any action (or non-action) is fine by me. I feel so unspecial now =/ --ZayZayEM 09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think he should be blocked just tell him what hes doing wrong and if he continues then take action mabye ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I did to get targetted, but I am curious about what to do with a barnstar it appears I haven't earned. If all of his edits are barnstars, I can see a reason for banning him, though someone needs to talk to him first. Rebochan 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Noted user is apologetic for handing out the Barnstars and has asked for forgiveness. [115] --Knowpedia 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

hes apoligised in a wired third persion way saying we insted of I is that of any importance 81.145.242.43 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to change NOR policy in this manner?

This is in reference to a dispute from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy

Please try to ignore the pettyness (and I'm sorry for the part I've played thus far.)

I am aware that WP:NOR is a "non-negotiable" policy. However, neither that policy (nor in either of the other two articles) specifically states that it must be applied to talk pages (on the contrary, the term "article" is used frequently.) This specific application of the ban on original research is directly supported only by WP:TALK.

Still, several people still insist that this "clarification" would not be possible even with overwhelming consensus (I'm not claiming to have such consensus at this point in time) due to it being a fundemental alteration, even though no one has yet claimed an actual contradiction (other than TALK.)

I believe that this issue needs the involvement of the admins (and quite possibly involvement of the very highest levels) to clarify. CAN we decide that WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, or will such a decision be inevitably vetoed?

Note that most of the controversy is surrounding one specific subtype of original research: synthesis. Did the founders of Wikipedia (and creators of the "non-negotiable" policies) intend for synthesis (i.e. most logical deductions) to be banned from the talk pages, even if it's being used to support an action (such as, for instance, a page redirect) that does NOT add unsourced material to the article itself?

I am not asking whether the admins believe such a policy shift to be wise. I am asking them whether it is possible. --Lode Runner 05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"No original research" only applies to article space, and that's always been the case. Likewise NPOV only applies to article space as well. Anyone arguing they do is missing the point and is categorically and unequivocally wrong. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (speaking for myself and not for the Arbitration Committee as a whole)

Clarification (before some smartarse comes along and asks "So what about Portal:" - substitute 'encyclopedia space' for 'article space' above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you are saying that NOR and NPOV do not apply to article talk pages? Interesting, because many admins have said differently on WP:NOR talk. I agree partially with Lode Runner and what (I think) you're saying here, that article talk pages should allow essentially unrestricted discussion as long as the goal is to improve the article. If so, then we need to change WP:TALK. - Merzbow 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If WP:TALK says that, it should be fixed. I suspect the INTENT of adding that kind of wording was to warn people that they couldn't put unverified harmful stuff on talk pages and have it stay - talk pages are not a free-for-all character assassination zone. However, it is acceptable and always has been to work on stuff on the talk page that's not ready for 'prime time' - that may include stuff we believe to be true but haven't yet foudn a reliable source for, for instance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note well that that does not mean that "essentially unrestricted discussion" is permitted. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the proposed changes to the NOR policy by nature allow for unrestricted discussion on talk pages. Clearly, that's unacceptable: talk pages only exist to promote the advancement of the page they represent: whether it be by workshopping future material for inclusion, or discussing changes or gaining consensus. But that's the limit of what talk pages are intended for. Case in point: the 0.999... article (I think that's the proper page title) talk page....it's devolved into a "answer your math questions here" and "Lets argue the validity of proofs unrelated to the article". Accordingly, I MFD'd it, but such a devolution is exactly what the changes proposed by Lode Runner create. As I have mentioned before, modifying NOR necessitates modifying WP:RS,WP:TALK,WP:V,and WP:ATT. That's far too sweeping of a change. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a clarification on WP:TALK that discussion is intended to produce a result that is NPOV and NOR and should be focused on that goal? IOW, not a place to put all the stuff you'd like to include in the article if it weren't for those pesky policies.

Talk pages aren't an 'anything goes' environment - I just feel that extending NOR and NPOV to them, which was never the intention of those policies, is the wrong way, and a fundamentally broken way, to do that. It's pretending a rule applies that never has in practice, and written policy on Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what's actually done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold, and removed the offending section from WP:TALK. Feel free to restore it, if you can provide an explanation of why that section was needed in the first place. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial revert, because you removed the parts that encouraged editors to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:BLP, both of which are essential in talk pages (especially the former). --Masamage ♫ 07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further reverted: without inclusion of something similar to that, the guideline therefore contradicts itself in the beginning : "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

The included statement "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." is vital: it allows for wiggle room, while maintaining the integrity of talk pages to do what they were DESIGNED to do. Removing that statement has the effect of removing that allowance as well, which is clearly not the intention of the guideline. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, possible baiting at User talk:Kirbytime

A number of users are trading insults at User talk:Kirbytime. Kirbytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the worst offender in terms of civility: [116] (comment with the expletive later struck), [117]. However, I am concerned that the other editors may be baiting him, particularly Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who here reminds Kirbytime of a block I gave him yesterday [118]. Kirbytime accuses Matt57 of stalking him [119]. As I blocked Kirbytime yesterday, I'm not sure I'm neutral on this and wanted to see if other admins felt this needed to be addressed. Heimstern Läufer 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime is also edit-warring again, see 3RR. - Merzbow 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree to be blocked for this on the condition that Matt57 is blocked as well.--Kirby♥time 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, what should I be blocked for? For reporting your violations against NPA and CIVIL (giving a link to Piss Christ to another user and this)? You have been blocked for 3RR now for 1 week. This is your 4th block within the last 30 days. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

being blocked is not an option or something you agree to.--Sefringle 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week by Blnguyen.[120] ··coelacan 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to be blocked if coelacan is blocked for having a username that vaguely reminds me of some sort of ocean creature. Otherwise, I am not allowed to be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

....ps....if your sarcasm meter was out of batteries above....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring the attention of the community with a bit background on the "piss christ" bit. It was addressed to User:Prester John who had created a userbox on his userpage with the title "User:Prester John/Userbox/Allah is Satan"(please note that the text is still on the userpage). This doesn't justify Kirby's comment but explains the situation better. How is it that "Allah is Satan" doesn't deserve any block but "piss christ" has? --Aminz 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Prester John certainly would have merited a block for userspace violations, as he has persisted in the face of several requests and warnings.

As for 3RR, Kirbytime was blocked for edit-warring this completely ridiculous photoshopped image of the moon, which Aminz inexplicably created, onto Muhammad against consensus. Even one revert of this kind material is disruptive, and Kirbytime was only a few hours off of another block for edit-warring. Aminz, this is supposed to be a serious academic enterprise. Please refrain from creating further nonsense images, and definitely do not edit-war against consensus to restore them.Proabivouac 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that, perhaps, a week-long block is too severe of a censur for this case. El_C 08:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was also a 3RR this time as well, in addition to personal attacks (gave a link link to Piss Christ) and he was just blocked yesterday for disruptive editing. A 24 hour block would mean he would be back again and repeat it all over again. 1 week sounds ok to me. This is his 4th block in the past 30 days. His first two blocks weer blocks for trolling. This is a user who should have been blocked indefinitely at his second block (for trolling and requesting pictures in articles relating to Child Sexuality). Obviously he's not going to change his demeanour here. If you see his contribs, you'll see what he's been doing. His best behavior seems to be reverting and giving a link to a policy (e.g. WP:SOAP) but not explaining why or how it applies etc. 1 week should be enough to hopefully make him come out of the disruptive editing he has been involved in.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, Kirby's allegation of me stalking him is completely false. Please check his contribs and see for yourself. All we were doing is discussing article issues with him on talk last night (e.g. [121],[122],[123],[124] ) and reverting his changes. We were 3 editors (Sefringle, me and Proabivouac). Please do know that he has been called a troll by admins before, and has been blocked two times for that (see his block log). He even removes talk content from his page from admins, calling it 'trolling' when there is none. You'll see that everything he alleges is false, including even the arguments he uses for discussions on articles. The fact that he was edit-warring with admins on his user page just recently should be enough clue as to who the guilty party is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pollack

Can I get a couple of admins to take a hard look at an article? I'm seeing what could be the beginning of some nasty business over the article on Henry Pollack. The subject of the article is very much watching the article and has left a message on the talk page stating in part:

If he continues I shall contact an attorney and sue for liable.

And

I hope that WIKIPEDIA takes immediate action and bans hin from editing anything that has to do with me, my family or my family home in Cuba.

Note that the segment of text which Mr. Pollack objected to was pulled out prior to his leaving the message by someone else in an effort to render the article less POV. Tabercil 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The user has made legal threats, so I have blocked him indefinitely. I've told him that I've left a message at the BLP noticeboard, where other editors can give the article more scrutiny. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sue for liable? Thats a new one. Viridae^Talk 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Brent Corrigan

Hey there. I'm requesting some admin help with a revert war over on the Corrigan article. One poster is stating that, because he doesn't accept information published by the subject on the subjects personal website, the information is therefore contentious and BLP and SELFPUB guidelines don't apply. Myself and another poster have explained the points behind BLP and SELFPUB.

It gets a bit more complicated than that but, unfortunately, at this point we need an admin to come in and make some decisions.Jodyw1 06:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you like porn as much as I do (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Resolved then?--VectorPotential^Talk 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username –Spebi 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, please use WP:AIV next time. Grandmasterka 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA appears to have taken over. Viridae^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. –Spebi 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

block review, personal attacks, 31 hours

Meet Prester John. You may remember him from such threads as #Incivility, possible baiting at User talk:Kirbytime, and his eponymous debut, #User:Prester John.

He and I were discussing some T1 userboxes and the possibility of taking his "Allah is Satan" show on the road, at User talk:Prester John#"God" in Muslim articles, when he popped in here at ANI to call for Kirbytime's blocking.

Fine and good, and I support the 1 week block. Prestor John said of Kirbytime's "Piss Christ" comment: "A greater attempt to offend a class of people I have not encountered." I'm a bit surprised by that, since Prestor John baited Kirbytime, then noted that the comment, directed at him, was rather off-target, and collected it for posterity. But hey, we all handle stress differently.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I noticed that only a half hour before demanding Kirbytime's block, Prestor John was making his own personal attacks, calling other editors "leftist scum". A few quick Ctrl-F perusals of his talk page for "personal attack", "npa", and "civil" are quite revealing; he's well aware of the policies, but ignores them.

I feel that this is part of a pattern of disruption along with his insistence on maintaining an inflammatory userpage and his "Allah is Satan" campaign, and that this disruption needs to be brought to some kind of halt, albeit temporarily. I have made a 31 hour block and request that other admins review it. ··coelacan 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the block acceptable under the circumstances, Prestor John is aware of the policies on civility,NPA etc as they are all linked from his user page. Gnangarra 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block and the justification. -- mattb 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, but it seems reasonable to me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Prester John (talk · contribs) stating this about any other user is one of the most flagrant WP:KETTLE situations I've seen in a while.--Isotope23 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, but i'm no admin. ThuranX 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Besides these personal attacks, of which I was not aware, he has been warned several times not to add inflammatory userspace content, but has persisted nevertheless. If he objects to the translation of Arabic "Allah" as "God," I and the MOS strongly disagree, but that is one thing; announcing from his userpage "Allah is Satan" quite another.

It is long past time to put these userspace games to an end.Proabivouac 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, though 31 hours is far too lenient. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

This editor has just made this edit to an ongoing AfD, after creating this redirect and {{Irc}}. Please take appropriate action. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, you are a member of that Wikiproject? In fact did you not use "IRA" in your signature until you were forced to change it? Astrotrain 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't alter the fact the redirect and the template were inappropriate (I've since deleted), nor the fact the deletion discussion doesn't exactly revolve around Irish Republicanism. The words Irish nor Ireland are nowhere to be seen in the article, so I fail to see any conflict of interest here. I'll leave a similar note on Kittybrewster's talk page. -- Nick ^t 10:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Warning left, AfD additions reverted, one week block pending if this or something similar continues. Daniel Bryant 10:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Can I also raise the issue of this editors canvassing on this AfD. This editor has been warned on several occasions about canvassing but has left a messege on both his own talk page and on the Baronet Project talk page directing people to the AfD. --Vintagekits 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never before seen an editor go through and mark AfD participants according to the project they belong to, as if they were ineligible voters. However this dispute isn't one-sided. There'a a long-simmering war between some Irish and English editors (chiefly user:Vintagekits and user:Kittybrewster) that has been affecting articles and AfDs concerning English nobility and the Irish Republican Army.

A separate issue is the creation by Kittybrewster of a large number of articles about his family.AfD/Alexander George Arbuthnot. This issue has been discussed at WP:COIN:Arbuthnot.

And VK does have some legitimate issues with KB about vote canvassing. -Will Beback · † · 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_April_15#Arbuthnot - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet- where Vintagekits posted a large rant against various editors who voted to keep this article. If these users are bringing up how editors voted in historic AFDs on IRA terrorists, then it is understandable that there is suspicions when a large contingent of Irish Republican Wikiproject members turn up on AFDs on members of the Arbuthnot family. Astrotrain 10:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2p. on this is that both sides are capable of behaving irresponsibly. Vintagekits has been nominating a lot of articles about members of the Arbuthnot family for deletion, some of them more than once, but none of them have yet been closed as a delete. I know that Kittybrewster views this as harassment, and I think he has a good case. I can see this ending in an arbitration case unless there is a sudden outbreak of common sense and each side moves away from the other. There is no reason why Wikipedia should not have good coverage of Scots aristocracy and Irish republicanism. Sam Blacketer 11:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to make a claim like that at least back it up - how many of the many Arbuthnot family articles have I nominated for deletion recently?Vintagekits 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That may well be because of the votestacking and canvassing, more on that later when I've compiled all the evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent AfDs for Arbuthnots

Here as a background are the recent AfD nominations of members of the Arbuthnot family.

• Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet: 7 March by Nuttah68, closed as keep.
• Robert Arbuthnot (auditor): 26 April by JzG, closed as no consensus.
• Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet: 26 April by Vintagekits, closed as no consensus. Note that the subject of this article is Kittybrewster.
• Alexander George Arbuthnot: 6 May by One Night In Hackney, still open.
• John Alves Arbuthnot: 7 May by One Night In Hackney, still open.

Sam Blacketer 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that neither of the articles I nominated are aristocrats. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So Sam do you want to strike through the follow claim that you above - "Vintagekits has been nominating a lot of articles about members of the Arbuthnot family for deletion, some of them more than once". regards--Vintagekits 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think these pages are just about notable, but it seems to me that their author is more keen to create the category than the pages, and that is the cause of the problem. Now I know I'm not the brightest bagel in the picnic but I fail to understand where the Irish problem is coming from or what it has to do with this matter. Kittybrewster has expressed his feelings here [125] on my talkpage and I don't understand it there either. I think a mediator is needed here, before I begin an indepth series on the lives of my numerous great aunts. Giano 12:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely certain of what's going on either, although I have been tangentially involved in this matter through a discourse with Vintagekits at the latest AfD. My understanding (and correct me if any of this is wrong, I'm just trying to put together the pieces) is that two groups of editors (one including Kittybrewster, the other including Vintagekits and One Night in Hackney) have previously fallen out over issues of POV pushing with regard to Irish republicanism (one of the above editors until recently appended the name of an Irish terrorist group as part of his signature, for example). The AfD nominations (seemingly of biographies of Kittybrewster's family) and various other high-jinks have basically been part of escalating rounds or bad-faith retaliations between the parties. No-one comes up smelling of roses here, although dispute resolution of whatever form might help to figure out what's been going on, and who (if anyone) is to blame for what, because I can't really follow it myself to be honest. As always however, the solution however is for all sides to cool off and stop being so silly. Badgerpatrol 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I never had the name of an Irish terrorist group in my signature. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You had "IRA" in your signature- see here for example [126]. You now use "303". Doing a google search of 303 IRA [127] gives references to a 303 rifle used by the IRA, as well as your own talk page. Astrotrain 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Every one of us had 19th century ancestors, and if they were otherwies non-notable businessmen, they do not need to have Wikipedia articles. If they were Baronets or other titled persons then there is at least a subject for debate as to whether that alone "entitles" them to some inherent nobility. Some project members for titles argue for inherent notability, and other editors feel everyone should be judged by WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:ATT. If non-notable, non-titled ancestors have reached lack of consensus due to canvassing and votestacking, then this pattern of behavior should be stopped. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database; Ancestry.com and like sites welcome complete family trees regardless of whether there are multiple independent and reliable references with substantial coverage of the ancestor. Edison 14:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did - [128], [129]. I don't think it's helpful but as I recall it has been mentioned here before and you (sensibly) compromised to something less likely to cause offence (although if the "303" is indeed a reference to a type of weapon then that is a return to very poor taste territory indeed...). Unless there's another IRA (maybe the Inland Revenue Association, a club for retired taxmen? With nineteen hundred and sixteen members? Located at number 303 Acacia Avenue? ;-) Badgerpatrol 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is not so much one of notability (the notability of these articles is certainly worthy of debate) but perhaps the behaviour of the parties - all the parties - involved. Badgerpatrol 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

if you follow this page on a regular basis (as I do), none of those names mentioned above come as much as a surprise - there seems to be an ongoing tit-for-tat frankly childlike bit of fighting going on - how do we sort this out? I have no idea. Oh and I find it very disingenious that ONIH says he never has IRA as part of his signature, yes I know he made the argument that it refered to the historical context but as an editor, he's too bright to know how it would have been taken. --Fredrick day 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I never had IRA in my signature, just that it didn't refer to a modern incarnation. Still, it's nice to know that this has been sidetracked by a disruptive editor, rather than focus on the issues at hand. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano is being constructive. Also see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_April_15#Arbuthnot. The answer is for the Irish Republican cabal (where is the incivility in that?) voluntarily to self—ban from editing or afd-ing any Arbuthnot articles. That leaves them plenty to play with. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to being referred to as part of a cabal, and this editor has been warned not to use that term, please take appropriate action. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get a bit silly... or rather has been a bit silly for a while now. Several of you are not strangers to this board either reporting each other or being the subjects of WP:ANI reports and that is not a good thing. Has anyone tried WP:DR here? Fredrick day (talk · contribs) is on the money here; this whole dispute and much of the behavior surrounding it is childish and it's time for you all to grow up.--Isotope23 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh is that the word you object to? Then I apologise for it. Would faction be better? Or Wikiproject members? You choose. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Badger I agree that the solution however is for all sides to cool off and stop being so silly. It is hard to do that when articles I created are under afd etc. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• We seem to be getting kind of sidetracked below so I am coming back up here to ensure this issue of Canvassing is dealt with. Kitty has previously had a final warning not to engage in canvassing, which was supported by another administrator (who's even a member of the Baronetcies WikiProject). Before that Kittybrewster had previously been warned about canvassing here. And now he has left messages at three WikiProjects regarding the above AfD - Military history, Florida and most tellingly Baronetcies. Even a member of the Baronetcies project questioned why the project would be interested. He claimed that it was "An article that you may have been involved in editing..." is false, as the edit history of the page in question shows because he was the only person from the Baronet Project to ever edit the article and the article has nothing to do with any Baronet. He additonally left an advertisement on his talk page highlighting the AfD.--Vintagekits 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. [130] - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IS that your defense? Which part of it is nonsense - go through each point I made and tell if what I have said is true or false.--Vintagekits 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know about you, Vintagekits, but I don't have the time or inclination to wade through hundreds of afds every day just to "vote" on a few of them - so personally I think it's useful to advertise afds that relate to a wikiproject that are obviously groundless but for some reason still contentious (well, to the extent that a few users can cause contentiousness). Now, as you very well know, afd's are not votes, so unlike RFA (for example), vote canvassing doesn't really have much of an effect on afd's. Or have you yourself forgotten that AFD's aren't votes? ugen64 20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we do, ignore the canvassing even though he has been warned time and time again about this. Yes AfD's are not votes but when vote stacking occurs it usually ends up as a "no consensus" result so actually canvassing has a serious affect and is a serious abuse of the AfD process. I also consider the "advertising" on a wikiproject can be useful but blatantly advertising to a partisan audience in an unrelated project is a breach of WP:CANVAS - if no action is taken oer this then we are setting a precident that allows people to do what they want regardless of wiki policy.--Vintagekits 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me who "we" is - it may affect what I suggest you do.  ;) Kittybrewster (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The grand "we" as in the wiki community.--Vintagekits 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of making allegations about other editors, you'd like to put your own house in order first? It seems you and others have a long history of partisan block voting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE by User:Fubar Obfusco

A number of editors had been going back and forth over at Youth for Human Rights International over terming it a "front group" and providing a "front group back story". No big deal - day in the life. User:Antaeus Feldspar, one of the participants, restored it again and I removed it to talk, realizing that this edit-war was going nowhere. That was the correct thing to do and User:Antaeus Feldspar did not reinsert. Some hours later User:Fubar Obfusco comes by and reverts my edit with the summary "rvv" for, I assume, "revert vandalism". Now I am not objecting here to calling my edit "vandalism" nor am I claiming that this is the Mother of All Offenses. I am it calling Disruprtive Editing as it is clearly disruptive of the process whereby good faith editors can work out their differences. User:Fubar Obfusco had not previously edited in that article and his "drive-by" is entirely inappropriate and disruptive. Not the first time he did this by a long shot, I find about six similar "rvv" instances in the Scientology series in recent months; here is just one where I object, again a "drive-by" where he never edited previously. Lots more but this latest is clearly disruptive. Thank you --Justanother 11:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article's history page indicates that what either side could call revert vandalism has occurred. This is also FoO's first edit to said article:history calling it disruptive seems a bit rash. Anynobody 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I am not being rash at all. --Justanother 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I assure you I did read it, but unless the editor has a pattern of doing that kind of thing how is this WP:DE? Anynobody 19:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the edit in question, I reverted the removal of a citation of a noteworthy source, a journal article cited for its discussion of an FBI memo about Scientology front groups. It was not simply an accusation of being a "front group", but rather a discussion of documents seized by the FBI in an investigation of crimes.

I concede that "rvv" was too dismissive of an edit comment. It would have been more productive for me to write: "rv removal of cited sources" or "rv deletion of useful, well-cited information".

I am not interested in engaging in a protracted discussion of this, since I think that User:Justanother has shown himself to be frequently acting in bad faith -- or, at least, in opposition to Wikipedia's purposes, since his purpose here seems to be to stifle information rather than to document and improve it. As I have suggested before, I continue to recommend to him that he spend some time contributing content to articles, rather than attempting to delete and destroy the work of others. --FOo 03:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another unauthorised bot

PhotoUploadsBot33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked. It had the same modus operandi as the one that was blocked earlier. It'd be best to keep a look-out for these unauthorised bots. --SunStar Net ^talk 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks it was just an impersonator. Like the last one, there isn't enough evidence to prove that the impersonated user made a bot. --24.136.230.38 12:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

66.215.157.32 Personal Attacks on talk pages

I'd like to flag what 66.215.157.32 is putting up on talk pages.

• Talk:Coca-Cola Blāk Diff "Mostly because this is a DOT ORG American website and partially because any American who uses Eurospelling should be shot in the head and their brains splattered onto the nearest sidewalk."

• I have since undid this edit.

• Talk:San Gabriel Valley Diff "Removed, from the bullshit paragraph "Walmartization" the following "Due to wide spread public opposition" due to POV and it being blatantly bullshit. Please resubmit with reference."
• Talk:Sony Ericsson W810 Diff "Unless the POV is almost entirely critical of corporations, it always sounds like that to you tards."

...and to a lesser extent...

• Talk:Del Taco Diff "Fuck those people. Let em protest the damn protest monkeys. I still ate at Del Taco today, the shredded beef burrito. Take that! Boycott monkeys!"
• Talk:Coca-Cola Diff "Kaylene was here!"
• Talk:Nestea Diff "Edited Euro-spelling ie Flavor/flavour."

I haven't warned the user yet, as I haven't done this before. However, I don't agree with what they are doing and would like an admin to look into it. Thanks. Bren ^talk 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a warning; thanks for the "heads-up"!

Atlant 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Block endorsed.

Markrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cwanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Uploading images as pd-self which are extremely unlikely to be their own work, and several seem to come from a rugby union calendar. Lack of response to messages on Talk, numerous re-uploads after deletion, fair use galleries on articles, that kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to block, certainly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, massive copyright violations. Endorse as well. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing block also. Sandstein 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal account

User:Death_grim is only doing vandalism using his account Special:Contributions/Death_grim. I will appreciate if someone stop him and save our time from continue reverting him. --- A. L. M. 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Account hacked?

I think we may have an other compromised admin account. I am KnowledgeOfSelf, and when I first popped on the WP this morning I was logged in and posting a few messages to Wiki Alf. During a lull in the chatter I went to my kitchen to make a cup of coffee, when I came back down and clicked on the edit tab to post a reply to Alf I noticed I was not logged in anymore. When I went to re-log in I was told I was using an incorrect password. All attempts to re-log in have failed. I hit the "E-mail new password" at the sign/in page, but I have yet to receive it. Since it seems to be taking far to long to get that new password, (over an hour now), I decided to make this account and email my KOS name, I was told that the KOS account does not have it’s email setup/or does not allow other users to email that account. This can not be the case. Because as an administrator who does a lot of RC and New account patrol I do get the occasional complaint by email about auto blocks, “My user name is not derogatory”, “unblock me now” etc. I know that I have my Email enabled, on my KOS name, in fact I received an email from HighInBC yesterday about admins accounts being hacked. I find this very troubling, and although my KOS account has not gone on a rouge rampage, I feel a pre-emptive temporary desysop may be in order. ActWonActToo 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to assume bad faith, but until it actually does go rouge, I have no reason to believe anything is wrong. Others probably have other opinions. --Ali'i 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

other slight problem here - how do we know you are who you say you are (from a security point of view)? - is it possible for you to email another admin on a known email address as some form of confirmation ? (unless we have a better system set-up). --Fredrick day 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict twice>

Although troubling I do think we need to ensure you are indeed KnowledgeOfSelf before taking any serious action. For all we know this is someone playing tricks to get the account blocked. Not sure how that may be accomplished though. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm well yes, I would like to make a suggestion, could someone attempt to email KnowledgeOfSelf through the email this user funtion? See if it will go through. If that doesn't work I could always send an email from my email address which is the same as my WP one. ActWonActToo 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The account has turned that feature off, so emailing him through the "e-mail this user" interface is of course impossible. If you indeed were an admin you would know that, and not ask people to try it. Shanes 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the editor mentioned in her/his first post that that was the case, so s/he did know it. Anchoress 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that it was a technical blip that was not allowing this account to email my KOS one. There is no reason to be snarky. ActWonActToo 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not a computar wizard, but is it possible to hijack the account while somebody sits at home? Assuming one uses a firewall/spyware and other stuff. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits by the ip and the account 'ActWonActTwo' (and the very choice of that particular username) are either incredibly convincing impostering or KOS himself, but though it floats and quacks like KOS, I'd like to be sure.--Alf ^melmac 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The risk in a pre-emptive desysopping is that we look a bit foolish if it turns out not to be needed. The risk in not doing the desysopping is potentially greater. This is good enough for me. Haukur 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried to email the KnowledgeOfSelf account - "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." :s --Alf ^melmac 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tough one this one, why wouldn't the account have gone on a rampage already if it was hacked? It sounds like there could be a technical problem with the account, but maybe it would be better to shoot first and ask later - it can always be resysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The people doing the rampages may have figured out that blocking Jimbo and deleting the mainpage isn't all it's cracked up to be. They may be planning something more sophisticated. Better paranoid and hysteric than sorry - I say someone get onto IRC and contact a steward. Haukur 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ActWonActToo 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we use a check user to see if the two accounts are from the same IP, and if another IP has accessed the admin account recently? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly yes, but it could be a disaster waiting to happen, I suggest if anyone is on IRC getting the stewards to desysop the account temporarily whilst someone here files a cU request. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this one bit. I'm not sure if shooting first and asking questions later is the correct form of action. It's trivial for any banned troll to make a new account claiming that their "old admin account" was hacked, and thus, get a valid admin desysopped for no reason whatsoever. I think this is someone piggybacking off of the admin account hacking scare to cause trouble for the admin that banned them. We already cracked all of the weak passwords yesterday and forced the admins to change them, so I don't think we're at very high risk anymore. --Cyde Weys 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Indeed, the details sound to suspicious to me. Not at all convinced it is not a hoax. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the account can always be resysopped, it's not like anything bad has been done from the account yet. Cu will most probably reveal all. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If ActWonActToo is a scammer he's a very sophisticated one. Haukur 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You think so? I see nothing sophisticated about this at all. It's very basic social engineering. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's academic at this point but, yes, this would have been extremely sophisticated. Look at all of ActWonActToo's contribs and that of the associated IP. Haukur 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. During the devs' password cracking yesterday, any admin accounts with weak passwords had their passwords scrambled and instructions on setting a new password emailed to their registered email account. If this person claiming to be KnowledgeOfSelf is really is KnowledgeOfSelf, it's likely that they just lost their admin account, but not due to a hacker — it was because they had a weak password and no registered email address. --Cyde Weys 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The User:KnowledgeOfSelf account is now uploading Goatse images. See [131] - Ehheh 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, account blocked - is someone on IRC yet? Haukur 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It must be desysoped now. I'm telling you that is not me uploading those images. ActWonActToo 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Get on IRC someone. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• That answers the question. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 15:27, 8 May 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:KnowledgeOfSelf@enwiki from sysop to (none) (rogue). --ais523 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Ignore everything else I said. --Cyde Weys 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

desysopped Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this turned into a shitty morning. Thanks Drini. ActWonActToo 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Still curious how an account can be compromised while being logged in at home and presumably using security stuff on the computer. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Being logged in has zero effect on someone logging in as you illicitly (at least on Wikipedia). WP allows multiple logins from multiple machines at the same time, so the first you'd notice is probably when your cookie expires. More than that is probably stuffing beans up my nose.. -- nae'blis 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm at work at the moment and won't be able to get onto IRC/Skype for another three hours, I have KOS's skype contact and having had many previous chats with KOS, I will be able to tell if I'm speaking to KnowledgeOfSelf or not, if that helps in getting the account sorted out later on.--Alf ^melmac 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess one question that remains is, What was your password under the KoS account? Was it weak enough to be cracked? --Ali'i 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphanumeric, combination of lower and upper case with 5 numbers thrown in. I thought it was alright. ActWonActToo 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess there getting better then. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it was a good password (and not "Password12345", which meets the specifications he gave), I don't think we're looking at a brute-force crack. There's simply way too many possible passwords. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of attack vectors he could have been hit from. I guess the first question I would ask is, at which other places did you use the same password? --Cyde Weys 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that freenode's password database got compromised a while back? I have no source, I just heard it in passing. If the same password is used in both places... ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No I don't use the same password on IRC, and no Cyde I'm not ignorant enough to do something as obtuse as Password12345. :-) ActWonActToo 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and please don't answer that question here anyway. The person has y our password and knowing where else you use it is not a good thing. - auburnpilot talk 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is another very concerning incident. I don't want to speculate over what has caused this but perhaps the wording about password security at Wikipedia:Administrators could be extended to suggest admins use passwords unique to Wikimedia. Adambro 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ActWonActToo, if you haven't done it already, I advice you to email a dev a solid proof that you are KOS (or if not applicable, submit a checkuser request). After the confirmation, I'm almost confident you can request them to change your password per choice so at the very least you'll be able to access the account. This might be a slightly more complicated situation than as with other compromised accounts. On a different note, is it possible to have two logged-in sessions at once? It's likely the hacker is still logged-in with this (or another) account waiting to have its adminship status back. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Logging on on two accounts at once isn't trivial, but it is possible. I've done it with User:ais523 and User:ais523 non-admin trying to answer WP:ACC requests (possibly the only process on Wikipedia that requires non-admins to participate to work properly...) --ais523 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has been done. Drini has confirmed that the account was in fact hijacked and that ActWonActToo is in fact the real KOS. From m:special:log/rights:

• 16:02, 8 May 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Drini@enwiki from checkuser, sysop to sysop (done)
• 15:33, 8 May 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Drini@enwiki from sysop to sysop, checkuser (nother hacked account investigation)

—freak(talk) 16:21, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

All I see is just a "done", not a confirmation. Can she provide us the results here? Is it the same hacker as before? Michaelas¹⁰ 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Drini is not here right now, I just checked and can confirm that. Dmcdevit·t 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AWAT, if your KoS password really was nontrivial, can you think of any situations where you used it recently that someone could have snooped on? Of special interest would be if you attended any wiki meetups with others who have been compromised, or anything like that. Given the latency of the net, I would expect a hacker to try the most common passwords against all admin accounts, rather than going in great depth against any one account. So if a decent password was broken it could suggest an attack strategy other than brute force. Dragons flight 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All these incidents are getting tiresome... The fact that a fairly strong password was cracked could also imply that someone has been running a script for a very long time and has planned this out. x42bn6 Talk 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I have regained control of the account. [132], [133] KOS | talk 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible causes

Here are the possible causes I can think of:

• World News with Charles Gibson ran a story on how crooks were compromising public terminals like those in airports and internet cafes in order to steal credit card and bank account numbers. Did KnowledgeOfSelf use one, and one of the crooks steal his account in this manner?
• His home or work computer has a rootkit that his security software cannot yet detect. Since it is theoretically possible to write a rootkit that the security software cannot detect while running in the compromised environment, he might have a rootkit on his machine and need to perform a backup, reformat, and reinstall (ugh!), because that is provably the only way to bust a rootkit on an infected machine if it cannot be modified by another OS (like on a live CD, too bad no one makes a live CD that contains an OS that can write NTFS and scan for rootkits).

Jesse Viviano 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not even need to be something so sophisticated as a root kit. All he needs is a Windows machine infected with some spyware or a virus. Antivirus software and Windows firewall is not some sort of magic bullet. —Centrx→talk • 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is out on a limb, and I'm hoping I'm not contributing to WP:BEANS, but has anyone looked at the scripts (TW, Popups, etc.) that are being used by their admins? Perhaps edits to their monobook.js page (if it can be edited by someone outside of the user...I'm not familiar with the restrictions on the page)? I really doubt this was geographical (hacking of a wireless connection, or shoulder surfing), less likely it was malware. Any possibilities it may be issues with these? ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry about beans, none of this is novel mischief, but standard hacking tricks. These sorts of practices are already well established amongst the black hats. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – Not a question per se, just trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I was wondering how the random page function works? What type of algorithm does it use? Thanks.--<vandalism attempt removed> 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:VPT. By the way, I hope you don't mind me nowikiing part of your sig... --ais523 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I clicked it before you nowiki'd it and have blocked the user as a troll. Feel free to review/change as needed. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That little trick deserved an immediate ban.

Atlant 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*laugh* I'm sorry, that was REALLY funny, in a juvenile sort of way... do they not know about the confirmation screen? Support the block, of course. -- nae'blis 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah. Awesome trick. Too bad about the intermediate page... – Riana_ऋ 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for enhanced Admin identification and security

I was wondering if it would be possible to set up some sort of secure secondary identification system for Admins (and perhaps all users). This would be similar to what bank and credit card sites do now (i.e. require answer(s) to some random question(s) or just a secondary password).

The purpose of these secondary IDs would be two-fold. First, they would allow compromised account holders to reliably identify themselves in some manner (again the technical details are vague, but perhaps a secure page where they could login and have some confirmation produced on satifactorily answering a question or two). Second, perhaps this could be used to further protect the Main Page, announcements that go at the top of all pages, and other WP:BEANS items I have no idea about (so before you deleted the Main Page or added something to every page as a banner or blocked Jimbo, you would have to enter a second password unique to yourself).

The secondary ID would not be needed for routine edits or routine admin functions, just those that could really screw up the encyclopedia. It could also have much more stringent failed attempt limits to thwart brute force attempts to crack it (two or three wrong tries to log in and you are blocked for an hour or a day). I hope this idea is helpful, Ruhrfisch 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PGP key signing would be a pretty good way to do it. --Cyde Weys 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

see the next heading, Cyde -- Avi 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins (or any users) with PGP keys

Perhaps those of use with PGP or GPG keys should at the very least engage in encrypted challenge-responses with some subset of each other, and even if we do not sign each others' keys, we WOULD have a method of confirming a user's ID, even after comprimisation, by using their key to verify themselves from any address. -- Avi 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm communicating with Avi right now; anyone else? --Cyde Weys 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually performed an encrypted challenge-response with Alphax, but then I changed my e-mail address and decided to generate a new key instead of changing the ID on the old key for various reasons, so this new key does not have his signature, but he is open to the idea. Then again, he has not contributed in months. I hope everything is OK. -- Avi 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My PGP key has been sat on a subpage since I started editing. This would seem to me to be proof enough that it belongs to me. As long as it's uploaded or properly identified by the account before the account is compromised it should be good enough. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If Avi shows me his passport, I'll sign his key. :-) Wikimania 2005 had a keysigning.The keysigning session at wikimania 2006 didn't happen, because the person who was supposed to organise it bugged out at the last moment. Can we have a keysigning in Taipei this year? Or someone already submitted a proposal? (Submissions 'till May 15 :-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No way I can make it to Tapei, Kim. Sorry :( If you care to drop by the middle atlantic states of the east coast of the US in the near future, maybe we can arrange something . -- Avi 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So how do we know that I am who I am so my key belongs to the person I say it belongs to, namely me? I've been looking for a reason to use GPG since it's so shiny. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why encrypted challenge-responses are a poor substitute to face-to-face meetings. Newer versions of GPG allow for a level of confidence in the signature--intentionally vague:

• 0 - No comment
• 1 - No verification
• 2 - Casual verification
• 3 - Extensive verification.

Compare how the levels are described here: http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/121645/49 with http://www.aperiodic.net/phil/pgp/policy.html

While one would think that nothing beats face-to-face with government-issued ID's, some people would still only rate that a "2" and would require years of relationships (brother-sister/co-worker) to go 3. It is up to you to decide on a recognition/identification scheme if you cannot make a face-to-face, and then how much trust to give that. -- Avi 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively it is possible to have full trust (after proper email verification) that my key belongs to me and I am who I say I am. No passport required. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody could direct their fellow users to a crash course in how to use this PGP shit, this thread would be significantly more useful. —freak(talk) 18:04, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

So... how do the people who only speak English ensure their security? :) – Riana_ऋ 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Our articles on Public-key cryptography topics might help. It goes something like this: Download GPG; generate a keypair (two related keys are created - a public key and a private key); keep the private key very private, and widely distribute the public key. When you want to prove you made a message you sign the message with your private key and others use your public key to authenticate the signature. It's impossible*¹²³ to discover a private key from a public key or a signature, and the private key is kept safe at home and is even password-protected, so you generally know that the person who uses the private key to sign a message is the owner of the public key. For example, I have published my public key in my userspace. Anyone signing a message with the matching private key is me. If my account is compromised and gets blocked and de-sysopped, I could make a new account and using a PGP-signed message ask for it to be immediately re-sysopped (subject to other approvals), having proved I am the same person who uploaded the public key, ie zzuuzz. But as Avi says, it won't prevent your account being compromised in the first place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense (to me at least). How are the public and private key connected and how do you use someone's public key to authenticate their private key? John Reaves (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The public and private keys are mathematically related. If I have your public key, and you sign with your private key, even if I cannot tell WHAT your private key is, your public key responds to it, so if I trust that you are the owner and controller of the private key, I can safely feel that everything signed by your private key comes from you, and everything I encrypt to your public key can only be seen by you. -- Avi 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No magic bullet

The idea of using some type of key-trust network will not make any admin's account any more safe than it is. There is no substitute for a strong password. What this will allow us to do is verify the identities of wiki users. For example, let us say that my account gets compromised, and gets desysopped. How am I to prove that either 1) I have regainded control or 2) this brand-spanking new e-mail address is really Admin:Avraham? I can meet with someone (steward/Bcrat) in person and show my bona fides, or I can show knowledge that only Admin:Avraham would know. If I can show that I control a particular public key that someone already has checked and knows it belongs to Admin:Avraham, then that is pretty good proof (pun intended) that this new account is the Admin, and not a hacker, and sysop powers should be returned.

But there is absolutely no substitute for a strong password, unless we all go to RSA tokens (like some of us have at work) -- Avi 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the point of uploading signatures, yes, so that you can recover the account once your account has been compromised. -- ReyBrujo 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any other place on Wikipedia where this is being discussed? I'd like to go complain about the current 'log in with our special image to type thing.' I didnt screw up with an idiotic password like 'F*ckyou' or 'Iluvwiki'. If i'm going ot have to go through Maxwell Smart rigamarole to log in, why bother? ThuranX 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The captcha only appears if you mistype your password once. If you input it correctly, the captcha won't appear. So, take it easy, this is not the end of the world. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

THe 'Captcha' hit me because in ligth of all this I CHANGED to a MROE secure password earlier today. I had an alphanumeric, but decided to go for a more complex, random pass earlier. Somehow, Wiki didn't accept it after all, so I had to use my old one. ANd I hit the captcha. IF the captcha's really only a new feature for the bounced attempts, it might be ok. but if that's going to be an every time occurance, I think WIki will lose a lot of people. ThuranX 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

editor deleting content from talk page

Resolved

 – — Michaelas¹⁰ 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=129183283

I do not think this is a compromised account. However, it seems a little fishy. It this appropriate to delete comments for no given reason? Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you discussed these concerns with the editor in question? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It could have just been an accidental deletion; coming here first is overreacting. The deleted talk has already been put back into the talk page, so what's the problem? Phony Saint 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I had the "new comment" window open for a while, so it was likely just a technical flaw with edit conflicting. Guru, please contact me next time you have an issue with anything. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Via strass

Resolved

Via strass has had a long history of vandalism (including being blocked for it in the past). Recently, he has added attack and threatening comments on both Sam Blanning's and my talk pages (see this and this). Calling Sam a fascist with pictures of Hitler is an attack and should not be tolerated, and neither should threatening me (even though it was a quote from Pulp Fiction). He was warned originally, but continued to revert Sam Blanning's attack, and AIV said to bring it here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for blatent trolling.--Isotope23 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tomatoes equal YUCK

Resolved

It seems inappropriate to me, but it looks like several users are using the talk page of this banned user to chat with each other. Could I get an admin to revert it and (semi) protect the page? this includes User:My name is not fred, who is also vandalizing, and probably the same user, and User:68.166.207.20, for whom the same holds true. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked My name is not fred (talk · contribs) as a vandal only account and warned 68.166. I've added these pages to my watchlist for the time being; I don't want to semi unless it is absolutely necessary.--Isotope23 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Request block for User: Baconandeggs4

Resolved

I request a block for User: Baconandeggs4

This individual has vandalized many main pages (articles), and has vandalized many user pages, including mine, by replacing my user page (and others) with, "you suck".

Therefore, I request that this user receive a lengthy block — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricksal0224 (talk • contribs)

17:27, 8 May 2007 Chrislk02 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Baconandeggs4 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (voa) --OnoremDil 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Shaligramyadav

Resolved

 – User blocked for 48 h.

This user persists in making personal attacks and threats, and deletes information from the Nair article despite repeated warnings. The user first appeared on May 2nd, where he deleted information from the aforementioned article. I undid his changes, and left a message on his talk page letting him know that he shouldn't delete information from an article without discussing his changes on the talk page. I also posted a message on an admin's page, asking him to look into the matter. Shaligramyadav then posted a message on my talk page which basically told me that I was "denying a people their status". His points were rather POV and his tone was insulting. He also deleted information from the article again. In response, I posted another message on his talk page, informing him of Wikipedia's attribution policy. Essentially letting him know that for information to be added to the article, it has to be attributable. I also undid his changes. In response, he made more personal attacks, and threatened to keep deleting information from the article (which he did). I then posted another message on his talk page, informing him of Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy. I also invited him to provide sources for his information so that he can add it to the article. I also told him that repeatedly deleting information and making personal attacks would get him blocked. After this, he decided to make another personal attack on my talk page. He also posted a comment on my personal website, which I moved to my talk page. Once again, I posted a message on his talk page letting him know that if he continued to harass me, he would get blocked and that I would report him here. I may have gotten slightly personal when I said that I found his conduct unbecoming of a Military Officer (he claims to be a retired Colonel from the Indian Army), and that I also found it strange that a seasoned Military Officer would engage in idle threats over the internet. I probably shouldn't have said that, but being a Soldier myself, I get a little insulted when someone mocks my service in the Military. He responded with another attack on my page and on thunderboltz's talk page (the admin I had previously asked for help). This was after Thunderboltz warned him about his deletions from the Nair article. I have been patient with this user. I have warned him about his conduct, and I have invited him discuss the issue. He seems disinclined to do so and wants to persist in this highly unhelpful behaviour. Thanks. --vi5in^[talk] 17:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have informed him of my posting. --vi5in^[talk] 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking 48 h for edit warring; issuing warning about personal attacks / insinuated threats. Sandstein 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyme disease military history

I don't know if this is appropriate to report, but Freyfaxi (talk · contribs) keeps removing tags from this article without fixing it. He's doing so with this account and with 69.120.212.35 (talk · contribs). I wanreed him at his IP, so he switched to his account. The Evil Spartan 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Starts "A history of Lyme Disease and its discovery in Old Lyme would be incomplete without noting Borrelia's decades long association with biowarfare research..." which does not exactly read like an encycloapedia. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyrano de Bergerac

Resolved

 – Nothing requiring admin action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an administrator to rollback at Cyrano de Bergerac? I'll work on it by hand right now, but it's starting to get tedious. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Like you were advised here already, reverting does not require admin tools or any kind of extra buttons, actually. Please see Help:Reverting. Prolog 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Show a man the Wikipedia article on fish, and you'll never see him again..."
As this doesn't actually require any admin intervention, I'm gonna go ahead and toss up {{resolved}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Roman Censor

Resolved

 – Puppets and user blocked

This user apparently has five or six sockpuppets (listed on his user page, plus User:Anti-Shriner Roman Censor), and is pretty much asking for a block, as the accounts do nothing but vandalize. See here for an example diff. MSJapan 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:American Orthodox Censor has been indef blocked. The rest are de facto socks of a banned user. Someone with sysop powers should just go through and block them.

Roman Censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Russian Orthodox Censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American Orthodox Censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Parthian Censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Athenian Censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spartan Censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Dynaflow 18:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and block them all; this will take a few minutes. Sandstein 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Please report new instances to WP:AIV with a reference to User:American Orthodox Censor. Sandstein 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing extenal links in the article on Hasan Taqizadeh

Resolved

You have inadvertently removed two external links from the above-mentioned article on account of one of them not being a trustworthy link. Could you kindly restore the other one which is trustworthy? --BF 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wished to mention that I have now done what I had requested from you in the above text. I should like to take this opportunity and express my deep displeasure at similar events that seem to happen with some regularity: changes are effected, such as removing links, without due attention to details; in the present case, two links were removed instead of the intended one. --BF 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "you?" You're addressing scores, or perhaps hundreds, of people. --Dynaflow 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"You" turns out to be User:ParthianShot in the present case. But it is irrelevant who "you" may have been: Administrators should make sure that their work does not come to resemble vandalism --- I have just wasted 20 minutes of my time to restore something which a little bit of care could have prevented. --BF 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Betacommand is the one you want to talk to. He was the last one to remove a link there. He might be able to explain what happened. --Dynaflow 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Dynaflow, thank you for your consideration; it is very kind of you. I believe it is now too late to contact anybody, since I have already spent the time that I could have spent on something useful. It would be interesting, though, to see on which ground the statement by User:ParthianShot has been based; I accepted her/his judgement, that the removed link is an unreliable one, without actually knowing it for myself (matters concerning Iran can be highly charged, so that if someone considers something unreliable, it may be based on a very subjective judgement) --- when I placed that link there, some months ago, it was after I had checked the link, which looked fine to me. --BF 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you look to have done some great work on that article. Thanks for you efforts. It seems to have been just a stub when you started on it. --Dynaflow 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Dynaflow, thank you for your sentiments. --BF 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: You can edit your signature so that it is a wikilink. That lets us know with whom we are speaking without having to check page histories. You can edit your signature line through the "my preferences" link at the top of any page. The second thing is, you can easily roll back another's edits if you believe they were made in error by going into the page's "history" tab, cuing up the differences between the problematic edit and the preceding version of the page that you want to restore, and clicking the "undo" link. More detailed instructions can be found here: Help:Reverting.

Be careful if involved in a content dispute though, as one might be tempted to get involved in edit-warring (as defined by WP:3RR). It is often best to first ask the person who made the problematic edit why he or she did so. Their identity can also be found through the use of the "history" tab. Best of luck. --Dynaflow 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Dynaflow, I have just checked the page of User:ParthianShot. It turns out that he is a Zoroastrian from Kerman, Iran. In other words, he is a real expert and if he considers the removed page to be unreliable, I unquestionably accept it from him. --BF 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He's also currently blocked for getting into some sort of extremely uncivil dispute over who-knows-what. [134] I would drop Betacommand (talk · contribs) a line. He'll probably be more helpful than I an be about this particular matter, specifically as he is theeditor who excised the link in question. --Dynaflow 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Things seem to be getting increasingly more complicated. --BF 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Dynaflow, I see that you have already kindly left some notes with the Editor. Thanks for that. I shall therefore take no further action. In view of the conflicts that User:ParthianShot seem to have had with others, it would be worthwhile to check whether the deleted link (that is the one that I have assumed to be unreliable) is indeed unreliable; if the link turns out to be reliable, naturally I prefer to restore the link. --BF 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've found the root of the problem here: [135]. It seems the site in question is not longer affiliated with the school referenced by its URL, and, from what I've skimmed from the above-linked thread, has a lot of copyright-violation and sourcing problems. If you want to get into specifics, you'll have to plow through the rather tedious linked dispute. --Dynaflow 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on this matter should migrate to User talk:BehnamFarid.

Bypass of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets by user

Resolved

 – Nothing actionable.

It appears that Anynobody bypassed proper procedure of listing on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and directly appended a spurious checkuser request on me [here] to an ongoing unrelated case.

This fishing would seem to be a serious violation of WP:AGF.

As Jpgordon subsequently posted a reply to stop fishing [here], I am not sure if the matter needs to be reported on this AN/I or not.

If not, feel free to close this issue.

Thank you for your time. Lsi john 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the complaints department. It is a board for actionable reports. Please see the notice at the top. What would you have us do? Sandstein 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a complaint. It was a notification. Is it actionable? I'm not an admin. I don't know what you are supposed to do or not supposed to do about it.

I did say "feel free to close this issue" if it isn't pertinent, relevant or appropriate.

Thank you. Lsi john 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, if you think another user has failed to assume good faith with you, please politely discuss it with them. See in general WP:DR. There's nothing to do for admins here. Sandstein 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Resolved

Could somebody please delete Rouzer, it was created today and has only been used for vandalism. A new user account and several IPs have continued to remove the speedy deletion tags added to it. Thanks in advance. --Nehrams2020 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has been deleted and the user has been warned. Prolog 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanking Of Unsourced Pages

Hi there,

I don't know if this is the right place to do this, but I didn't know where else to say it. If a user goes and starts blanking pages just because they are not sourced, is he vandalising Wikipedia? For instance, Dave Bautista is unsourced, but if a user went and blanked it, would he be vandalising Wikipedia? A recent example of something like this is on Bob Backlund, where Burntsauce went and blanked the vast majority of the article just because it is not sourced. Is this right? Can we block Burntsauce; has he done anything wrong. I'm quite new, so I don't know what sort of history he has on Wikipedia. Neldav 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanking articles (removing all content from them) is vandalism. However, selectively removing content is not "blanking", and it is not necessarily vandalism. Removing unsourced content from biographies of living people is not only not vandalism, it is mandated by our policy WP:BLP, which says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". Burntsauce's removal of content from the article you cited appears to be correct on first glance. Sandstein 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, blanking is not necessarily vandalism. Firstly, no good faith edit, however misguided is vandalism. As BLP points out, blankers can sometimes be the subject of an article rightly angry at its content. If an article is libellous - or otherwise breaches BLP, it would be best to do a selective removal of the offending bits. But blanking is better than ignoring slander. If someone is repeatedly banking something, stop for a minute nd ask 'why?'. Most often the answer is mindless vandalism, but not always. Bear in mind, if you revert a blanking and the previous content was libellous, you are guilty of reposting libels. That's not clever.--Doc^g 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What Doc said. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Troll or hijacker

Localcurve (talk · contribs), a user with no history of vandalism, has gone on a little vandalizing spree, claiming to be the person who hijacked admin accounts.[136] Now that the weak admin password issue has been (presumably) addressed, moving on to hijacking regular editors is not out of the question; although simple trolling may be more likely. I've blocked for now. Just thought it would be best to mention it here. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Justin craig

Resolved

 – deleted John Reaves (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across the page Justin craig and although it looks to me like an obvious candidate for speedy deletion I am not sure what cireteria it would fall under. I strongly suspect the contention that he is a "gay American" who intends to marry his boyfriend is intended to disparage, although of course the assertion in itself is not disparaging. Perhaps a more experienced editor could take a quick look? Thank you. Hobson 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages are WP:CSD#G8 and non-notable is WP:CSD#A7. Check out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for all of them. John Reaves (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism repaired, please warn

I have just reverted three vandalizing edits, one from a few days ago, others recent. Could someone please review User_talk:129.71.94.254 to apply appropriate warning... it appears that Coal mining has been vandalized more than once. thanks... Richard Myers 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it yourself using the templates on this page: WP:UWT. If the vandaism continues from that address after a level-4 warning, report them to WP:AIV. --Dynaflow 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Plea for outside comment on unresolved issue

I'm sorry for breaking the system here but several editors have been awaiting for a comment above (and in several of the archives too) and no one has given any comments yet. Seeing has many of the newer incident reports have been responded to and concluded and no one has commented in the 3 separate Incident reports to date I really want this issue to be noticed. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for review

I've blocked both Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit warring based on this report. Neither side has broken 3RR, so far as I can tell, but both have been edit warring for a few days, and each has inappropriately reverted by either using an automated script or writing an "rv/v"-style edit summary in a content dispute. Arcayne has objected to his block [137], so I am posting this for review. Heimstern Läufer 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like me. Viridae^Talk 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Tony the Tiger

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) has been going around, calling himself Director of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago. I didn't know we had such a title, but apparently they do; and if it makes him happy to push people around there, fine. But now he is singlehandedly insisting on adding Jon Corzine to the purview of the WikiProject, on the grounds that he once attended the University of Chicago. This has been strongly objected to by Alansohn, Grammaticus Repairo (the preceding link was changed from an 'edit link' to what I presume Septentrionalis meant Carcharoth 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)) and myself; but he continually reverts. Not yet to the point of 3RR violation, but could some admin have a word with him? He seems to have an undue appreciation of the power and glory of adminship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my side of the story at TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this ANI seems to be retaliatory as a result of the post I am directing you to. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so; I didn't know it existed. Tony's argument appears to be quite literally that the Project can do whatever it likes, bot-assisted, and any objection is a claim to WP:OWN the project. Perhaps it would be sufficient to call off SatyrBot, which is doing all this pointless tagging. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick ^t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup Nick. We are working with User:SatyrTN and his bot User:SatyrBot just to get our articles tagged. We don't make any promise of editing any one of the 7500 articles tagged by us already or the 5-10,000 or so that will likely soon be tagged on any schedule. We will be using our tags to assess where our efforts are needed and will tag all articles to better assess where we will put our efforts. As I stated, we are currently taking inventory. When we get everything properly tagged then we can assess articles. Then we can determine where our editorial efforts will fall. We will in general help articles we tag, but of course make no promise about any particular article. We welcome any editor who want to contribute to our efforts. Come partake in this week's WP:CHICOTW. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There has recently been significant agreement at Bot approvals that mass tagging with project templets is a dubious use of a bot, and that any such bots ought to be specifically approved for such use. This editing appears to me to be marginal at best. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have seen this coming a mile off. If anyone (in this case, Tony) engages in widespread and rather indiscriminate bot tagging of articles to fall under the "scope" of a WikiProject, they will (quite rightly) rile editors when they get a few false hits. See also the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#WikiProject scope. I would urge Tony, if he must continue with such bot-tagging (and it might be better to stop, given the Bot approvals comment above), to politely remove the WP:WPChi tag if people keep saying that such-and-such articles are not really within the scope of the project, and to reassess his inclusion critera. Carcharoth 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actions of administrator JzG

Resolved

 – Smelly sock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On May 5th, User:JzG deleted the article Men in skirts, citing WP:CSD#G4. In my view, that clause does not apply. Following the procedure in WP:DRV, I asked on his talk page for justification of his decision. His response was both uncooperative and uncivil. I am also concerned about this edit on the talk page of User:EnviroGranny. Irrespective of the actions of this user, the language and tone of JzG is totally unacceptable coming from an administrator. Man in a skirt 21:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• If there were any lingering doubt that this is Dr1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Mugaliens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this post just removed them. I strongly recommend a prompt ban, I have had it up to here with this POV-pushing timewaster. And that, friends, is the polite version. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• "...citing WP:CSD#G4. In my view, that clause does not apply." ... In my view it does. A very good delete, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I done the deed. [138] – Steel 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

/me: breathes sigh of relief. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reddi deleting link to his old ArbCom case in related AfD

Reddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this AfD which is (IMHO) very connected to his behaviour which resulted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2, Reddi twice removed the wikilink to this case:

• [139]
• [140]

Perhaps I'm wrong and adding such links in an AfD is not a good idea. But assuming that it is legitimate to point to this connection, can please somebody uninvolved ensure that the link is not removed again?

Pjacobi 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, not relevant to the article or its deletion, but his conduct does look problematic. I suspect he should leave that AfD alone form now on, what do others think? Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this edit libelous?

The article on Al Haig contains the following paragraph:

In 1969 he was acquitted of a murder charge. he had been accused of strangling his wife, Bonnie, at their home in Clifton, New Jersey on 9 October 1968. He had said in evidence that his wife had been drunk, and had died in a fall down a flight of stairs.(ref: Downbeat August 7 1969)

To this, Zeamays (talk · contribs) is insisting on adding:

However, there are reasons to believe that his version of story is not correct.(ref: Rutan, G. Death of a Bebop Wife. Cadence Jazz Books, Redwood, NY 2007, 528 pp.)

At the very least the wording is unwise, but it's not clear to me that we should be stating that there are reasons to suppose that a man acquitted of a crime was committing perjury, whatever the book says. I've tried discussing the issue with Zeamays, but he simply adds the material again. What do other admins think? Am I right to resist him? If I am, could someone else try to explain matters to him? If I'm not, could you explain matters to me? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you say why you see this as a matter for immediate admin action rather than our normal dispute resolution? Thanks, William Pietri 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically it can't be libelous, since under U.S. law only living people can sue for libel (estates cannot). However, there should be no speculation in this or any other article. It's inappropriate to say, in the encyclopedic voice, that "there are reasons to believe that his version of story is not correct." Instead, if this is indeed a reliable source, the article should say something like "In Death of a Bebop Wife, G. Rutan has disputed Haig's account, arguing x and y." *** Crotalus *** 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's hacked in, I think

Resolved

 – and for the record, the WMF has never been found guilty of molesting cacti John Reaves (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Found this notice under "Bot-reported" on WP:AIV:

Wikipedia has been know to Molest cacti.

I can't find where it was added in--someone needs to look into it.Blueboy96 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a vandal [141]. Now fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Baseball vandals warning

Starting at the top:

• We have one low activity vandal account Ron liebman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has a username policy conflict with Ron Liebman the actor, which I have just reported to the admin attention board (not being terribly familiar with the whack-a-mole side of that policy).
• We have an intermediate associated account which I now believe is a sock of Ron, Moe kaplan (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log).
• There are several accounts which are clearly Moe socks: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Moe kaplan
  • Several of these are IP addresses associated with New York City libraries.

The pattern of edits is making unreferenced/unsourced/highly controversial edits to baseball articles (and inexplicably one pharmaceutical article). There may be more. I'm not sure if a checkuser is warranted. Heads up, in any case. Georgewilliamherbert 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lars T.

Dear Admins, User:Lars T. poses a problem on Hans Filbinger and Talk:Hans Filbinger. He has a very strong POV in the matter but does not make any valid contributions. His edits to the article itself consist of repeated unexplained tagging [142][143]with no answer to requests for his reasoning, posting hidden comments [144], frivolously tagging "autobiography" when the man is in fact dead [145], strange edit summaries [146] [147].

On the talk page he ignored my pleas to explain his tags [148] or replied with snipping, incorrect remarks [149]. - In contrast to another recently arrived editor that tagged the article and eventually heeded my request. Lars, instead of clearly making his point he resorted to a cat-and-mouse game [150][151][152] and recently resorted to personal attacks [153]. I reverted these [154] and posted a warning on his talk page to please desist from such behaviour [155], to which he reacted by this and this. (Let me note that I did not actually call him a troll but described his behaviour (as shown above) as "trollish" and used the verb "to troll". How far these can be termed personal attacks has been debate before - I directed them not at his person but his behaviour. In any case, his attacks were much stronger and any wrongdoing on my part would certainly not entitle him to this.)

While there is a substantial discussion between the other editors, who have contrary POVs on the matter, Lars is simply a disruptive force. Please do something. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IP "Sockpuppets" by user Zubenzenubi

I'm wondering how the policies view this. A user Zubenzenubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly making comments (and now personal attacks) using an IP address instead of logging in. Obviously there's no requirement that a user log in to make edits, but what about when they don't log in to try to tilt consensus or avoid accountability for personal attacks? Paul Cyr 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As you did not list any diffs here I have to ask ... how do you know they are from the same user? --Kralizec! (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers

DragonflySixtyseven indefinitely blocked (including username creation) my account without warning after I posted this and then this comment to the deletion review of <the number we are not allowed to utter on Wikipedia>. Despite clear Wikipedia policy stating single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, the sole reason for the block given at the time was:

single-purpose account that has served its single purpose

The blocking admin used this same reason to block at least 3 other accounts at around the same time. DS (DragonflySixtyseven's nickname for his account) went on to post to the same deletion review this and then this. No one, of course, blocked DS. I posted an unblock request with reason:

I do not believe I have done anything inappropriate to warrant the block placed on my editing privileges. My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part.

Yamla acted as the reviewer for my unblock request and denied it stating only:

User clearly acting in bad faith.

Without any reason given as to why Yamla had concluded bad faith on my part, I asked on my talk page why Yamla believed this and expressed that I was frustrated with both administrators for appearing to assume bad faith on part. Yamla responded on my talk page:

AmendmentNumberOne, your apparently deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA to target us is a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

I explained to Yamla that he or she was mistaken, that I had not posted any such information, and expressed my frustration at the continued assumption of bad faith and new false allegations. In my response, I quote what Yamla had said to another editor on their talk page, JNighthawk's, about what I had done. The claim Yamla made that I had been "posting the HDDVD/Blu-ray DVD decryption key number" is patently false. DS made similar false claims:

That user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor.

Both claims are false. And then:

Deleted articles don't show up in the contributions log. More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them.

So it appears to me I was blocked by DS for what I wrote in the deletion review, in contravention of explicit Wikipedia policy:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute.

Despite my desire not to have an email account in order to be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, I read through the various policies and guidelines and concluded the only course of action left to me in order to be able to edit on Wikipedia involved setting an email account in my preferences. I sent DS an email yesterday and he now has unblocked my account. But DS still has not explained his actions (his unblock comment was: "==Meh== Whatever. I'm too nice sometimes. You're unblocked. Don't screw up." and he has not sent me any email reply.) At least with respect to Wikipedia policy, I do not know why he blocked me without warning and indefinitely after I posted my opinion to that deletion review. Not knowing what my "mistake" was, I feel incredibly uncomfortable asking DS directly at this point. He could just re-block me again. So I am bringing this matter to the administrator noticeboard. This is a complaint about DragonflySixtyseven's misuse of administrative powers in blocking my account as outlined above. I also believe a misuse of administrative powers occurred when Yamla declined my unblock request without having a reason supported by evidence nor Wikipedia policy to continue the block. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to deny a block request if you believe the person should not be unblocked. The account seemed to be a SPA and so far, the only contributions from this account are in relation to that number. If I am not permitted to decline unblocks if I agree with the blocking admin, though, please do let me know. I'm a frequent reviewer on unblock-en-l and monitor the unblock category so I am likely to decline quite a number of unblocks in the future. Obviously, I also unblock quite a number of people. --Yamla 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that this user has, deliberately or not, posted that number as an examination of his contribution log clearly shows. --Yamla 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked by the blocking admin. Chick Bowen 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chick Bowen, this matter is most certainly not resolved. Unblocking me does not do anything to prevent arbitrary blocks like this from occurring in the future. It also does not address my complaint that this block was performed in an unfair manner in violation of clear Wikipedia policy. Please remove the 'resolved' tag from this discussion. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we need blood, blooooood! Is that an accurate assessment, ANO? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No apology was given for what was, as far as I, a neutral third-party, can see, a block based on a content dispute. Blood is not necessary, but DS acting as if he is doing AmendmentNumberOne a favor by unblocking him is insulting. - JNighthawk 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The block was not arbitrary, it was deserved. That number can get us in a lot of trouble we dont need. You were unblocked, so go contribute the the encyclopedia to show you deserved it instead of making a fool of yourself on AN/I. -M^ask? 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this is not resolved. The reason given for blocking was invalid, and the reason given for denying his unblock request is demonstrably false, as I don't believe he was "clearly acting in bad faith." Also, posting of the AACS number does not violate any current wiki-policy, and Jimbo has said himself that there is the Foundation currently has no opinion on posting of the number. From what I, a lowly non-admin editor, can see from his contribution log, he had done nothing wrong and was banned for being involved in a content dispute, which is thoroughly against wiki-policy. - JNighthawk 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with AmendmentNumberOne's statement, I've removed the Resolved tag, as the issue is still open. - JNighthawk 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts. With regard to Yamla's concern that the contributions of User:AmendmentNumberOne reveal that he posted "the number" ... the article title, which in this case was "the number," was the title of the DRV section relating to that (former) article. It automatically appeared as part of the edit summary without the user's having had anything to say about it or probably having even noticed. Frankly, we all should have realized that this would be the effect of not changing or redacting the title soon enough, but that cannot be blamed on this user, or on any other user who participated in the DRV.

I happen to strongly disagree with User:AmendmentNumberOne regarding the merits of the underlying issue. I also am not convinced that this DMCA dispute raises a viable First Amendment claim (and certainly not a claim against Wikipedia, which is a purely private and non-governmental entity). However, if this user is correct that he never created an article relating to the number and that his account was used solely to comment in the DRV, then while I disagree with the content of the user's comments, and I generally deprecate SPAs that take overly strident positions, it is not at all clear to me that this was a strong block.

Having said that, I understand the reasons the block was implemented and I hope that User:AmendmentNumberOne can as well. The amount of spam posted and the number of SPA accounts created that day regarding "the number" left us inundated and the people, including DragonflySixtySeven, who did have concerns had to react very quickly. I hope that User:AmendmentNumberOne can understand that these were good-faith concerns even if he did not or does not personally agree with them, and would join in urging him to accept that he has made his point and ought now to drop the matter and begin to contribute to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia.

In response to Yamla's earlier comment, he is to be commended for taking a leading role in acting as a previously uninvolved administrator reviewing a large number of unblock requests, both those posted on-wiki and on the mailing list. Needless to say, upholding as well as reversing a block are appropriate actions depending on the reviewing admin's evaluation. Any criticism that may come along of an individual block/unblock decision is like comments that we all receive on any of our administrator actions—as long as it's kept civil and reasonable, just part of the job description sometimes. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct there, and I hope AmendmentNumberOne will accept that even if there were a misunderstanding here, it was a legitimate one. We had a ton of spam problems with that thing.

Now, this being said. Where do we review a Deletion Review? (Deletion Review Review?) While at the time bainer's close may have seemed appropriate, the Foundation and Jimbo have pretty thoroughly indicated that whether or not to use the number is up to each individual project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, please explain to me what I did to warrant the block by DS and on what basis Yamla, an experienced administrator, could conclude "User clearly acting in bad faith." -AmendmentNumberOne 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, while I would like to conclude this was a legitimate misunderstanding, I do not think this was so. The blocking admin was contacted after the block and notified he had made a mistake and still persisted in making multiple false claims, claims he has not yet fully disclaimed, and did not lift the block until I sent an e-mail to him to either explain himself or unblock me. He took the easy way out (in my opinion) but that still does not explain how this block happened. The evidence shows that I posted an opinion to the deletion review (I agree it was closed inappropriately) and shortly thereafter an administrator with a different opinion indefinitely blocked my account without warning. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I concede that I acted in haste, and thence in error. We were dealing with a flood of spam, and I made a snap judgement. I regret the inconvenience, and I apologize for the hurt feelings that clearly were caused by my actions; however, I will not be committing hara-kiri, nor will I be ceding my administrator privileges. DS 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is asking you to cede your administrative privileges, although I do not think you are in a position to decide whether you retain them. While an error in judgement at the outset could be accepted, you were unwilling to entertain this possibility for me or yourself during the incident. Instead you continued the conversation by making up stuff about what I did. It is hard to imagine why you did not carefully consider what you did after you were asked this:

Hi. Would you mind explaining how that user was acting in bad faith and deserved a permanent ban? His contributions only show what appear to be good faith edits. Agree or disagree with his argument, it is not a reason for banning, especially with no warning and no reason. I believe he was unjustly banned.

Worse, when you realized that you "may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction" instead of carefully examining the matter, you denigated my username, admitted my posting to the deletion review motivated you, and procedeed to repeat your initial faulty reasoning for permanently blocking my account without warning. At this point, you knew exactly what my edits were. You had just referenced them. I really cannot accept your apology when you wish to absolve yourself simply by saying you acted in haste. You did not act in haste. You knew what my edits were. -AmendmentNumberOne 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a perfectly proper block. Your username indicates that you may not have understood that Wikipedia is not free speech (free as in beer, yes, but not free as in speech), the issue is highly contentious and this account seems to have been registered solely with the purpose of contributing to that deletion review, displaying in the process a knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and working that is incompatible with the good-faith assumption of a genuine newbie. Read: sockpuppet. Frankly, since all you've done since is troll, I think the block should be reinstated and you can go back to your main account. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ron liebman

• Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - name conflict with living notable person (see Ron Leibman actor biography) - user account has edited the article about the actor. It may be the actor - anything is possible - but the account is also closely associated with a cloud of New York Library internet access socks (see User:Moe kaplan and associated socks), which is pretty suspicious for a working, active actor. Admin with experience handling username confirmations etc requested to review. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From this user's edits to Ron Leibman, this user is apparently someone else with the same name, apparently a baseball statistician or something, which is consistent with their edit pattern. I don't see a real problem here. Let's just make sure the user says they aren't that person. Mangojuice^talk 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know that it's not an impersonator. The whole series of sockpuppet accounts, including a bunch who have been nothing but disruptive, had the same "First last" cap-lowercase username pattern. Another editor believes that this is a serial pattern vandal who tried to impersonate the real Leibman from the start. At least, someone should try and verify that it's really him. Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Moved this from WP:UAA; if this is wrapped up with a possible sockpuppet situation, it's more complex than what UAA was intended for. I have no problem blocking the account if it's a potentially disruptive sockpuppet, but I think it should be on that basis. Mangojuice^talk 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this how Wikipedia greets newcomers?

I am not a Wikipedia regular and make edits to Wikipedia where I feel they are necessary. Today, I was insulted and humiliated by User:Fowler&fowler just because I misspelled At least [156]. And goes on to call me illiterate [157]. The user fails to give logic reasons while reverting my edits (says rv undiscussed IP edits when I had already raised the issue on the talkpage). I had heard a lot of stuff regarding the credibility of Wikipedia. Now I understand why Wikipedia is not credible.. because the users who want to make corrections get humiliated and insulted by some of these nasty, disgusting people. --Sriram Deshpande 03:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about how he treated you, but you do have to realize that there is no way to force everyone to be nice. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly disgusted by the 'hide behind an anonymous ip' remark. This sort of elitism has absolutely zero place on a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It seems like some users get a few edits under their belt and assume that they're more valuable then a new user can ever be. It's pretty sickening. -M^ask? 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I went and warned him. I'll keep an eye on that talk page as well.--Wizardman 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)Yes, he was a bit uncivil, but maybe you shouldn't have baited him. "Guys.. keep this nationalistic crap out of Wikipedia please. And Fowler, yr userpage says u r a prof. Atleast you should be matured enough. Makes me feel it might be the same case as Essjay." And what about this? "I think you should stick to being a prof. Lol". You both could be a bit nicer to each other, and try not to make it personal. Sean William 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand. I am sorry about that remark. I got carried away after I read some of the previous remarks on the same issue. I'll be more careful from now on. But I must say, a lot of people at Wikipedia are not very good role-models either. --Sriram Deshpande 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also warned the user with regards to his comments. Sean William is also correct with regards to your comments. Please read WP:CIVIL to see what kind of language is expected when conversing with other Wikipedians. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the IP posting here when he was the one poking fun at Fowler in the first place; also the comments referencing Essjay indicate familiarity with Wikipedia, and not the first edits of a proclaimed "newcomer". My suggestion is that the IP/Sriram should apologize to Fowler -- Samir 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no clause in WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA that states they are to be followed except if you weren't the first one to be uncivil in a conflict. That sort of thinking is incredibly shortsighted. -M^ask? 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone insults someone else, then comes crying to ANI saying they insulted them back. Not shortsighted to realize this is a waste of time, buddy -- Samir 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings have been issued, I think at this point the best course of action is for the editors originally involved to try to keep away from each other as much as possible for the time being. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the Essjay controversy because I found it highly amusing. I used to use Wikipedia for my research work and after the controversy arose, I became a bit hesitant on using Wikipedia. When I was browsing through the concerned talkpage, I read some of the remarks left by Fowler and then I saw that his userpage said that he was a Prof. All I told him was that since he was Prof he should act in a matured manner and since he wasn't doing so, I felt that it might be the same case as Essjay's (as everybody knows.. he tried to gain credibility by telling everyone that he held numerous PhDs). The way he reacted to my comments has now made my belief that he is not a prof much more firm (I can't imagine my profs reacting in this manner). Anyways, I don't know why has this entire talk of me apologizing has come up? I don't think I did anything wrong. He blatantly reverted my edits without giving any reasons and that definitely aroused me. Nevermind.. good luck Wikipedia.. --Sriram Deshpande 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I had worked long and hard for a PhD and somebody said that I might not actually be a prof lol, I might be upset about that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, fact remains that if I get a PhD, I won't publicly tell on Wikipedia that I have one because in that case, the main motive of me doing so is to gain respect and credibility. If Fowler demands respect and credibility by claiming that he is prof, then he should also behave as one. I mean look at the tone of some of his previous comments. Obviously, if write on my userpage that I am a Prof, others will look at my edits in a different manner. It makes me more credible in the eyes of others. I just felt he wasn't behaving like a prof but that definitely does not justify his reactions. --Sriram Deshpande 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of personal information

Reently the subject and the creator of Haythem Noor left his phone number on the talk page of the article in response to my speedy nomination. Of course I don't mind that he responds to it which is why I am not requesting oversight. It's just the phone number that needs to go. If he really is a notable actor he shouldn't be giving out his phone number like that. So, can someone delete the talkpage and then restore it without the phone number inserted? Thanks. MartinDK 04:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuck, since it was the first edit, it stayed through all the history. I deleted the history and copied the full content without the number. Usually, you go to WP:OVERSIGHT to have the specific history item deleted, but for now this should work. -- ReyBrujo 04:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You guys are very fast to react. Good job! I didn't request oversight because he made a valid complaint so deleting the entire revision would not be fair to him. MartinDK 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request review of block placed on User:EnviroGranny

I'm not a "friend" of EnviroGranny but I have been involved in one of the disputes that probably led up to his block.

As I explained to User:JzG in this comment, the user in question probably deserved blocking but the warning that was given was a bit flawed in the drollness of its tone. When giving warnings, I don't think humor is always helpful, especially humor that may not be as obvious as it looks. Furthermore, there is an appearance of conflict of interest which, although probably just an apparent COI rather than a real one, should not have been mentioned in the warning.

I would request that someone review the edits that led up to the block

Starting with the original warning [158], and then the user's repeatedly not understanding what was being communicated [159], [160] and followed by JzG not explaining to the dense user what was really going on but imposing a block instead [161]

Now, the truth is User:EnviroGuy is a bit too puffed up and self-important and probably needs a little smacking around to put him in his place. However, it should be done gently but firmly and with decorum rather than with this cute little semi-warning with the faint hint of COI followed by a block when the user doesn't get it. We can block this user again if he doesn't get the lesson but I think, in the interest of being above reproach, an admin should remove the block and leave a real warning.

In the interest of full disclosure, this comment [162] by EnviroGranny is not encouraging.

Still, in the interest of observing WP:BITE, I think we should lift the block and give the guy one more chance.

--Richard 04:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really bad handling of administrator duties here, which surprises me since I usually find JzG to be one of the better admins. Edit summaries like "idiot" and comments such as "My God, you really are stupid, aren't you" [163] are entirely unacceptable for a admin regardless of the actions by a user.--Jersey Devil 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances we have not located yet ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He behaved like an arse, and when told he'd behaved like an arse and to stop doing it, he did precisely the same thing. What exactly does he expect? I told him to stop threatening people to keep off his Talk page, I did it in a light-earted but firm manner, and his response was to tell me to keep off his Talk page. Since the major problem appears to be WP:OWNership elsewhere, this is a clear sign he is not getting the message. It's about time he did get the message. And I won't stand for rudeness to William, either, because if there's one editors whose patience in the face of crass idiocy can be relied on absolutely, then William is that editor. As the complainant notes, Envirogranny needs sorting out. Use different humour, use a different method, but sort it out. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Guy) I probably deserve some of the blame here. Although I think Guy's comments were technically accurate, I do agree they could have been more politic. I came across EnviroGranny answering a WP:3O request. His behavior was... difficult, I think it's fair to say, and I found him making apparently baseless accusations, including accusing a good-faith editor of vandalism [164] and accusing me of bias [165], apparently for asking him to consider withdrawing his request for a third opinion until he had first talked to the user in question. [166] He then graduated to demanding people not post on his talk page and threatening to report users for it. [167] [168] [169] Looking at his editing history, his start at Wikipedia seemed unusually skilled [170], and I wondered if he might have had a previous incarnation. Knowing that Guy has a lot of experience in this area, I asked him privately if he happened to recognize the user. It escalated from there, with unfortunate accusations from EnviroGranny. Having already asked EnviroGranny to consider whether he was well outside our norms, and seeing his behavior on Talk:Sprite (lightning), I do think some official sanction was in the cards eventually, and I hope that EnviroGranny will take this opportunity to mend his ways. William Pietri 07:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with Guy's warning is that it is clearly written in the tone of someone expecting the disruptive editing of EnviroGranny to continue. Such a statement was bound to produce more disruptive editing from EnviroGranny, not less - it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It wasn't exactly civil, either. I know Guy has a lot of experience but it brings to mind the old saying "If the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail". A politer approach may not have had a more productive outcome but it ought at least to have been tried. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May 10

On the page for May 10, under the heading "Events", Tony Blair's resignation is listed for 2007 - I know this is supposed to be announced this week but as it is for tomorrow I'm not sure if it's vandalism or not. Nobody knows if he's going to resign tomorrow, as far as I know.

Slowapocalypse 08:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair did say last week that he would 'make a statement about his future' or some such wording, but didn't (of course) say exactly what that statement was. I don't think this is vandalism but it is crystal ballgazing of a sort. Sam Blacketer 08:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask for a reliable source. There is none as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)