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

Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

Hello I believe that this user New York from Flavor of Love may be this indefinatly blocked user Cute 1 4 u. Check this dif [1] and talk page Leroyencyclopediabrown for the possible proof. If I'm wrong on this I appolize in advance but Cute 1 4 u does have a history of sock puppet and ban evasion. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition I once I commented on that user being suspicious the comments that were made by New York from Flavor of Love were removed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this looks somewhat similar (Cute 1 4 u did once create an account impersonating Raven Symone). I'd file a RFCU. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, thanks I will should I post the findings here or will not not be needed? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Any findings in the RFCU should probably be posted here unless it comes back positive and she's indef-blocked right then and there. But it looks somewhat definitive, looking at the user's edit history. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coredesat. I caught one of hers last week and the writing style is VERY similar to here other socks. I will post the finding once they come in. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The account *could* be blocked per WP:USERNAME I think... "New York" was in fact the nickname given to a real contestant on the first season of Flavor of Love (generally only the nicknames were used on the show) and thus this name more-or-less falls afoul of the "Names of well-known living people" clause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the userpage and what BoG said, I decided to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it absurd how much people-power is being thrown at stopping an alleged 11 year old female sockpuppeteer from "abusing" Wikipedia as a social network? --  Netsnipe  ►  04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it from your use of quotation marks that you disagree with the characterization of social networking as an abuse of Wikipedia? Choess 06:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on this diff and the message the most current IP placed on Leroy's talk page, it's definitely her. She thinks she can hide stuff by deleting it. Ryūlóng 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just call me Ed.=) I apologize to everyone who has been trying to contact me overnight. I (obviously) was sleeping. Anyway, I think that Cute 1 4 u should be given one more chance. Two reasons for this. First of all, she doesn't have to keep making new accounts just to prove her point. Second, it removes the hassle of blocking EVERY SINGLE account she makes. We all know she's going to make more and more accounts.--Ed^{talk c E} 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, she was blocked for Sockpuppet abuse, impersation, Vandalism and the 11 year old part was just added ammo to the case. And the Check user came up possitive. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New York from Flavor of Love and 75.34.176.105 have both been blocked indef as sockpuppets, although I thought that IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Was there an exception made? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that she's going to make a new account anyway! What's the point for all of this hassle? This is a complete waste of our time! If we just give her a second chance on Wikipedia, less time for us working on her case, and one more volunteer Wikipedian.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u welcomed Starcare, who is likely a puppet of Publicola, who is likely a puppet of Pepsidrinka. Hard punt. Lots of socks involved here.--Scribner 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You see? The situation's getting worse. The only solution is to back off or get more admin power.--Ed^{talk c E} 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scribner obviously has something against Pepsidrinka, so I'm taking his comments with more than a pinch of salt. – Chacor 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too much of a stretch. Ed, sorry, but Cute 1 4 u has just done too much. Yeah, she'll keep coming back, and she'll continue to contact you, and we'll continue to deal with her. If she realizes that she's not helping, then we'll stop blocking, but as long as she continues to contact you and admit that she's who she is, then we have to block her. Ryūlóng 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, I'm not the only one she might want to contact. Do you even realize that she could be lurking around Wikipedia right this moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

75.34.12.156 is another one. Posted on my talk page Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this IP you found, but I think we should wait until she does something else before we take action against this IP.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was blocked it was her (The post admited it) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How long is the block? --Ed^{talk c E} 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Possible one Prple space mnky@hotmail.com edited with the summary Got to keep it real on edit summary (Dif [2]) a phrase that she used many many times as her qoute. Caught this one while monitoring recent changes Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Cute 1 4 u. If I had any socks, I'd admit them. I already told you all of them. But Ed is right, I'm trying to prove my point. --75.33.230.133 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Prple space mnky@hotmail.com , User:Starcare, or User:Publicola. I swear, I don't even know them. However, to prove my point, all i can say is that i have a new account and I am much nicer on that account. Ed is right. --75.33.230.133 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have found another sock and I requested a check user (Came up again on Recent changes, edits article that were created by other socks with teh same grammer an such) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More or less confrimed the sockpuppet. Autoblock got it (See TV Lover) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Cute 1 4 u (or whatever) is going to get me a headache. I tried asking her why she's doing this on her talk page, but she said she's "going to commit 'suiside' ," or something. I don't know... I know this may sound stupid, but can't we block her IP address, so she stops creating these annoying sockpuppets? Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She's on a dynamic IP, SBC, I believe (according to the WHOIS reports). There's not much we can do but keep blocking her new accounts. She's not committing suiside any time soon. Ryūlóng 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify your statement? "Committing suicide"? Is it literal or figurative? --physicq210 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Prob Figurative she is 11 years old and has a history of being overly dramatic. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She'll be back tomorrow, probably recreating that article of hers. Ryūlóng 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any way to protect the page from being created, say, creating a blank article then fully protecting it? Shadow1 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the article she keeps creating? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation is getting nowhere. In fact, it's getting worse. She will keep making new accounts, and you know that. We must find a permanent solution to this.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The soulition is simple keep blocking her. We can't block her IP with out cuasing other issues. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted SBC about this user? Letting them know that the misbehavior of one 11-year-old kid might lead to Wikipedia blocking their entire DHCP range could be an incentive for them to listen. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must tell you something. I live in the same area as Cute 1 4 u (not the same suburban area, we don't live close together or anything, we both in Metropolitan Chicago, which is in the United States). Anyway, SBC changed to AT&T in Chicago. AT&T bought SBC, so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get my facts straight. Take a look at SBC Communications, which says that SBC was the one who bought AT&T. They then changed their name. --Ed^{talk c E} 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm am not misbehaving. I had stress but it has gone away. Not creating any more accounts. If I have to come back when I'm 13, I guess i'll create another account then. Say what you want. Don't contact me llywrch, I don't know you. --75.34.176.207 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With that begin said I may have found yet one more sockpuppet of Her. I have requested another check user. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another day, another sockpuppet, eh? What's the newest sockpuppet called now? Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But Crystal (that's her real name, so everyone would know) already said she's not creating any socks.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't beleive her. Check my talk page for the latest. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not. That other sock was before i made my earlier statement. --75.33.249.5 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

on Aeon's page I met to say I wouldn't make anoter sock p. --75.34.185.51 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked Cute 1 4 u's block log, and I am very surprised that we banned a user for being a certain age. Either I'm misreading the block reason, or we have just banned an account because she was 11 yrs. old. I don't think this is right. If Cute 1 4 u was blocked because of many other reasons such as vandalism, then that should appear on the block log.

In addition, I'm beginning to question her block reasons. The sockpuppettering is already proven. (with all of the accounts that came up here on ANI. But vandalism??? Where's the vandalism here??? I think we should recover the supposed vandalism in question.--Ed^{talk c E} 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is enough to get her unblocked? If you think about it, the sockpuppeteering started just because she was blocked for being a certain age, the link to her block log is above. And there really wasn't any proof she was going to vandalise Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

Well, the admission to being part of S-man's "vandalism project" on top of all of the other things that she did (sockpuppetry, MySpace treatment, personal attacks, civility, etc.) all led to her block. If she just sits it out and/or stops making evident that she is who she is, then we won't have to bother her about it. But the fact that its now starting to bother you and other users is beyond anything. Ryūlóng 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actally I just stopped that. And Ed's right. Why am I blocked for being 11? I can't change my age untill years past. He did the vandalism. I though about and said yeah but after that i was gonna sasy no but I was blocked. Now you think about it. Are you really being fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

Then why does the edit summary state her age as the main problem? I suggest that the blocking admin unblock her and provide a better block summary. And in addition, where's the proof that she was vandalising with S-man? I don't see any proof anywhere.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant block summary. =) --Ed^{talk c E} 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She has made some descent edits. I think we should re-enable her account if nothing else after a short break period of maybe a month or so. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. --Mattwj2002 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so, too. What I'm thinking is that we get her account unblocked and put her on a monthlong probation. During the probation period, we will be watching all of her contribs and things like that. If she does something questionable, we block her with no questions asked.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially believed that this user deserved another chance. The behaviour since the block was placed between this user and the numerous sockpuppets, some of which were created after the block, has shown to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this user has no intention of becoming a good editor and has no compunction against blatantly flaunting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. While this is clearly an opinion, I am firmly against unblocking this user's account. If the user cannot even be trusted to behave while a block is in effect, what possible reason do we have for believing the user will act properly if unblocked? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me fifty times and I'm a moron. --Yamla 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Please rephrase your last 3 sentences. They don't make sense. =) Anyway, why do you think that Cute 1 4 u has been sockpuppeteering? Maybe the block would have affected it. Even then, putting her on probation shoud do the trick.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

She was being a sockpuppeteer long before her indefinite block. User:Raven Symone, User:Skittles Lover, and others that have been proven at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u, one of which was long before the block was imposed. I would not feel it wrong if Yamla decided to change the block summary to something else; something that just doesn't show that she was blocked on the reason of her age, but that along with the many other reasons I have mentioned above. Ryūlóng 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is becoming corrupt:

• Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being a certain age, as stated in her block summary. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is in the block summary is the basis of her block.
• She wasn't going to vandalise Wikipedia. She planned to vandalise the sister projects, but not Wikipedia. There's a difference. The admins at the appropriate sister projects should have been notified.
• We're making wild assumtions that Cute 1 4 u keeps making sockpuppets. I know that she admitted to some of the socks, but what if the accounts were controlled by her siblings or relatives or something? At her original userpage, Cute 1 4 u established that she had siblings (I think).--Ed^{talk c E} 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • She said she wasn't going to vandalise wikipedia. She's already shown a willingness to ignore our rules by creating socks. There are no wild assumptions when she's admitted to some of the sockpuppets. If one of those accounts really was a family member, that is unfortunate, but really too bad. Sometimes someone does something that ruins it for everyone. If the family is really that bent out of shape over it, they'll have to take it up with her. Maybe she'll learn something.--Crossmr 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All I'm just saying is that we're just coming to conclusions about these sockpuppets. We're blocking accounts for sharing the same IP with a banned user. For instance, what if she's using a school IP? There are multiple users that might be coming from the same school. And what about the wifi connections that people use now? Wouldn't multiple users be using the same wifi connection?--Ed^{talk c E} 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Family members getting blocked because of one bad apple? What a ridiculous notion! --Ryūlóng 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, we're not blocking new accounts for sharing the same IP. We're blocking new accounts because Cute 1 4 u comes out and says she's evaded her block, again, on some ridiculously named new account or one of us finds out through seeing suspicious edits and she hasn't admitted to it yet, and that pushes us to add an nth RFCU request on her. Ryūlóng 07:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm back. User:Shakim67 is not my family member and my family is not out of shape or whatever you wanna say. My point of createing sockpuppets is to show you my good edits. And i admit, I can be one evil bitch [3] (if that's what ya wanna say), but I can also be a best friends and very nice.i don;t care what you need to say to me. Any way, i was planning to vandalize other wiki products, but decided not. I was gonna tell S-man i changed my mind but I was then already blocked. so thats my side of the story. --75.34.188.39 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should try and view your side of the story and review this situation in an unbiased manner!!!--Ed^{talk c E} 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating sockpuppets to show your good edits is calling disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is bad, mkay? Ryūlóng 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SORRY, MY KEYBOARD'S GETTING STUCK ON THE CAPS LOCK KEY. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rescinding that last comment, as you appear to be lying a bit. Ryūlóng 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i didn't say shakim was my sockpuppet. He's a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs) .

That's not what your sockpuppetry comes from. It's from User:Christy06, User:New York from Flavor of Love, and whoever else you made. Those sockpuppets were used to solely evade your block and continue editting, and now, you just edit anonymously, bring attention to yourself, and impose another block on your IP for the day. Ryūlóng 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've hit the mark, Ryūlóng... she wants attention! •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want attention. I just wanna go back to wikipedia. (The 1st block) I wanna know why am i blocked for being 11? --75.31.247.39 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continued blatant abuse of Wikipedia (continuing to bypass blocks and continuing to create abusive sockpuppets) shows quite clearly why you should be blocked. At this point, I'm in favour of instantly banning any sockpuppets on site and providing long-term blocks of any IP address used by this user. Continuing to edit the Wikipedia while blocked is abusive behaviour. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, we should consider additional steps to prevent the continued abuse from this user. I'm not sure what else can be done, though. Perhaps a block of the entire IP range, though that has a high possibility of hitting innocent third parties (in which case, it is clearly inappropriate). Perhaps contacting the ISP and having them terminate the abusive user (though I'm not sure if this is kosher). --Yamla 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Range blocking this user will result in a DoS of what may be all SBC customers in the Chicago area, and taking legal actions against an 11 year old doesn't sound too easy. Ryūlóng 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Placing a range block hinders the editing of numerous editors from Chicago. WE NEED ANOTHER SOLUTION.--Ed^{talk c E} 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're all in luck guys. There was a tornado warning in effect yesterday in the Chicago area. No, there was no major damage to Chicago (I think), but the Internet connections have been cut off. In fact, I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia until right now until my Internet came back. (I live in the Chicago suburbs). So...just sit back, and relax. --Ed^{talk c E} 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To get through to you, a bit, Ed, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS CONVERSATION, AMIRITE? We are trying to figure out a way to deal with Cute 1 4 u, which may just end up getting her (and by proxy her parents') internet subscription cancelled for a period of time, and this would force her parents to input parental controls so that she cannot utilize Wikipedia, but this would have to be done at some point through legal actions, and I don't think Brad or any of the other Wikimedia legal reps wants to have to sue an 11 year old girl. Ryūlóng 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, although I believe Cute 1 4 u's abuse has gone way out of hand, I don't think it is realistic to seriously consider suing her. There's virtually no potential upside as far as I can see, and substantial downsides. Plus WP:LEGAL. Also, blocking all of Chicago isn't a good plan because it would affect editors like Ed, though if we could find a way to do so without affecting other users, I would strongly advise that action. I wonder how difficult it would be to contact the ISP and report the long-term deliberate abuse, and whether it would result in any change. Apart from that, the only other option I see is permanent bans on the sockpuppets and long-term blocks on any IP address used by this long-term vandal. Perhaps IP blocks of a month at a time, until and unless we block a legitimate editor accidentally (not just another abusive sockpuppet). --Yamla 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, legal suit was just the only thing I could think of (I'm a marine biologist/chemist/geologist/anthropologist, not a lawyer :P). The best we can do is just what Yamla has suggested. Indefblock registered users that are proven after either edits, an RFCU, or an autoblock, and long-term block IP addresses that she claims to use, which may sadly end up blocking the Chicago area's SBC users. Ryūlóng 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting, with edit conflict)Blocking Cute 1 4 u's IP range will affect all SBC users. In addition, SBC has better things to worry about than our problems with one of their clients. For example, almost all of their Chicago customers are cut off from the internet because of the tornado last night. With that in mind, SBC would consider Wikipedia one of their least problems--Ed^{talk c E} 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the time passes, we will have to send an abuse complaint to SBC concerning Cute 1 4 u's actions in the various Wikimedia projects. Rangeblocking is certainly out of the question, for now, but IP blocks will help (even though it appears that a new IP edits every day). Ryūlóng 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I placed the banned user template on Cute 1 4 userpage, legal action for this is silly in my opinion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  So now we just treat any edits as revertable, even if they pop-up here? Ryūlóng 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, revert and block Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, then. Looks like I'm going to have to frequent AIV more. Ryūlóng 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Are we going to notify SBC or deal with the situation ourselves.?--Ed^{talk c E} 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism of Utonagan page

There have been repeated occurences of vandalism on the Utonagan page within Wikipedia. These have implied that Utonagan have wolf content or are related to other wolf-look-a-likes who have wolf content. They have also mentioned behavioral problems which do not exist in the breed, and have even gone to the extent as to imply that they originated from alaskan dogs with wolf content.

As the foremost breeder of Utonagan in the country, these have become more than irritating.

The TCP/IP address of the user known to make these changes is: 212.36.181.65

With thanks

Nadia Carlyle

www.twatha-utonagan.com

Creek people

Creek people has a repeat repeat vandalism offender. I hope posting here is the solution. The offender is an unregistered IP vandal 164.58.208.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has changed the pages 16 times in the past 30 minutes.

Hogeye

His ban has ended, and I'm not sure where he stands in terms of probation, but activity like this, cleary needs to stop. --AaronS 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention he's trying to start an edit war. [4]. Why wasn't he indef blocked long ago anyways? He's incredibly disruptive, has made numerous personal attacks and has been caught using socks against policy more times than I can count. He give thewolfstar a run for their money when it comes to sock puppets. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The gaming of the system that is going on, combined with his viewing Wikipedia as a battleground, are indeed a bit disturbing. --AaronS 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

More edit warring is happening here, at Template:Anarchism. --AaronS 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's also counting his reverts, as if 3RR is a license. *sigh* I'm e-acquainted with him, so I'd rather not be the one to ban him, but I support a ban. The diff you linked was simply stupid. "Let's make a copy of Anarchism that gives Anarcho-capitalism undue weight, and doesn't even mention socialism!" Makes no sense. There are serious, serious POV issues, not to mention a simple and complete disrespect for wikipedia. --Golbez 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Anarchism talk page is full of his POV nonsense. We were getting somewhere with the compromises until he and the range of Wolf-socks arrived and disrupted the whole thing again. Enough is enough. Donnacha 22:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to have removed his sock puppeteer tag with a misleading edit summary.[5] --AaronS 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And now he's doing it with more direct edit summaries: "stay off my page, asshole".[6] --AaronS 02:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He is also removing Aaron's attempt to discuss the situation from his talk page. [7] This user is incredibly bad faith, makes serious personal attacks, and is incredibly disruptive. I strongly, strongly, strongly urge an indefinite block, which is long overdue. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye warns of future "tit-for-tat edit warring" that he will provoke and engage in here. --AaronS 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is something going to happen? His constant POV-pushing is making any attempts to reach agreement impossible. Donnacha 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here Hogeye blanks his discussion page immediately after another editor asks him to stop removing warnings and attempts at discussion from it. He has also removed his sock puppeteer template, again. --AaronS 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Has anybody examined this issue, or does anybody want to? --AaronS 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Greg Bear

I noticed we have a user named User:Greg Bear who has edited the Greg Bear article. How does Wiki confirm or deny that this is the real Greg Bear? And if it is the real Bear, should he be editing his own bio?

Reported by: Atlant 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked. We'll see where it goes from there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've sent a message to Greg Bear through private channels. He should know the difficulties that people can get into when editing their own articles, and if it isn't Greg, then I figure he should be aware that some third party is using his name in vain, as it were.

Not that we need to compromise any of our principles, but I think it is worth a reminder, as Jimbo noted, that these things often turn into a bad experience for the subject. Instead, we should see it as an opportunity to gain the confidence, trust, and friendship of an respected and influential writer. Of course, that applies to all such contributors, whether they be famous or not; it's just that if we get someone with an audience fired up, it just creates a lot of work for us all. Look at Stephen Colbert and his elephants! --Jumbo 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Word back is that it was indeed Greg Bear, and my email sparked some interesting conversations in the Bear household, the younger Bears appalled that Dad would consider editing his own Wikipedia article! --Jumbo 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking!

Atlant 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what might have been happening on the greag bear page, but getting the actual subject of an article involved in editing is potentially extremely useful. Who knows the subject better? Sandpiper 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Weeeeell, yes, but it's hard to have WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in hand if you are editing your own article. If I had a WP article on myself, I might be tempted to downplay my youthful but drunken escapades, and focus instead on my more laudatory achievements. We've seen a bit of this sort of thing going on with articles on politicians here and there, with campaign pledges conveniently "whited-out". I'd also be able to add in information that is true, but either difficult or impossible for anyone else to check. In both cases, these are things we tend to frown on. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Greg Bear is doing this, but as the old Chinese proverb goes, the wise man does not bend down to tie his shoelaces in his neighbour's watermelon patch. --Jumbo 11:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The key problem is balancing between introducing such newcomers to WP:AUTO and what Wikipedia is (we should remember few newcomers know what we really are, notable Wikipedians being no exceptions), while not coming through as insinuating that we don't want them here or we suspect they want to advertise themselves. I think most such people come here with good intentions, but they misinterpret our notices - or stumble upon somebody who is not very diplomatic - and think they are not welcomed here, or at least that they are committing a gross 'faux pas' and should go away - which I am pretty certain was never the intention of WP:AUTO. Perhaps some sort of standarized diplomatic boilerplate/welcome notice for such newcomers could be created?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. I've mocked up something along those lines below:

Sweet zombie jesus, you're famous! - zomg!!!11!! please can I have your autograph!!???!?!?? Oh please sign my talk page and visit me at myspace.com/chairboyslair. I think I just peed a little, I'm so excited.

- CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Notable Welcome. Comments? — Werdna talk criticism 11:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you added the following statement to the standard welcome: We notice that you may be the notable person {{{1}}}. We recommend you view our policy on editing your own biography. Perhaps some tweaking or rewording may be in order, but I think this is a good start.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Help Request from Lesser Evil

[8]

Talk page abuse

Serial sockpuppeteer Mallimak (talk · contribs) is using sockpuppet account User:Orkadian to spam multiple Talk pages. The {{talkheader}} template has been removed and the spam repeatedly re-added. I request admin intervention:

• Orkadian (talk · contribs)

--Mais oui! 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Example diff: [9]. --Mais oui! 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Provide evidence that Orkadian is a sockpuppet of Mallimak, please. It seems to me that Orkadian has become rather upset by your persistent accusations that he/she is a sockpuppet, and I can't see any evidence for that. --ajn (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly the most convincing checkuser result I have ever seen. It's equally likely that they happen to be editing from the same geographical area, and object to your stance on Orkney (oddly, quite different from your usual stance on regional and nationalist issues). --ajn (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also see: [10]. There is a multitude of evidence. But that is not the point: what are you going to do about the Talk page abuse? --Mais oui! 12:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion, why not protect the talk page to [edit=sysop move=sysop] to prevent him from adding spam?? --LiverpoolCommander 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a long standing conflict between the users and a more in depth look at the conduct of Mallimak, Orkadian and Mais oui! is in order.Inge 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mallimak a suitable thing to proceed with?? --LiverpoolCommander 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair I would suggest a simultaneous Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mais oui! or a combined one. The bits and pieces of the conflict I have seen lead me to believe that both these users could do with some helpfull hints. It seems IMHO that this is part of a complexe content dispute where one user is good at utilising wiki rules and the other is not. Inge 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• A combined RFC seems like a good idea. Can anyone give me a brief overview of what the cause of the dispute is, what lead to it, and what the ongoing situation is - so that I have a clearer idea of it?? --LiverpoolCommander 12:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Wangi is very well-informed on this topic, although he has just had a Wikibreak, and so missed the last episode about a week ago. --Mais oui! 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

One user is trying to insert the notion that Orkney has a special identity separate from the Scottish one and has been adding information regarding that to relevant articles. The user has also created stubs, categories and a portal to deal with Orkney subjects. The other user is asserting that Orkney is not any more different from the rest of Scotland than any other part of Scotland and has been removing such information from relevant articles and requesting the stub-templates and so on to be deleted. I think that is the core of this problem. In the process both users may have stepped over the line. The hows, ifs and whens need to be determined, proper guidance need to be given to the users and a permanent solution to the core dispute needs to be found. The articles involved are so low profile that it seems to be very difficult for the few users involved to get there on their own. Inge 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that overview, Inge. I think that Orkney should be counted as Scotland, as it is technically Scottish and not a sovereign state. This content dispute should be taken to a WikiProject who could assist with this incident. --LiverpoolCommander|Commander' 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Orcadian users are claiming that Orkney is not a part of Scotland, but that the people who live there share an identity as Orcadians and that that identity is more or less considered separate from being Scottish. I don't think I am quite able to convey that situation acurately, but I would like to inform that I have the personal opinion that Orkney (and Shetland) claims of being different does have some creedence. They are not just another area of Scotland (allthough they are very much politically and legally part of that country) and history, geneaology and (former) linguistics back that up. But that really isn't the issue right now :) Inge 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comming back to the immediate issue, rather than the underlying problem...

One thing that needs to stop is the constant reverting an readding of Orkadian's comment on various talk pages. While the comment is not about the articles themself it's not worth getting into an edit war about. However the comment needs to be kept out of the article and category namespace and Orkadian has not readded them since I pointed this out. I'll pass on commenting on the comment itself...

I'm disappointed that Orkadian/Maillimak are not making any constructive edits. After this is an encyclopedia - and writting it is our goal, if you're just here to dick around with turf wars then...

I'm not convinced Orkadian and Maillimak are a single person, but if it is two people they're acting in close cooperation. I'll keep an eye on things, but i'm as busy as ever and back travelling tomorrow... Thanks/wangi 13:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the user(s) were initially trying to make constructive edits, but were over-enthusiastic and were then frustrated by Mais Oui!'s uncharacteristic objection to petty regionalism. I spotted this dispute a while ago, when MO listed the Orkney portal for deletion. Orkney does have a quite different history to the rest of Scotland, and Mais Oui!'s "just a council area" stance really doesn't do that justice. --ajn (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I support that view. I believe if a couple of outside editors would like to involve themselves more in depth the articles affected could be very much improved and the users in conflict could be guided back on track to the future benefit of Wikipedia. If we let this issue go now we will just find it again on a later date and/or loose valuable contributions. I see these request for help pages as somewhat of a jungle so if someone knows a more appropriate place to take this issue, please do so and give a link here. Inge 12:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mallimak is not blocked, I am at a looss to understand why he would use sockpuppets, but there is not much doubt in my mind that Orkadian and Gruelliebelkie are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. That said, Mais Oui! is unquestionably prone to strong opinions and there is not a great deal of evidence of these disputants making any real attempt to find common ground. Any RfC should be a joint one, and should be called something like "Orkneys islands" rather than singling out one side or the other, there being evident fault on both. On the practical level I don't see that there are so many articles on the Orkneys as to make a separate portal necessary or desirable, but if people want to have one and link it from the Scotland portal then I don't really see how that would violate policy, since Orkadians unquestionably do have a separate identity at some level. Not that we are here to Right Great Wrongs, but I don't see any neutrality issue in dealing with the Orkneys as thematic set of articles. This is, of course, a superficial view. Guy 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there are some people here who have recognised what is going on. At the beginning I had so much to offer Wikipedia, and I made a start on contributing Orkney-related articles, an area of knowledge I know a great deal about. But then I encountered Mais oui!

I think it all started with his objection to the use of the term “Orcadian”, and he started replacing it everywhere with “Scottish”. Now let’s get this straight once and for all, “Orcadian” is an accepted term used to describe somebody from Orkney, and it is widely used – and for good reason, it pin-points the origin and culture of the person so described much more precisely than the term “Scottish”. (Furthermore, there are many in Orkney (and indeed Shetland) who object to being described as “Scottish”.) I have never claimed that “Orcadian” is a nationality, but neither, note, is “Scottish” a nationality. If Wikipedia is going to be consistent, the correct nationality is “British”! (I’ve not looked into it, but there must be analogous situations like Frankish/Bavarian/German or Frisian/Dutch.) I have never claimed that Orkney is a “sovereign state”, but note, Scotland is also not a “sovereign state”.

Anyway, it seems that I had inadvertently strayed into a territory that Mais oui! claims for his own. For example, it was he that set up the Portal:Scotland – but would he allow me to set up a Portal:Orkney – oh no! Incidentally, there is a Portal:Cornwall, and nobody seems to object to that.

Everything on Orkney that I contributed to Wikipedia had to be part of Mais oui’s domain, and he edited my articles in such a way to make sure that they were. Talk about WP:OWN.

I have plenty of encyclopaedic Orkney-related articles to contribute to Wikipedia, but what’s the point when Mais oui twists them and uses them as fodder to feed his own POV agenda. Personally, I feel Mais oui! should be banned from Wikipedia – he is distorting the project and putting off other contributors. He violently attacks users who disagree with him – sockpuppet allegations seeming to be his favourite form of attack. (Yes, shortly after Orkadian came onto the scene I did get in touch with him, and yes I am now in regular contact with him - but he is not me.) Out of frustration I have tried to retaliate against Mais oui!, but as accurately observed by Inge “one user is good at utilising wiki rules and the other is not”, and I am the one who is not - and why should I be? I didn’t come here to have my time and effort wasted by this kind of nonsense.

I have given up in despair. Until Mais oui! is banned (or at least banned from editing any article I contribute), there is absolutely no point in my contributing any further articles to Wikipedia. If you want to read NPOV encyclopaedic articles about Orkney, written by people who live here or have a close association with the islands and therefore know what they are talking about, I suggest you look out for our independent site.

Writing is my goal, not (as wangi puts it) “to dick around with turf wars“ – that’s Mais oui!’s specialism.

Mallimak 21:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

World Innovation Foundation

It appears to me that there is something appears a bit odd about this article. According to the WIF website, it claims to have dozens of Nobel laureates as members, and is planning to build the "ORE Complex", a multi-billion dollar global centre for scientific research: "the World's Largest Open Research Establishment. Equipped and Operational for 20,000 leading-edge scientists, engineers, technologists and innovators", as well as 1000 local research centres around the world. [11]

It also claims to have been founded by Glenn Seaborg, with its current president being Jerome Karle: pretty impressive people. Indeed, many Nobel laureates are listed as "honorary consulting members" of the WIF on Wikipedia. [12]

By all accounts, the WIF appears to be an organization of global importance.

And yet:

• I cannot find any mention of the WIF, or its claimed predecessor the Institute of National Economic Enrichment and Development, in any mainstream news sources
• I cannot find any mention of the WIF or its predecessor "I.N.E.E.D." on Glenn Seaborg's biographical memorial site, or in his entry on the Nobel site [13]
• the WIF appears to be run from a P.O. box in Huddersfield [14]
• I cannot find any reports of it in mainstream media
• and the "letters" section of its website appears mostly to be people writing back politely to letters inviting them to become honorary members
• most of the mentions of these notable people being members of the WIF appear to have been entered into Wikipedia on the 16th and 17th of this month by User:Drdavidhill, who is listed as the WIF's contact on its own website -- this user has been blocked for adding their website to many articles all at once, and appears to have repeatedly E-mailed Zoe to be unblocked, and has now escalated to petitioning Jimbo [15]
• and the remainder seem to be press releases by academics gladly accepting invitations to become honorary fellows of the WIF

And yet:

• "INEED" appears to have used an Easynet E-mail account [16]
• the WIF also appears to run a website at http://www.ineed.easynet.co.uk/, and http://www.ineed.easynet.co.uk/wif/joinb.html asks for cheques to be made payable to "The Institute of Sub-contractors", which is described as "the corporate trading company of the W.I.F." at "The W.I.F., P.O. Box A60, Huddersfield, HD1 1XJ, ENGLAND." -- which is the same address as given at http://www.thewif.org.uk/contact.php?xy=1920&pl=linux%20i686
• which is odd, because you might expect them to at least have a bank account in their own name, particularly since the article claims that their main organization is a Swiss charity.
• and I can't find any mention of "The Institute of Sub-contractors" on Google, or on several sites containng lists of limited companies (Companies House search goes down overnight, so I can't yet give an authoritative answer to this), or on the Charity Commission's website

And yet:

• the phone number (01484) 300 606 and fax number (01484) 300 606 given for the WIF are also the same as that displayed for "Geo-Design Associates" of Huddersfield [17]

Now, of course, I sure that there are perfectly good reasons for a global think-tank planning billion-dollar projects to share phone numbers and to have a mailing address in the same town as a business run from a shop. But it would be interesting to have a little bit more in the way of verifiable confirmation from mainstream sources about the WIF before we go any further. -- The Anome 01:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

-- The Anome 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mmmm.... hoax. Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is a hoax its probably the most wide spread one ever created and someone should write a news story. Hvae you tried a google search, its outrageous how many people state they are fellows and their positions. Tons of edu sites have listings of their professors as WIF fellows. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] --NuclearUmpf 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder, if you sent a letter out to a hundred academics asking them to become honorary fellows of an organization set up by Glenn Seaborg and featuring a host of Nobel laureates, what fraction of them might (a) write a nice letter back, accepting your kind offer and offering to help in any way they can, and (b) put out a release announcing their membership of this august group? -- The Anome 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done a LexisNexis seach on this and what I've found is even more mysterious. While the article and the site claim Glenn Seaborg as the founder, an article I found in The Yorkshire Post from 2003 tells the story of Dr. David Hill, who after "his construction company went bust" created the Foundation, whose "boldest idea is the creation of Open Research Establishments, so-called People's Creative Thought Incubators, where individuals would have their ideas and inventions analysed and developed." When one of these incubators, described as a "£50-billion scientific super city" was proposed to be built in North Lincolnshire in 2005, the local media at first reacted with breathless excitement, but in a later story said "... since speaking to one of the organisation's founder members, Dr David Hill, the Telegraph has contacted a number of organisations which claim they know nothing about the project." After that date I can find no more articles about the Foundation. There is definitely something amiss here, and the fact that so many scholars have accepted membership, yet no major news source has explained what this group actually does, is bizarre. I really am at a loss as to how to proceed. —Nate Scheffey 08:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now done a company search, and found a company, WORLD INNOVATION FOUNDATION (FOR ECONOMIC ENRICHMENT & DEVELOPMENT), company number 03539608. It's listed as a "non-trading company", and its most recent set of accounts are marked "dormant". There is no "World Innovation Foundation", or anything with a similar name, listed in the Charity Commissions register of charities.

I cannot find a Companies House listing for any company called "The Institute of Sub-Contractors", nor does there appear to be any charity of that, or a similar name.

Does anyone have access to the Swiss equivalent of the UK register of charities? -- The Anome 12:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Does a .org.uk need to be registered in the UK as a charity? This can become quite a search if this "group" can be technically registered anywhere as a charity. Another problem is, it doesn't have to be a charity, meaning no-profit, it seems to be more of a think tank then anything else. Kind of like if Einstein and his buddies got together and made a group, are they required to make it a formal company/charity? I do not know enough about domain registration requirements, but I am almost sure a .org doesnt mean the group has to be registered as a charity. --NuclearUmpf 12:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it has to be, but a whois has the company listed as "UK Entity", based in Sheffield (instead of Huddersfield. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on registering .org or .org.uk (I have domains in both groups). I suspect The Anome's explanation above is the correct one, I've known academics who will join almost any organisation with a couple of big names on board which offers to make them a Distinguished Research Fellow or something equally grand-sounding. The Moonies used to run similar organisations, if I remember correctly. --ajn (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand, I just wish there was a way to verify this, outside our own research which may be possibly flawed. As I said, if its a think tank I do not believe they are required to register anything at all. Is it possible to contact some of these professors and ask them if they have indeed even heard of anything from WIF since their joining? Or is this outside our scope? --NuclearUmpf 12:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed: anyone can get together, and call themselves anything. There's no requirement for a .org.uk to be a charity, either: anyone can apply for a .org.uk domain. However, so many of the details about this organization feel peculiar to me -- most notably the gap between their presentation of themselves as a huge organization of thousands of distinguished scientists, run by Swiss charitable foundation, and planning to build a science city for 20,000 researchers, and their being run out of a P.O. box in Huddersfield, apparently sharing their phone lines with a small business being run from a shop. It seems to me that extraordiary claims require extraordiary proof, and there's very little of that, other than that a number of scientists, when offered honorary fellowships, appear to have accepted.

Perhaps the WIF could help us validate its claims -- for example by providing details of:

• The name, address, registration date and registration number of the Swiss charity that is claimed to be the umbrella organization for the WIF
• A (verifiable) list of the members of its Board of Directors
• Where and when its Nobel-prizewinning members, and its other 3000 members, have met to transact WIF business

-- The Anome

I think it was the WIF's top banana who was sending stuff to the unblocking list this morning, threatening to sue everyone in sight if "their" information wasn't removed from Wikipedia (one of the many who doesn't read or understand "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." before hitting the save page button). Looking at the WIF website, I recall the picture of the "Open Research Establishment" from a few years ago, and I thought it smelled funny then. The portrait of its recently-deceased deputy director seems to be taken in the beer garden of a pub. I'd suggest we speedy-delete everything related to the WIF until its notability can be properly established. --ajn (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now put it up for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Innovation Foundation. If the WIF's claims are real, and it is an organization of the size and importance it claims, it should easily be able to furnish proof of its assertions. -- The Anome 13:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given the E-mails above, I think we would probably be justified in speedy deleting it as "deletion requested by article author", and marking it as ineligible for recreation. -- The Anome 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're suggesting salting a G7? I thought salting was only done in cases of repeated recreations, and G7 is about the most inappropriate type of speedy I can think of for salting. --ais523 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is probably best to let the AfD run its course. If the organization is everything it presents itself to be, then appropriate references are bound to turn up. If things are not as they appear then the existence of a proper AfD will provide a paper trail to help prevent the organization from coming back and recreating the article after people's attention has turned to other efforts. --Allen3 ^talk 14:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, shouldn't the Xanthos Menelaou article go to the same bag (AfD)? He is arguably famous because he's former WIF chief executive, and WIF is arguably famous because (among other things) Menelaou was its chief executive. Duja 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've stuck a speedy template on it. Deletions are really not something I'm familiar with (either requesting or performing), so if I've added an inappropriate tag please change it. --ajn (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm the newbie here..but geez, there seems to be a huge rush to get rid of an article when there really is no evidence that it ISN'T true. Seems to me that if the World Federation of Engineering Organizations has the president of the WIF speaking at their 2003 symposium (it's ref #60 above), there is evidence that this organization really does exist. There are ways to do research that don't directly involve the internet...like a telephone call to ask anyone of these august individuals if they could provide some documentary evidence of the organization and its accomplishments. And no, that is NOT original research, it is seeking supportive documentation. Risker 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to believe that some or all of the WIF's claims might actually be true, if verifiable evidence can be presented from multiple reputable sources to back up these claims. However, in the absence of this, the circumstantial evidence does not look encouraging, and the burden of proof still lies with the WIF to prove their claims to the Wikipedia community, rather than vice versa.

Some examples of this might be: independent reports of WIF conferences, personal testimony from some of the listed Nobelists that they have attended WIF meetings, full details of the alleged Swiss charity... However, the Lexis-Nexis search reported by one of the commenters above does not encouraging.-- The Anome 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've now unblocked User:Drdavidhill, and I've put a note on his userpage inviting him to comment on this AfD. I look forward to him providing independent evidence to support his claims. -- The Anome 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a link providing just one of those grounds you are asking for "independent reports of WIF conferences" unless we are now stating "World Federation of Engineering Organizations" is also part of the hoax. --NuclearUmpf 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the WFEO's activities appear to be completely real and verifiable. However, attending a WFEO conference is not the same thing as holding a WIF conference. -- The Anome 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote from the webpage states that Dr Karle was speaking on behalf of WIF and was guest of honour and keynote speaker. That is a bit more than just attending the conference. Risker 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is; I am perfectly willing to believe that Dr Karle might have accepted an invitation to talk on that basis. Perhaps someone should check with him for some more details of the WIF; as President, he must surely have attended many of their board meetings, and know the main players in the WIF, unless, of course, the position is purely honorary. -- The Anome 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete - it seems to be a mix between a hoax and a scam. --Charlesknight 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I got mixed up in all this mess when I responded to the good Doctor on the unblock-l mailing list, explaining to him that several users had protested his spamming on Wikipedia, and that he had been blocked for repeatedly having continued to spam. He immediately went on attack mode (in private emails, no longer on the mailing list), saying that I was blocking his legitimate right to discuss his charity with over 3000 members. When I finally got tired of repeating that he had not addressed the spamming, I stopped responding. At that point, he said that he was going to petition Jimbo. I at that point explained that he might want to address the users who had actually contacted and blocked him, not me, since I hadn't been involved until he posted to the mailing list. At that point, he accused me of "dishonesty" for not having told him from the very beginning that *I* hadn't been the one to block him. I didn't know that he didn't know who had blocked him, since it's pretty obvious in the block message who had done the blocking. He is now claiming that he is going to sue Wikipedia and post on his website how evil Wikipedia is, and will contact all of the other people we have wronged to get them to add such information. Since he's threatening lawsuits, he should not be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was he actually blocked at the time of this exchange? Anome has stated above that he was unblocked specifically so he could participate in the discussion, and his block log shows that he was not, indeed blocked at 01:51 on 21 September; Anome reblocked him six hours later. Please note that I absolutely agree with blocking anyone making legal threats. Risker 12:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was still blocked at the time of our exchange. He was only unblocked on the 20th. But The Anome has reblocked him, I assume due to the legal threats. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I did rather enjoy pruning the article down to its verifiable core, perhaps some others would like to have at it as well.... Guy 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks and spamming - and now violating 3RR

Despite being asked to stop on both the telepathy talk page and his own talk page, editor THB continues to spam personal attacks against two editors he is edit warring with. This is the message he has already posted five or times within the past hour:

"I do not believe that the tone of the above comments is appropriate and, in my opinion,this demonstrates Askolnik's unfitness to take part in this discussion.-THB 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

I've posted warnings asking him to stop both on the telepathy talk page[24] and THB's talk page[25]. Here are the diffs for the spam:

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

The last was posted after I had posted warnings on both the article talk page and his personal talk page. Askolnick 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnik is harrassing not only me, but also Davkal, and admin assistance would be appreciated. -THB 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, if you would like administrator assistance, you need to provide them with evidence of this alleged "harrassment." No administrator is either going to just take your word for it or read though hundreds of edits to see if there is any substance to your complaint. Askolnick 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To whoever decided to look into this: please note that it appears that both of these users will need a talking to (again). --InShaneee 18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To whoever decided to look into this: please note that InShaneee is not a neutral party, and has had several conflicts with Askolnick. KarlBunker 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K. InShaneee, I got it. You don't like me. You say I'm sarcastic and that I'm not polite. However, if you have a legitimate complaint, why not make it public rather than posting swipes and innuendos? Askolnick 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a 'neutral party', thank you very much. People need to learn that diciplining a user for incivil conduct does not mean that you are now 'involved in a dispute' with them. --InShaneee 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above disruptive conduct, THB has not violated WP:3RR, with five revisions to Natasha Demkina article in the past few hours. Askolnick 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Askolnik has violated the 3RR rule on that article, not me, and joins with KarlBunker in reverting that page to technically avoid the 3RR rule. This behavior should be adressed. Askolnik seems to think that every edit is a reversion. Please check the facts--Askolnik is going out of his way to push POV and to be disruptive of Wikipedia. Thanks. -THB 16:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnik also removed a copy vio tag from Skeptic's Dictionary which clearly uses wording from the site itself without quotes or attribution. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy and should be addressed. -THB 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The dif in question to the above is [31] I have to say though the link the copyright tag uses is not specific and I didnt notice a direct copyright violation in the article description to the websites "FAQ", "Introduction" or "What is" section. I believe the issue is specifically the stories being used, however we have to assertain who does own those stories. If they are ghost stories and wise tales from a time past then I do not believe they need to be attributed. If they are taken word for word but Sceptic Dictionary doesnt own it either, then the real owner needs to be found, or its copy right status obtained. --NuclearUmpf 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:THB has recently engaged in Wikistalking against Askolnick, as evidenced by his suddenly involving himself in a variety of articles that Askolnick has contributed to. See here, here, here, here, here, and just for good measure, he did it once with me: here. KarlBunker 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, KarlBunker and Askolnick have taken it upon themselves to revert any changes I have made in articles in trying to remove POV. They have worked in tandem to avoid the 3RR rule, which KarlBunker has violated multiple times. See Natasha Demkina for an example, which KarlBunker deliberately fails to mention. I have tried not to complain about it because the behaviour they exhibit speaks for itself, especially on the talk page for Telepathy which has been blocked for several days because of their disruptive behaviour. -THB 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks THB, I did forget to mention Natasha Demkina; that's another article where Askolnick has been a long-time contributor, and you, as of today, decided to start making edits too. That makes a total of 7 incidents of Wikistalking. KarlBunker 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review my block in this matter

I'm not the ideal admin to look into this, as I'm on friendly terms with Askolnick, but I took a look anyway, as it's been sitting here without admin attention for pretty long. I ask other admins to please review my actions. I agree with Askolnick and Karl Bunker that User:THB has been unwarrantably stalking and goading a fellow editor. (But he hasn't violated 3RR, not even close.) I consider this a fairly heinous offence, and have blocked for 48 hours. Please see my block message here for rationale. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

I had been looking at this trying to sort it out. I think Bishonen's block is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Two admins + two other editors vs.....me

Hi, I believe that I've been the victim of a Wikibullying (for lack of a better word). To make a long story short: Somehow, within the span of 10 minutes after I had posted a comment on user:Konstable's talk page and deleted his comments from my talk page, three separate users singled out my talk page (out of a few hundred thousand talk pages and 1.3 million articles on WP, somehow all three users just happened to hone in on mine), reverted my edits, and aggresively threatened to assess various penalties against me, barely explaining themselves, if at all.

For the long story (necessary to understand what I'm talking about), featuring the names of those involved, relevant links -- my AMA request for assistance talks about it in detail.

I wanted to bring the case to the attention of other Wiki admins, get their feedback on the matter, their opinions, etc. Tell me if I'm wrong, if the other people are wrong, if both of us are wrong, etc. J.R. Hercules 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Side note - previously brought up here. – Chacor 08:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why people come here complaining about talk page removal. The person obviously got your message if they deleted it, especially since they replied, so what is their to complain about? The issue was the Lenin article, which they acknowledged that post, deleted it, and responded on the Lenin article over. To keep adding tags when the person has already removed one seems like unnecessary escalation of the issue. Adding tags so they get removed so more tags can be added really serves no point. --NuclearUmpf 08:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

People come here to complain about it because it is routinely used to harass them. There is a line in Wikipedia:Vandalism which says that users are not allowed to remove "valid warnings" from their talk pages. It was added without consensus about nine months ago, has been removed repeatedly ever since, but just as frequently restored. It's a wonderful practice ostensibly intended to make it easier to see past warnings (because page histories are just too darned tricky) whose sole actual purpose seems to be to facilitate harassment of users. In the above case, Konstable placed a message (regular discussion) on Hercules's talk page and Hercules removed it. Konstable then restored the message with a new one warning him that people aren't supposed to remove things from their talk page - which was of course not true, it is sometimes seen as incivil but not prohibitted. Hercules removed it again, Chacor restored and added a warning against removing warnings (which was also invalid since Hercules had done nothing against policy in the first place), Hercules removed again, Glen S restored again with another stern warning, Hercules complained, Konstable added a new warning against being incivil in complaining about their actions, et cetera. Blatant harassment and I'm gonna block the lot of them if they don't cut it out. That 'no removing warnings' concept is bad enough when it is applied 'correctly', but when it is used as a pretext to enforce false warnings it is atrocious and nothing short of deliberate harassment. --CBD 12:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction - The first reversion was Hello32020 restoring comments made by Konstable - rather than Konstable doing so himself as I originally thought. Apologies for the mixup, but... same problem. --CBD 12:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This does not have to be deliberate harassment, could just be an overinterpretation of policy and a failure to assume good faith on all sides, including, suprisingly, you, CBD. The "don't remove warnings" makes perfect sense used against standard IP vandalism, but is stupid when used against good faith users where it only helps to inflame the situation. Kusma (討論) 12:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible that this is just 'overinterpretation of policy'... but in application that is still harassment. And it gets used this way far more often than 'against standard IP vandalism' in my experience. IP vandals rarely bother to remove warnings... and when they do it is easily visible in the page history. This is a practice which routinely serves to aggravate contributors and provides no benefit except saving the need to click on 'page history' to see if an IP vandal has been warned before. --CBD 12:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm hello. I have never removed any content from Herucle's talk page. I have put a note asking him to respond to them rather than just remove them, but that was not even a "warning", they were my own words asking him for collaboration. Neither have I ever collaborated with the other people who are also "harrassing" him. Enough accusations? Let's look at the page history before throwing words? I think I assumed enough good faith when I tried to talk to him after he called a bunch of editors "idiots" and tagged their article {{NPOV}} without much decent explanation other than asking them to "ban Lenin fan editors". Eventually he participated in discussion on the page in question, to some extent, which is what I was asking for all along! I am not "out to get him". I don't know why the other editors/admins were reverting him, ask them, don't accuse me.--Konstable 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

See correction/apology from earlier above. I attributed the action to the wrong person. --CBD 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on what the last warning on his page was referring to - things like accusations of "us" targetting him, asking Chacor to "stop pretending to be an admin", accusing Hello32020 of VP abuse, more accusations of sock/meat puppetry and asking me not to edit "other peoples'" pages.--Konstable 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The first and third are completely civil and accurate complaints about mis-treatment he had received, the second and fifth contain minor incivility in asking people to leave him alone, and the fourth is politely worded but assumes bad faith in suggesting that the reason for the sudden innundation of users to his page were some kind of puppetry. You'd have a better case for an incivility warning with some of his earlier statements and actions, but the multiple false warnings/threats he received were every bit as bad. --CBD 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I support blocking the harassing parties for 24 hours, doubling each time they repeat their actions. There is a centralized discussion on this matter. People should use common sense when multiple guidelines overlap. I haven't looked at the actions of J.R.Hercules yet, those are separate and may still need reviewing. Kim Bruning 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider warning someone over WP:OWN (in relation to WP:USER, and not in the article sense) harassment; has that changed? – Chacor 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Several people were engaged in an edit war with J.R. Hercules on his own talk page. In edit wars in user space, the user does own his page, and always gets the benefit of the doubt. Other parties get blocked for 24 hours. Kim Bruning 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

At best the issue here is overenforcement of policy. I see no reason to presume that anyone was intending to harasse anyone else and in any event blocks should be preventative not punitive. And no there is in no way shape or form any policy that edit warring on someone's own talk page somehow gives them a benefit of the doubt and somehow requires us to block the involved users. This has neither a policy nor a common sense basis. Everyone should just go back to editing. JoshuaZ 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy is no excuse. No one has successfully used the "befehl ist befehl" defence in the last 60 years or so.

If the rules contradict proper human decency, then human decency wins.

Of course, in this case the editors in question also simply violated our no edit warring policy. This was never repealed, though an additional electric fence has been added at WP:3RR. I don't know if 3 reverts have been reached yet, but it should still be quite alright to block people earlier, especially now they're aware of the fact.

So there you go, block them for either or both, I don't mind. Perhaps 48 hours is more appropriate, because they used "policy" as an excuse? Kim Bruning 15:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kim a) as to your referrence to befehl ist befehl are you trying to be uncivil or are deliberately invoking Godwin's law and/or the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy? To be blunt, if I weren't an involved user I'd be considering blocking you for that completely inappropriate comment. We don't block people for trying to enforce policy- it doesn't accomplish anything. If soemeone committs genocide and claims they are following Wiki policy maybe then you might have a point. b) A handful of edits don't constitute an edit war and again it has stopped and blocks are better preventative than punitive. c) So now you are advocating increasing block time for people since they thought they can plausibly say they were following policy? This is the most inverted application of WP:AGF I have ever seen. JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr, the gentleman with the funny moustache never actually tried that defence. He committed suicide, remember? (leaving you holding the godwin reference.)

The nuremburg defence is a particular defence that was at first attempted by both sides in the trials following the 2nd world war, and is still important today. Judges have consistently ruled that it's not a valid defence.

People in countries like Germany and Holland still occaisionally quote those decisions to people who have become blinded by bureaucracy.

What I'm trying to say is "I was just following policy" is never a valid defence for any action. This is one of my core beliefs, and I base it on the history of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Even so, that may well be moot. These users were not following guidelines at all. They were edit warring, after all. I'm pretty sure there are no current guidelines that permit edit warring. If the edit war had been continuing at this time, I believe the users should have been blocked. Kim Bruning 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's law refers to references to Nazis in general and argumentum ad hitlerum is often used to have that more general meaning as well (Godwin's law is explicit in that regard, read the page). You are also confusing "I was just following orders" when that result has an immoral or radically harmful aftereffect with good faith editors causing a minor inconvenience. To even see them in the same category as all is simply ridiculous and offensive. JoshuaZ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I really seem to have offended you. Where I live it's a common saying "we've done away with befehl ist befehl you know", when someone is overapplying the rules. I really wasn't thinking in any overblown sense <blink>. I'd better leave you a note on your talk page too. Kim Bruning 12:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop fanning the flames here. Blcoking is preventative, not punitive. Kusma (討論) 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but we can block next time, right? Kim Bruning 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) that, and shhh, you're ruining the whole good_cop/bad_cop thing here. ;-)

User talk ≠ user page. No one owns one's own user talk, and saying "please don't edit other peoples talk pages" and "do not edit my page again" should not be accepted. JoshuaZ hit the nail on the head. – Chacor 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing also with Chacor here and Kim if you think people do own their talk pages I strongly suggest you review the associated policy pages. JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You own your user talk, it is a page in your own user space. You may even choose not to use it or to redirect it, though people might find you somewhat uncommunicative if you do.Kim Bruning 15:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You do not own your user or user talk page, it is still freely editable (this is a wiki) and policy can be enforced there if people abuse the page (for example by using copyrighted images there in violation of WP:FU). Kusma (討論) 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you look at it that way. But in general the pages are for use by the user. Kim Bruning 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"look at it that way" in this context seems to mean "if you care about commonsense and/or policy" Kim, making comments on ANI where you don't know or don't care about the accepted practice and/or the relevant policies really isn't helpful. The signal to noise ratio here is already poor. JoshuaZ 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a wiki... but if I tried to redesign your user page or even your user talk page the way >I< wanted it and kept reverting your attempts to restore it I would get blocked for harassment. That is 'common sense' and/or policy. It has always been that way. --CBD 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you dsee a distinction at all between redesigning someone's user page and leaving a message on the talk page just maybe? And note that in fact we willfully redesign problematic user pages all the time that are attack pages or have fair use images on them or a few different things. JoshuaZ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll call. :-) Could you reference the pages in question? I do know I was recently looking in on the centralized discussion where this is being discussed, and I don't think final conclusions have been drawn on this issue. You now know my own position, in any case. If you like, I invite you to participate in that discussion and convince people of your own position. Kim Bruning 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant section on not owning user pages is Wikipedia:Talk#User_talk_pages (although now that I look at it again, it doesn't look as unambiguous as I remembered it). JoshuaZ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: J. R. Hercules expresses astonishment (and possibly suspicion and/or sarcasm) about three users who "singled out my talk page (out of a few hundred thousand talk pages and 1.3 million articles on WP, somehow all three users just happened to hone in on mine)" - This is actually quite usual and ordinary on Wikipedia. It is very likely the users in question had Konstable's talk page watchlisted. I have a couple hundred user talk pages watchlisted myself.

Puppy also concurs with JoshuaZ. This is a tempest in a teapot. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) So long as it stops I don't think anyone needs to get blocked. But we have to do something to prevent this from happening over and over again. There is a different case of the same thing further up the page here. Any practice which encourages users to engage in harassment and edit-warring just can't be a good thing. Even when used 'right'. In this case... Chacor, look at what you restored [32]. A week old request that the user respond, which they had actually done by then, and an incorrect warning that they aren't allowed to remove discussion from their page. What need was there for that? How does forcing the user to keep that stuff on his talk page do anything except annoy him? --CBD 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Then clarify the policy that it only applies to vandalism warnigns maybe? JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Limiting it to vandalism warnings, if you could get the people who keep inserting it into WP:VAND to agree, would vastly reduce the frequency that this gets used to antagonize people, but there are still going to be tons of cases where people mis-label NPOV issues and other content disputes as 'vandalism' and then enforce display of those false warnings. Better to just remove the practice of encouraging edit-warring entirely. It's just a really bad idea. --CBD 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Awww, we get to block them next time though, right? Kim Bruning 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. :] --CBD 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks to all who've provided feedback here. I appreciate the time you've taken to review and discuss my request.

A couple things I'd like to clarify here. One, though I probably should have made my sarcasm more clear, I did not mean to imply that sockpuppets were actually being used. I did, however, intend to convey my impression that some "ganging-up" and singling-out against me was taking place. If I am wrong on that, I apologize. But it struck me as an odd coincidence that the reversions on my talk page happened one right-after-the other within the span of ten or so minutes...

Second, from my end, I've always thought that Wikipedia "warnings" were warning banners, and I'm confused (as I was during the time of the edit war) by Chacor's characterization of his and the other non-banner edits as "warnings". Konstable did eventually put an actual warning banner on my page (which I'd like to archive or delete, if permitted), but that was after the initial edit sparring.

Last, though I know that users don't really "own" their talk pages, I was under the impression there's an understanding among Wikipedians that editing user talk pages (excluding adding comments; I mean specifically moving things around, deleting things, etc.) was the province of the user in question, and not other editors (except in extreme cases). I had once edited an admin's talk page to separate from my comments those of an anon user who added comments right after mine; he added his comments in a way that made it appear that I had made those extra comments. The admin messaged me to say he didn't appreciate me editing his talk page, and that it was his place to edit his own talk page. Hence, the comments I placed on Chacor and Konstable's pages. (Incidentally, Chacor just happens to have a disclaimer on his own talk page stating his prerogative to delete unfriendly comments...)

Again, though, thanks for the feedback. Points taken and lesson learned from my end. J.R. Hercules 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to some of J.R. Hercules's comments above:

"it struck me as an odd coincidence that the reversions on my talk page happened one right-after-the other within the span of ten or so minutes"

I'm not going to speculate too much, but one possibility may have been the users being on recent changes patrol. However, that's only a theory, and may be totally wrong...

"...actual warning ... (which I'd like to archive or delete, if permitted)"

I think archiving would be best in this situation, taking into account the above free-for-all. Instructions can be found by following that link.

"Last, though I know that users don't really "own" their talk pages ... [insert the example here, removed for reduction of quoted material] ... prerogative to delete unfriendly comments)"

Generally, only vandalism is removed from talk pages. There is another free-for-all raging over the removal of personal attacks and blatant incivility on talk pages, and currently it is accepted that it is the perogutive (sp?) of the user, within reason, to remove such comments. Hence the disclaimer on Chacor's page. Unless added in a totally incorrect situation (ie. the user has never actually edited the page which they "vandalised" - it happened to me once...), it is my interpretation that warnings don't fall under this "personal attack/civility removal thing. I may be wrong, and it is simply my interpretation. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop this discussion now

I will not participate in this discussion where two users have harrassed and threatened me over things I have never done! Forgive me if this font looks a bit over the top, but I have had enough of people not reading my comments and harrassing me with fabricated accusations of incivil behaviour, threats and edit wars on Hercules' page, and this is the only way I can think of to get everyone to actually look at what happened rather than read CPD's false accusations: I have NEVER reverted Hercules' page, not once, 0 revert rule; I have NEVER made any incivil comments against Hercules; I have NEVER told him he is not allowed to edit his talk page and remove content from it - I have informed him that it is "not courteous" (my exact words) to clear his talk page without responding, and asked him to participate in discussion rather than clear his talk page ("Please" is not the same as "you must or you will be blocked" nor is it the same as "this is against policy") and I never reverted him or even asked him to revert it. If someone disagrees with ANY of these, wants to throw accusations or threaten blocks: provide diffs, read and comment on them. Otherwise I consider these unfounded accusations to be harrassment. WP:AGF.--Konstable 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... you might consider the possibility that when people don't use your name... they maybe aren't talking about you. :] --CBD 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Asdf, yes, CBD is right. Sorry for that above post which is spurred by a 90% misunderstanding, I withdraw any comments regarding CBD harrassing me. With a huge load of work in real life which is only piling up and just 4 hours of sleep I am a bit stressed off-wiki (hence my supposed wiki-break). I had only skipped through the discussion this (GMT+12 for me) morning and saw a couple more accusations of me putting bad warnings on keeping content on his talk page, plus Kim there saying: "I support blocking the harassing parties for 24 hours" and some other uninformed and provocative comments such as: "Awww, we get to block them next time though, right?"--130.216.191.184 22:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Konstable not signed in)

Awww :-( No of course not you, if you weren't edit warring, it doesn't apply to you. Sorry if that added even more stress to your otherwise stressful day. Certain other people do deserve to be told off though. Kim Bruning 11:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we please try and be civil and not get into a discussion about one another?? User:LiverpoolCommander (not logged in) --82.42.237.173 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and other pages

There is an ongoing dispute about the definition of "Paris". One side says that "Paris" can only means the relatively small administratively-defined City of Paris embedded in the larger conurbation (so, for example, excluding the suburbs of Paris, including the central business district of La Défense); another says that the larger entity is called "Paris" in general English usage. This started as an edit/move war at the list, both before and after multiple votes on the talk page demonstrated that there was little consensus either way. There is now an ongoing Mediation case, but edit warring has broken out again on the list and related pages.

Yes, it is a content dispute, but a cursory look at the mediation page, or the talk page of the article, or the talk pages of any involved participants, will show that this is just not getting solved any time soon, and vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations are flying left and right.

Please would an uninvolved admin take a look. I am entirely fed up with this whole issue (and also too involved to take any administrative action). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a Parisian issue. France has revolved around Paris for centuries, and there's a big social distinction between living inside the city limits and outside them. The city of Paris discourages building large skyscrapers, which would overwhelm the traditional architecture of the city. So they're being built outside the city limits, mostly at La Defense, which was established as a sort of "skyscraper zone". The resulting tall building boom at La Defense is gradually moving the center of business activity outside Paris proper. This has some Parisians very upset. Don't worry about it. --John Nagle 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

La Défense is the business district of Paris. I don't see how Parisians could be upset by having a world-class business district being built up in their very own urban area. It's like saying that Londoners are upset because businesses are moving to Canary Wharf. In case you don't know, residents of the City of Paris do not need a work visa to go work in La Défense or other suburban areas. In any case, the point raised by ALoan is that some editors (User:Grcampbell and User:ThePromenader) are bypassing the mediation going on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris and are editing the La Défense article as well as about 20 La Défense skyscrapers articles (such as Tour AXA, Tour EDF, Tour Total, and so on) despite lack of consensus on the mediation page. That's what should be stopped. The mediator (User:GofG) seems to be gone on vacation, so some other admins should step in. Hardouin 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those disputes with the Fealress Crusader on one side and the rest of the world on the other. Promenader is asking for trouble, I'm afraid. The fact is that, pedantry aside, there is nothing wrong with the current title; the fact that one user obdurately refuses to accept this will never be solved by any process other than giving up or slapping him with a wet trout, I fear. Guy 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Guy, I left a message on your talk page about this.

There's actually four of us trying to make two Wikipedians see reason/publish fact, and few of us are Parisian.

Hardouin's accusations are completely baseless - the pages he is complaining are not at all in any mediation. The situation is quite the opposite as painted by him, as his constant reverts are opposed by three editors.

The "in Paris" situation is actually very black and white and widely referenced, which of course makes the warring seem all the more ridiculous. Only one side of the argument has every been able to provide any reference in this, and overwhelmingly so. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopaedia? Just because a very few publishing theory put up a huge fuss to protect it doesn't mean those interested in fact should just give up and leave. What would be wiki then?

If anyone wants to look further into this, please do, as our mediator seems to have gone AWOL. THEPROMENADER 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When deciding on this issue, please be aware of WP:NOR, in particular this phrase: An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it....(It) provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms. Quite simply the boundaries of Paris are well known and published (no less than by the French government who you'd think know what they are talking about (at least I hope)) and User:Hardouin wants to invent new definitions. Also, there was some consensus about correctly referencing the towers correctly on individual pages, with people from both sides agreeing, the only one in disagreement out of >6 participating is again this user. He insists on listing the towers locations at the French equivalent of a PO Box number! For some reason, it seems to irk him that Paris has boundaries. What he fails to understand is that in France, when you exit a commune, you are no longer in that commune. --Bob 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin has just ended another baseless, anti-consensus revert spree. THEPROMENADER 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin is now trying to state that the official name of the département of Paris is "City of Paris" (or "Ville de Paris" in French) in the Île-de-France (région) article, which is quite simply false. ref 1, ref 2. I no longer believe that this user is editing in good faith. --Bob 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just blocked Netscott for a week for moving the page against consensus, and I have also deleted a forked version of the article created by (and named after) Grcampbell ("Bob"). The edit warring on this, and related articles, has to stop. --ajn (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages

hi - is it ok for users to blank their talk pages? Illwauk did: [33]. Not a dog 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, its preffered they archive it for ease of reading, but its not required. You can always find where they blanked it and just look at the dif to see how it was just before the blanking. A link is an example [34] though I believe you already know your way through difs by your own edit. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The blanking and deleting of talk pages has gotten more liberal recently. If people make enough of a fuss or have powerful connections, it will usually be deleted. However, there is a good chance that another admin will undelete the page, especially if the other admin is an enemy, the admin is absolutist about keeping talk pages or the person whose talk page is being deleted is not well connected. If a user really wants his or her talk page deleted, they could politely ask Jimbo to do it (he's busy, so ask someone else first). He does not see it as a big deal since the editors who want their talk pages deleted are usually not very good contributors (if I remember correctly) and (I suspect) because the value of the talk pages are less than the ill will that keeping them generates. Also, admins are unlikely to undelete pages deleted by Jimbo.

I think the policy on the talk pages should be changed to make it more fair for the people who are not well connected or complainers. I suggest giving users three choices in decreasing desirability. The first option would be to archive everything on their talk page and just leave links to the archives and, if they want, a note asking people not to post additional messages. Having the page protected to prevent additional messages would also be an option. This option would leave contents of the talk page intact and in an easy to read form. The second option would be to blank their talk page and talk page archives and either leave a note or have the page(s) protected. The old versions of the page could still be seen in the history by all users, but it is not as convenient as archiving. The third option would be to have the talk page and archives deleted. Only admins would be able to see the old versions and the convenience for them is less than blanking, since you either have to read the source or use the preview button, which does not always work. However, the page could be restored if needed, as long as there is not another crash that wipes out the deleted pages. The value of an intact talk page would be explained on the policy page and editors would be encouraged to simply archive them, but they would be able to choose which one of the three options they would like. -- Kjkolb 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very much against blanking/deleting of talk pages for active users, as there are many reasons why one might want to look at past conduct. I think they should be archived. If the user leaves the project, then that is a different matter. Tyrenius 20:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrative abuse by User:David.Monniaux

David sez: This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating Wikipedia's policies, most notably WP:NOT: Wikipedia user pages, signatures, etc. should not be used for advocacy. He then blocked User:Rookiee indefinitely and deleted, and then protected Rookiee's user- and talkpage. The "other policies" alluded to here were not mentioned anywhere, and the indefinite block apparently followed Rookiee readding of a link once. He was not warned following this.

David's allegation of "signature advocacy" apparently stems from the devious subliminal message Rookiee uses in his signature, and, ironically, David also had a links his homepage on his userpage. JayW 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee was warned in the strongest possible terms that an indefinite block was coming unless he ceased using his user page to promote pedophilia. Fred Bauder 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You alone do not have the authority to make such a warning. JayW 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

?!? Not only does he have "the authority", it's part of every admin's job description to protect the project, which this clearly falls under. This is a particularly weird comment, given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom. Jkelly 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

..here's a scenerio. I'm an admin. I go TheLand's userpage and discover s/he enjoys the violin. And as it happens, a violin raped my father last week. So I burst in hir talk page and declare - without any community discussion - that, should "TheLand" not censor her page immediantly to suit my delicate sensibilities, I'll single-handedly block her - without even asking others or a "warning" block - forever. Per WP:NOT of course, nothing to do with my personal prejudices... (I might even throw in a vague death threat, just for good measure.)

..and all this is despite the fact that hundreds of other people are also violating "NOT," yet they're still free to edit.

Within my rights? Y/N?

Of course, in the real world, violins are not blamed for everything imaginable, so this analogy might be just a little off.

"given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom."

uh. It's unfortunate you don't know what the ArbCom is? JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the above is an attempt to entertain yourself. If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Jkelly 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee." The point was that the ArbCom doesn't have shit to do with anything here and if you believe it does, you clearly don't know what it is. JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

They would be the place for an indefinitely blocked user to appeal the block. Again, you can find out more information about how dispute resolution works at the above link. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: ergo, your point is ridiculous and Fred still doesn't have the right to bypass the wiki community. And you're yet to explained why a ban is more appropriate than a simple page protection. JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at an "analogy" goes far beyond reductio ad absurdum and simply into the realm of the bizarre. A violin does not advocate for, bluntly, the legalization of child molestation. FCYTravis 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rookiee was blocked on the basis of WP:NOT? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Good call. We are not a platform for the promotion of 'boylove'. The Land 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you do to his userpage, but the indefinite block is disproportionate, unfair, and against our own blocking policy. There was basically zip for dispute resolution, here. JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that lengthy dispute resolution is required when a user is blatantly violating Wikipedia policy, in a manner that endangers the project, and refuses to stop after repeated warnings. -- SCZenz 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion between a number of people, including senior administrators, on his Talk page. That's all the dispute resolution needed. From the content of that conversation, the content of the deleted edits to his user page, and the nature of his blog I am clear that Fred and others acted correctly. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and particularly not one for pedophiles. The Land 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The action was necessary and proper to defend the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I wholeheartedly support it. FCYTravis 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like Rookiee's userpage, blank and protect it. A block is not appropriate and not excusable. We have already concluded, after losing multiple editors, that paedophiles shouldn't be blocked for their orientation; wanna discuss it again? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The real shocking thing here is not the block, but that he has been allowed to last this long as it is. He was indef blocked with his userpage deleted in March, and it was reversed. Whenever a disruptive user is saved by other admins, they almost always end up getting blocked again. We need to stop this. Disruptive users or those who pose a threat have no place here - to hell with "rehabilitation" and to hell with AGF. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many people fail to understand that WP:AGF does not require that we continue to assume good faith in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary. FCYTravis 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I 100% agree with you, good editors should be encouraged to work through problems and continue to be good editors (though often by the time it gets to a block, it's well beyond that). But yes WP:AGF is not "look the other way", and maybe we do need a WP:NOT a psychiatrist's couch, daycare centre, rehabilitation clinic etc. --pgk 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Apart from that, feel free to send this to ArbCom, and please do not edit my user page. David.Monniaux 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Ever bring a plastic knife to a gunfight before, David? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You should consider attending to your own behaviour at this point. If your interest in Wikipedia is amusing yourself by making quips or scoring points on an internet forum, please find another venue. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"making quips or scoring points on an internet forum" Your attack is irrelevant, seeing as the above post was simply a reply to David's implication. How the hell is that a "quip?" JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Quip" would be overstating; "confused non sequitor" is more descriptive. --150.61.31.119 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JayW for incivility and trolling. 24 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I continue to advance the notion that pedophiles should be blocked on sight. El_C 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? Fred Bauder 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support the block of JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't. He is swearing a lot and debating very aggressively. However, he is not sdimply trolling, he is trying to argue quite a serious and difficult point, albeit not very calmly. However if we blocked people for swearing when we were angry we'd all be fucking screwed. The Land 09:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with The Land that JayW should not have been blocked for swearing. Dionyseus 09:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• The block is only for 24 hours, so I would let it stand. I hope that it gets the point across that making personal attacks against users (a blockable offense) is a no-go on Wikipedia and if he wants to debate the indef block of Rookie, then he should do so without the name calling an insults. As for the swearing, we all done it, but it should be a good idea that in a debate like this, just refrain from doing them (don't block just because he swears, but if the swearing is getting too much, come back here). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Everyking was banned from this page because of his repeated assaults on the actions of administrators. There is precedent, JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

hay guyz I have an idea, how about we discuss Rookiee's block instead? I really don't care about how many people you've censored before; I'd just like someone to unblock Rookiee ASAP, per policy, human decensy and common sense. Thank you. JayW 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

per policy, human decensy and common sense. Except for each of those "per"s being wrong, wrong, and wrong, not a reason not to do it. Other than, of course, being a completely ridiculous idea, that is. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am talking with Rookiee and Jimbo regarding his page. I would rather finish that conversation first. I hope he can be persuaded to make his userpage less aggressive. Simply restoring it short circuits the conversation. There is also hope he might consider not using the signature "revolyob" {boylover spelled backwards.} I think there is consensus that he can edit, on the same terms as others. The issue is using Wikipedia for pedophilia advocacy. We need to make an agreement with him though, not with his defenders as if he has to be constantly policed, it is better if he is not here at all. Fred Bauder 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Tonetare identity

Is it possible to shift up the temporary block on this IP to indefinite? It's just another IP associated with the banned User Tonetare/Taretone - a good list of his activities can be found [35] here when he was using a sock to carry off abuse. It's a static IP so the innocent should be unharmed. Otherwise as soon as the temporary ban is lifted he's be straight back to his ranting abusive ways. --Charlesknight 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not banned. Sarah Ewart (the blocking admin) and I (an involved admin) agreed, following his 2 week block, that she would instate a month block, which has been applied to his 3 accounts. If he returns and continues abuse, then he should be quickly blocked again for, I would say, 3 months. There has not been any significant attempt to disguise the fact that he was running these 3 accounts. Basically he stopped using one and switched to another with a similar name, and his IP had previously been revealed to me anyway. Tyrenius 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Privacy protection

Once more there is a dispute over proposed policy that I think would benefit from the vision of admins, especially as they're the ones who would be enforcing it. The issue is protecting children's privacy, and there are two drafts on the table.

The original draft is based on the U.S. COPPA law and makes it illegal for editors to state they're <13 years old under 13 to list personal details, and any information indicating such should be summarily removed, and editors who repeatedly state their young age should be blocked. Opponents claim that this does not actually protect children due to the arbitrary limit, is easily gamable by lying about your age, and has the side effect of blocking potentially good editors, and that legal issues should be deferred to the Board.

The newer draft is based on common sense and advises people not to post personal information because it may be abused, and recommends people to contact Oversight if they want information on themselves removed. Opponents claim that this wrongly puts the responsibility with young editors who should be held incapable of judging for themselves, it lacks "teeth" since it doesn't call for blocks, and has the side effect of subjecting Wikipedia to expensive lawsuits like the Xanga case.

Comments on Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy please. Of course everyone agrees that people who post personal information on others should be banned, that's not the issue. Other than that, there appears to be some sort of vote going on between the two versions. So far, no attempt has been made to reconcile the two, but that may be an option. >Radiant< 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, you have been persistently misstating the proposal. The draft you point to does not prohibit users from stating they are under 13. It merely says that any user who chooses to do so, is prohibited from also posting personal information such as real name, phone number, home address. It is not about preventing children from being children, but merely about preventing them from being victimized in real life by people who might use personally identifying information from Wikipedia against them. An alternate version that would have prevented people from declaring they are under 13 has been discarded. Dragons flight 22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, DF, I must have had the older version in mind, and I have amended my words above. >Radiant< 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, the new draft was put in place in the middle of an attempt to clarify positions on the old draft. I will keep my opinions as to the ethics of that to myself. Captainktainer * Talk 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really an attempt to clarify - the main proponent of the proposal made misleading and obfuscatory summaries of everybody else's opinion, then asked everyone to comment again, in effect leading to the same debate once more. >Radiant< 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion can and should continue, of course, but wasn't this issue presented to the Office for a legal review? Have we heard anything? Newyorkbrad 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing opinions and asking people to provide an easily-scannable opinion so as to better judge opinion is a form of straw poll. Yes, that doest qualify as clarification. Captainktainer * Talk 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have not heard of anyone asking Office, Brad Patrick or Jimbo about this. It would be a good idea though. >Radiant< 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Rule by Secrecy = User:Thewolfstar

Look at the recent user contributions. I'd post a link, but I'm on the run. --AaronS 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I assumed good faith on WhiskeyRebellion, but this is a bit much. The two unrelated edits to throw us off the scent and an immediate throw-in on Anarchism are some of the clearest evidence of a sock I've ever seen. I'd recommend a CheckUser and block. Captainktainer * Talk 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As soon as one is banned, another one appears User:Andromeda466, see [36]. Donnacha 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. I hereby announce that I will no longer bother CheckUser with the wolfster sock-oh-rama at Anarchism. Just drop a note on my page. Well, not more than three a day, please. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

User:Forestbot

As ForestH2 has been blocked; his bot should be blocked too, shouldn't it? Aquafish talk 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Aquafish clearly a sock as well? look at the edit history! --Charlesknight 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm no sock of ForestH2. I'm interested in Politics and SpongeBob, not like him. Aquafish talk 00:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Improper full protection of Wikipedia:Vandalism

Radiant! has just been involved in a content dispute over Wikipedia:Vandalism as shown in this edit. Recently, Radiant! reverted the page to Radiant!'s preferred version [37], fully protected the page [38], and threatened to block me if I posted any information about this content dispute on the Counter-Vandalism Unit's project page [39]. These actions violate the letter and the spirit of the protection policy, which states that

Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.

These actions are also inconsistent with the intent of the blocking policy which states that

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

and implies that sysops shouldn't threaten to block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute, either. I request that Radiant!'s improper reversion and protection of Wikipedia:Vandalism be reversed. Thank you. John254 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It does look like Radiant may have been too involved here. I suggest it would have been more appropriate to ask for another admin, on this noticeboard even, rather than doing it himself. It also looks like you've been edit warring on policy pages, and spamming other pages soliciting support to your edit war. Consequently, the page is now protected in my, uninvolved name, [40], and you are warned that if you continue either edit warring or soliciting you will be blocked by me. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring Radiant's actions for a bit, I don't see the point of basically saying that people are never allowed to remove stuff from their talk page. The repeated reinsertion of a warning (especially a stupid warning) already admits that it has been received and read, so what is the point of edit-warring over it other than causing disruption and agitation? --Cyde Weys 00:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The part on removing warnings from your own talk page is quite possibly the most frequently disputed sentence on any policy page anywhere on Wikipedia. Can we some how, some way please come to final resolution to the removing warnings wars. I'm not even sure I care about the result any more, just that question is settled one way or the other. For anyone that has missed it, this has been a perpetual topic of edit wars and disputes for something like 9 months now, flaring up every few weeks. It has already been subject to at least two polls, including Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, and many pages of largely unproductive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. Dragons flight 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is useful to ensure that a warning remains on the page for other users to see if the person's disruptive behavior continues, so that there is an obvious record of recent problems. What needs to be changed is to explicitly allow established users to remove warnings after a reasonable period of time, and to discourage the use of any pro forma warnings on established users. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to be changed to point out that newcomers do not know that rule, and are likely to see replacement of warnings as harassment. --Carnildo 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There was edit warring, so protecting it is appropriate, but if it be reverted it would make sense to revert to 21:12, 18 September 2006 Zazpot, distinctly before any edit warring or contested changes, rather than to the new change favored by the involved admin protecting it. Also, the CVU page is not your personal propaganda tool for hysterically summoning help in a dispute, which you did before with WP:VIE, and its talk page is not yours to remove any discussions you don't like, which you have also done before; you were edit warring, which is not permitted; and Radiant did not threaten to block you. —Centrx→talk • 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states that "the policy specifically does not apply to groups." The spam guideline only prohibits repeated posting across multiple editors talk pages or project pages -- it doesn't prohibit posting information on a single project's pages. Indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion frequently contains boldface announcements about ongoing AFD discussions, such as those seen in the example here -- and it doesn't appear that the involved editors have ever been warned that they must not engage in this practice. Furthermore, Radiant! has been engaging in genuine internal spamming to solicit support for the protected version of Wikipedia:Vandalism by contacting four different editors who oppose the warning removal language on their talk pages: [41] [42] [43] [44], but not contacting Blue Tie, who restored the warning removal language. In any event, I would request that if the page is to remain protected, a full protection template be placed on it. Additionally, as Centrx observed

If... [Wikipedia:Vandalism] be reverted it would make sense to revert to 21:12, 18 September 2006 Zazpot, distinctly before any edit warring or contested changes, rather than to the new change favored by the involved admin protecting it.

. John254 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, some comments here relate to the merits of whether the removal of legitimate warnings should be prohibited. I explained the justification for prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings at Wikipedia:Removing_warnings_poll#Deleting_valid_vandalism_warnings_is_always_wrong. John254 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first the claim that there was no dispute/the policy was stable prior to Radiant's getting involved (involved again actually - he disputed it nine months ago too) is just false. This practice has been disputed since day one and only the willingness of its proponents to edit war and 'call for backup' (as in this case) in greater degree than its opponents has kept it on the policy page. There are two cases on this page currently where users complained about harassment because this practice was used to repeatedly re-add 'warnings' which were at best questionable if not completely false. I've cited half a dozen other, often worse, cases in past discussions on the topic. The claim that these warnings must be displayed so that past activity can be easily seen has always struck me as painfully weak. We have the user's contribution list. We have their talk page history. There is nothing preventing vandalism patrollers coming up with standardized edit summaries which would stand out in the history and work every bit as well as the standardized templates do currently. Providing a minor convenience for vandal fighters cannot be a good reason for maintaining a practice which inherently breeds harassment and conflict. And that's what this comes down to. This practice does vastly more harm than good and the 'good' it does do could be accomplished every bit as easily... indeed, even better, with edit summaries that the user can't remove. --CBD 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Warnings are useful, but edit warring to force people to display them is too much Scarlet Letter for me. A standardized edit summary sounds like a useful idea. Thatcher131 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I should point out that John's legalistic accusations are incorrect; it is plain from the edit history that I did not revert to my version, and neither did I threaten to block him. However, as I was pointed to earlier debate on the issue, I just found out that an edit war has been repeatedly flaring up on that page for over a month now, and there are several lengthy discussion pages on the subject. Ignoring issues of m:the wrong version for a minute, if there's such a lengthy edit war I think the page should be protected for some time more while we figure out what exactly has consensus here, and preferably reach a compromise on the issue. >Radiant< 13:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, far more than a month. This dispute began here... last December. It has been edit warred into and out of the policy ever since. --CBD 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not an edit war. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Improper discussion and argument

The argument about the removal or warnings does not belong here. There is a talk page and discussion about that. The issue that was reported here was an admin's actions. I believe these actions are contrary to official policy and good practice.

I also think it would have been better to handle this directly with the admin and give the admin time to respond. It's just a matter of politeness and kindness! However, this notice is here, and I feel obliged to provide some input since I was the person that the admin reverted. i want to add: I do not have a problem with this admin in general or with any of the participants in what was considered an "edit war".

I requested that the admin rethink his or her actions. [Here] is my request on that admin's talk page. In essence I make these following points:

• I agree that stopping edit wars is a good thing. (I generally think that even if my view does not "win").
• I was not intentionally edit warring. I was participating with sincere and good intent. The page is on my watch list and I only made one edit.
• I am not a vandal fighter.
• The administrator was one of the participants in what he or she called an edit war.
• The administrator did not just protect the page in order to stop edit warring. Had he or she done that, there would be no problem. But the administrator reverted to a position he or she favored and then protected.
• The position reverted to, is not the position that existed before the edit war as the admin claimed. It is the position that started the "edit war".

I note that the admin notified many people of his or her action but did not notify me... the person reverted. Perhaps it was an oversight, but, along with the involvement in the discussion and the revert followed by a protect, it gives the appearance of partiality.

I request that the admin revert his or her own revert. I also request that the discussion here be limited to the actions of the admin. Let's not turn this into a "meta" discussion about the content of the dispute. I think that distracts. There is a talk page for that purpose anyway. --Blue Tie 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, admins should generally not protect a page they have been involved in dispute on... which indeed is the only reason I had not protected the page to prevent what I consider the incorrect re-insertion of this practice. The original complaint was a technicality (Radiant's involvement was minimal, there was and edit war going on, and the version he protected on was not his own) and now obsolete because the page has been protected by an admin who was not involved in the dispute. I don't see much left to 'discuss' on that issue. The larger problem is the lack of consensus on the 'removing warnings' issue behind the edit war. Further discussion of that issue is needed and as it has come up three times (each completely unrelated to the others) on this noticeboard in as many days this doesn't seem an unreasonable venue. --CBD 15:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is quite a lengthy discussion that has been going on for some time. Upon analyzing the situation, I think the main issue for the policy is not what we think should happen, but what in fact does happen. Do people in fact get blocked or otherwise sanctioned for removing warnings? If so, policy should reflect that; if not, policy shouldn't forbid it. See also Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Removing warnings, once more. >Radiant< 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would block someone for removing a dead vandalism warning from their talk page. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Backlog on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

The number of articles for speedy deletion is almost 200. Admin help appreciated. — ERcheck (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah. There are times I wish I was an admin so I could help out with that particular task. Out of curiosity, why is there a backlog of that size? I was under the impression that everyone and his brother promised to help clear CSD in their RFAs. Captainktainer * Talk 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't keep watch over it 24/7, and every so often someone goes on a tagging (or vandalism!) spree, inflating it. --InShaneee 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also a lot of those listed are listed for reasons of needing to do history mergers which can be complicated and confusing and a lot of admins (by a lot I mean me) don't like doing it. JoshuaZ 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense and has banished some of my ignorance related to the topic. Hmm... how does one get practice with those sorts of tasks without having admin tools, I wonder? Captainktainer * Talk 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you know anything about IRC, you can use the Anti-Vandalism IRC channel to help identify and tag vandalism in the recent changes. That way, as an admin, you can more easily find and delete it yourself. --InShaneee 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the backlog now. 86 pages left as of now hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You can always go through and remove stuff that aren't really valid candidates, if you're a non-admin. Probably will get grief for doing that from people, but I know when I'm going through the CAT:CSD it seems like there are quite a few where I just remove the tags and suggest prod/afd, but it's not a good idea to speedy. Or you could notify page creators on their talk pages (especially of speedy copyvios). Really tedius stuff, but it sure would look good on your RfA! Yeah... --W.marsh 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that work would be appreciated since this crap takes forever. (Looks like we're almost done now, I'm amazed at how much faster some people are at this than I am). Although to be clear, if you do that you should be doing that to get useful experience and to help out not to pad your RfA resume. JoshuaZ 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in padding my RfA resume, believe me. I'm still not certain if I ever want to go through the rigors of an RfA - nasty stuff happens there, and the consequences from one recent RfA ended up driving one valued if controversial contributor from the project, and another valued if acerbic contributor to temporarily leave, then come back filled with anger. I don't envy admins one bit. However, I do think I'll keep an eye on CSD and try to identify non-speedy candidates in the future - I hadn't thought about that particular way to help the project. Captainktainer * Talk 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee your RfA wouldn't be anywhere near that controversial. We could always use more good admins. :-) Grandmasterka 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday when I decided to check it there were only 10 entries! It can go up fairly quickly. Grandmasterka 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The magic monitor has seen anywhere between 0 and 1291 entries, with an average of 121. Dragons flight 02:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Random thought. Would people like an automated notice posted here when CSD gets big? Dragons flight 06:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! Especially if it could also be removed automatically when the backlog's cleared up. Grandmasterka 07:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Only if it can be removed per GMka, and probably at WP:AN rather than "here". Maybe give it its own floating templatebox that can be pasted in/removed when the danger is past? I'm worried that it'll cycle in-and-out too fast, though... -- nae'blis 07:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That in-and-out thing is known as flapping (probably from Route flapping), and it isn't too hard to suppress. Dragons flight, if you need anti-flapping code, drop me a line. Ditto if you aren't likely to get to this. I've been meaning to build a Wikipedia bot, and this seems like a nice, simple starting point. Thanks, William Pietri 10:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Need help with socks of banned user Cretanpride

Can someone please have a look at Homosexuality in ancient Greece? I've decided to only revert twice and wanted to know what other people think I should do. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has been protected for now, work out the content dispute on the talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it considered a content dispute when dealing with permabanned users? —Khoikhoi 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It isn't. I'm unprotecting. Feel free to revert as many times as necessary and report any socks here for banning if they are obvious or report to checkuser if you have any doubts. JoshuaZ 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Duskanddawn

Duskanddawn (talk · contribs) has uploaded three identical copies of some guy's flaccid johnson. The filenames are:

(Apparently I am also unversed in how to make image file names show up as links instead of the actual image...)

• 02:38, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Male Pubic Hair2.jpg (top) [rollback]
• 01:54, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Male Pubic Hair 1.jpg (top) [rollback]
• 01:34, September 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Male Pubic Hair.jpg (top) [rollback]

He's also edited Pubic hair to include one of these pictures. These are his only contributions.

While I am more than happy to assume good faith, I suspect we don't need three identical copies of the same guy's weiner. However, I am unversed in image deletion policy. So I solicit the help of my fellow admins, who may know more about image deletion policy than I do.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, syntax for linking images is adding a colon before the page name [[:Image:MusicalnotesUK.svg]]-> Image:MusicalnotesUK.svg Naconkantari 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:IFD is your solution... you could ask for deletion on the grounds that its a picture of some guy's schlong with no known encyclopedic value. Herostratus 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several such pics on the Pubic hair article, so I suspect any assertion that these pics are unencyclopedic would swiftly be met with the usual round of debate centered around the "Wikipedia is not censored" premise. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be related to this warning. CovenantD 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since I doubt the article is worksafe, I won't check, but if it already has similar images, then this one won't add anything the other images didn't already show. And 2 of the 3 images he uploaded can be deleted as obsolete. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment by Timmy12

I have asked Timmy12 to stop posting to my talk page. I have stopped posting to his, but since that time he has repeatly posted uncivil messages, at current count, seven times. Please intervene. —Hanuman Das 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• But you only stopped posting today. Give him a little time, maybe. In the meantime, you can delete uncivil comments if you like. I'd bet he'll give up real soon. Herostratus 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You wonder that I am irritated at Hanuman Das? And that makes a complaint to you? He has put the following on my user page (which is still there and I will probably get blocked or something if I remove it):

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Mattisse. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. See block log Notes for the suspect Notes for the accuser

And the following on my talk page:

--Sockpuppetry case--

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then he makes an administrative complaint you you about me because I get a little upset? What is going on? He has singled me out for some reason to harass. Why? I have never done anything to him and don't know why he has it in for me. I would like to complain about him and his behavior.

This Wikipedia is a rough place and not very nice to people who don't know all the ropes. Yes, I am beginning to feel hostile and not very friendly. No one has been friendly towards me here since day one. Timmy12 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Am I allowed to remove any of this abuse from my pages, or will this result in further accussations from Hanuman Das and attempts to get me discipled or banned? Timmy12 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. again. He also put this on my talk page some days ago so you see his harassment of me is ongoing:

-- Sockpuppetry --

Hello, Mattisse. Looks like I'll have to open another sockpuppetry case when I have time. Ciao. —Hanuman Das 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please get him to lay off me and stop calling me names. Timmy12 12:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.S. And this from my talk page earlier:

-- You again? --

Hello, Mattisse! -999 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why I don't read my talk page. Everything is unfriendly and/or doesn't make sense. Calling someone Mattisse is a slur at Wikipedia I can see that.

Please get these people to lay off. Take a look at my talk page. I can't even read it. Are Hanuman Das and Hanuman Das sockpuppets? Timmy12 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!

This user, Abu badali (talk · contribs), keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Than you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your rationales are missing one critical thing: there's no explanation as to why it's impossible to make or find a free-license replacement? Are the people in question dead or fameously hard to photograph? If not, there's no reason to use a non-free image. The images aren't fair use under Wikipedia policy unless they meet all the criteria at WP:FUC. --Carnildo 03:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think a free license versrion is available then upload it. I honstly just don't care anymore. Delete the images if you want to. - Ivan Kricancic 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what fair use has to do with it. If you have permission to use the pictures, you can use them as agreed to (unfortunately, they must be released under the GFDL or public domain for use on Wikipedia, though). On the other hand, if the people you got permission from do not own the pictures and do not have permission to use them (although permission might not be transferred to you, anyway), then their permission is meaningless. -- Kjkolb 04:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That is: GFDL, Public domain, or an accepted Creative commons licence IIRC :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually when someone says "permission" they don't mean GFDL, they mean to use the image on Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, etc. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-22 06:36Z

I'd like to report a personal attack from User:Ivan Kricancic against me in my talk page. This is 'not the way to go, Ivan. Any polite discussion on the image issue is wellcome. But your opinion about me is not relevant to the question, and your tone was innapropriate to Wikipedia community as a whole. --Abu Badali 10:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at our talk pages from the last few days, you will see I was being civil. However, he seemed to think this gave him the right to keep listing fair use images for deletion. Anyway, that "personal attack" was completely true. I aplogise if people find teh truth offensive. - Ivan Kricancic 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the sincerest apology but I am sure we are all allowed a blow up now and then in a highly frustrating situation. Just remember to try to keep your cool and see my message below. --NuclearUmpf 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "that personal attack was completely true" is not an apology at all. --Abu Badali 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just post the email so an admin can follow up and this will all be put to an end. Or give an admin the name of the person you contacted. --NuclearUmpf 10:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the name of the contact. When i asked for permission, I clicked on the link on the Kryptonsite website that said to "click here to ask permission." This can be seen at Kryptonsite.com - Ivan Kricancic 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where and how do I upload teh email granting permission? - Ivan Kricancic 12:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just paste it in this thread, or if its too large then put it in your userspace and give the people here a link. That way the issue will be resolved. --NuclearUmpf 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the text from the email, it says what I said and what they said. I also uploaded a screenshot of the email. -

Could I please have permission to use one image of Kristin Kreuk and one image of Allison Mack for their respective articles on Wikipedia? It would be greatly appreciated. Also, can you please tell me who the copyright holder is of these images, or where to get free license images of teh actresses if I can't use the ones from your site? Can you also please respond quickly, as it is urgent. Thank You.

Sure, use what you like.. I do ask, if at all possible, that you have a link someplace to KryptonSite.com if you can...

Thank you so much for having the decency to ask! - Ivan Kricancic 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that Ivan and many other people have had there images unfairly deleted by Abu badali and that he will most likely complain about me to soon. But i would ask before any action is taken that you actuall check his deletions and his edits as they are most likely uneeded. Though i will say that he probably has a case against me he has no case against any others. Daniel Johnson

Abu dabali has not made any useful or meaningful contributions to wikipedia. His only edits seem to be tagging images for deletion. He doesn't seem to actually contribute by writing an article or by uploading a picture he deems worthy. You can see how a person can get frustrated when things like this happen. - Ivan Kricancic 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Count me as yet another user who is highly irritated by Abu's actions. He removes main images from articles without discussing. Dionyseus 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider removing unsource material a useful contribution. Anyone interested can see my image uploads at my commons page. --Abu Badali 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough pictures taken off Flickr contain little proof they are owned by that person who owns the Flickr account. Also the person at least one of the photographers doesnt seem to be releasing the pictures for use under the condition you credit them, they dont seem to be releasing the pictures for use at all, at least in the case of Tiago Chediak. --NuclearUmpf 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? His images are marked as "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 2.0" on flickr, and that's the license I used on Commons. In the case that some of the images I've uploaded have a problem, it should be fixed or, if not possible, deleted. I for one have nominated for deletion two of mine uploads after noticing that they had been removed from flickr (and I could no longer give evidence of it's licensing) [45] and [46]. Please, tell me what is the problem with Tiago Chediak's images and I will try to fix it or delete them. --Abu Badali 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I believe we are all set here, since Ivan has recieved and proven that he recieved permission to use these pictures from the person claiming ownership of the copyright. Thank you for pointing to the copyright on the Flickr website, I didnt not see where it was located, sorry for the confusion. --NuclearUmpf 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubts about the fan site's ownership aside, we do not include images based solely on permission for their use in Wikipedia. As noted above, these images do not meet the criteria for fair use, and therefore we can only use them if they are released under a free license so that they can follow their articles' text and be used anywhere, by anyone. This is the project's goal, not to simply collect content that's bound to the Wikipedia web site. There's much information about how to ask copyright holders to relicense their material on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. ×Meegs 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have such a big problem with these images, why don't just go delete every image in the "fair use in" category? They are all just the same, yet these have been singled out. On Kryptonsite's website, it states that all content belongs to Kryptonsite, unless otherwise noted; and these images were not noted as belonging to someone else, so Kryptonsite owns the copyright. I have provided proof that the copyright holder (Kryptonsite) has allowed these images to be used for Wikipedia - that could also mean that if Wikipedia ever was released in print form, the images could be used there too. I just don't see what your problem is with using these images on Wikipedia, as they obviously don't violate copyright. But, as I've stated in some other places, I just don't care anymore, and I'm tired of fighting for these images. I'll just never upload an image again so I don't have to go through all this crap again. - Ivan Kricancic 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

herd mentality -> Herd behavior, that is blank

Hola Admins,

I wanted to tell my friend that accepting microsoft is adapting to herd mentality, but when I looked it up there was only "blank stangeness".

It seems herd mentality redirects to Herd behavior, that is blank. I know I've seen this or some similar article some month ago so I am confused.

Thought I should cry out for help and I hope this is the correct forum. /PER9000 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was probably something weird that happened with the server or your browser. The article was not blanked in the history of the page, which you can see here. When stuff like that happens, try bypassing your cache. If that does not work, try it again later (this is assuming you have checked the history for vandalism already). You could also try another browser if you have more than one. I have to use four of them (Mac Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Netscape), as they all suck at certain things and are incompatible with a lot of sites. -- Kjkolb

• As far as I can tell, Herd behavior is a normal article. Maybe it just didn't load correctly when you tried it. If it persists, try emptying your browser cache and then reloading it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It didn't work for me either until I edited it and then reverted my edit. I saw mention of a bug like this on the talk page of an article I no longer remember. WAS 4.250 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the article seems to be working properly. The name and content are somewhat inconsistent, the content is uncited, the writing is poor, and some of the uncited claims seems bogus. But none of those issues require administrator action. I added {{verify}} and {{cleanup}} tags. --John Nagle 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with violations

Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. Non-administrators may list the accounts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as befits the case.

Difficult cases where the nature and extent of sockpuppetry is unclear and where there is an ongoing problem may be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for investigation. Please see that page for detailed policy. As the admins block with no evidence now at all and as you are an obvious sock, 69.164.74.68 of AaronS, who is on probation, you should be blocked indefinitely now. Or is it preferred we can just do an WP:RFCU. Andromeda466 09:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at Andromeda466 (talk · contribs) activities; he chiefly engages in wikistalking AaronS (talk · contribs) and Donnachadelong (talk · contribs) and it's likely a sockpuppet of someone; seems fairly knowledgeable about sockpuppets and tags for someone who arrived just today. Duja 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just blocked for good...nothing but attacks for the most part...see[47]--MONGO 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not 100% but it's probably another User:Thewolfstar puppet. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoax vandal

There seems to be a new hoax vandal creating nonsense articles relating to underwear, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Royal Theatretime Briefs Company which may have been created by a sockpuppet of Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Also note the above AFD seems to be full of single-purpose accounts too. --LiverpoolCommander 10:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was previously deleted, so now has been deleted again.--MONGO 11:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not with the same title, it wasn't. Where was the previously deleted version located? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  Dunno, the post on the Afd cited a blog posting from 6 days before this article was created and the cite had the same wording. It may not be a copyvio, but definitely a hoax.--MONGO 12:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  The blog says it was created on the simple Wikipedia. Can somebody with admin privileges over there go and check if it's still there and take care of it? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Nrick indefinetely

Nrick (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I noticed this user's talk page was full of orphanBot warnings going back several months, as well as a couple of "last warnings" both about removing {{tone}} tags from articles and unsourced uploads, so I blocked him for 24 hours on 20 September and asked him to please go over the relevant policy pages. This aparently had no effect as he today uploaded 3 more unsourced and untagged images and again removed several {{tone}} tags. The user have never made any talk or user talk edits to try and explain or excuse himself so I saw no reason to try increasingly long blocks and went straight to an indef blocked, he is obviously not interested in cooperation.

I don't often block people so I'm posting this here for review. If anyone can actualy establish communication with him I won't mind him beeing unblocked at some point if he makes it clear he understand what he has been doing wrong. --Sherool (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• You gave them ample chance to correct their behavior on the 20th. If they don't heed your advice, I'm happy to support the block. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am not opposing anything just pointing out that the articles that had the tone tag, when the tag is removed the formatting goes back to its correct setup. The tone tag on those pages is actually destroying the layout of the page. Also most of the images he uploaded are artist related. I am not sure how much experience the user had with responding to talk page etc. But some of the images being uploaded are perfectly legit album covers. Oddly it woul dhave taken less time to review the images and see they are fair use album covers, perhaps this is where a bot fails. --NuclearUmpf 12:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  I went and tagged the appropriate ones as album covers. any were already deleted so i do not know what they were. Perhaps an admin can undelete them and see, and if they are album covers then tag them as such. --NuclearUmpf 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogus password reminders

Have now repeatedly received password reminders for my wikipedia account that I did not request myself. This is beginning to have all the hallmarks of spam.

Feeding the last such mail to spamcop, the originating IP address of the mail itself is identified as: 66.230.200.221 When I look this up with:

nslookup -type=ptr 66.230.200.221

It would appear to come from wikimedia.org:

Non-authoritative answer:

221.200.230.66.in-addr.arpa canonical name = 221.200.230.66.rev.wikimedia.org

221.200.230.66.rev.wikimedia.org name = mail.wikimedia.org

I assume this means it is sent genuinely by your systems and the contents of the mail is generated using your systems?

List of IP-addresses listed in the "(probably you, from IP address *)" clauses:

• 64.178.166.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 213.215.76.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 62.205.187.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 219.93.174.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Notification: Starting with the next such mail I will start reporting these as spam. This may lead to blacklisting of your mail server and cancelation of your account with you ISP. You can prevent this by configuring your systems differently. The most obvious way to do this would seem to be to request a user to provide the correct password before it can be changed. (If you want to accomodate people who have forgotten their password by sending e-mail to them, why not ask for their e-mail address before you send the mail? A legitimate user must know her own mail address. Otherwise: how is she going to receive it anyway? A non legitimate user will no longer be able to bother other people with bogus password reminders. (Of course no feedback should be provided on the correctness of the e-mail address or this could be abused to discover e-mail addresses.))

Question: Am I right in guessing this is done in order to gain access to my account so as to be able to spam the wikipedia using my user name? Or would it just be someone trying to harass me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.97.221.117 (talk • contribs) .

While this is a legitimate cause for concern, please see WP:NLT. – Chacor 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow slow down there is no legal threat there. I think he has a legitamate complaint and while I dont think the process will be changed over it, its obvious no legal action is being thrown around. Reporting SPAM as SPAM is not a legal action. --NuclearUmpf 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, slow down sir. It is a feature of Wikipedia that anyone can type in a user name and click on "I forgot my password", in which case Wikipedia will mail a new one to your registered e-mail address. It seems you are being targeted for harrassment by someone else. Oddly, these IPs are from all over the world, which makes me think they may be open proxies. (One is Hearst Television in NYC. Does that ring a bell for you?) If you go into your preferences and remove your e-mail account for a few days the messages will stop. Also, you can ignore the messages and your current password will still work fine and the individual behind this is not receiving a copy of the messages or access to your account. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 13:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See also: bugzilla:6427

—freak(talk) 18:12, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN -- A number of StarHub IPs keep vandalising Microsoft articles in order to make a point

For a couple of days now, a user apparently working at StarHub has taken it upon himself to vandalise a number of Microsoft-related articles (including Windows Vista, Microsoft Office, MSN Messenger, and many more articles) in order to make some obscure point. One of there IPs, 218.186.8.10 explained the intention thusly:

• Wikipedia must help stop users from getting cheated by Microsoft.
• Wikipedia needs to stop anonymous editing.

Just in case you're wondering: I used to contribute to Wikipedia under an account, but I quit because I realized how much damage is done by allowing anonymous editing. And how unwilling admins were to deal with it.

And yes, I'm lucky. The last time I tried this, I got blocked after 1 round. This time, it took 6 rounds of vandalism to get blocked. Since you're an admin, why didn't you block? Actually, you should block all IPs for 61 years.

Right now, reverting his frequent vandalisms on the articles in question is keeping a considerable number of people on their toes, a situation which I personally find intolerable. Since blocking his IPs won't do him any good (he'll just reappear under another StarHub IP), I suggest the articles in question (see IPs' contrib lists) be temporarily blocked from anonymous edits, at least until he loses interest in this. Reasoning with him, I believe would not be effective, since he seems convinced that he is making a point. He is by some standards a kind of "open source terrorist", and I think the burdon is on Wikipedia to prove him wrong.

Some IP he has used in the past to vandalise Microaoft articles were: 218.186.9.2, 218.186.8.10, 218.186.9.4, 218.186.8.11.

Investigating their contributions shows, that they are mostly making helpful contributions — except to Microsoft articles.

Thank you for your Time, — Mütze 14:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He's guilty of intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I wouldn't be surprised if anywhere between an eighth to a quarter of Wikipedia's serious vandalism - if not more - is done by people trying to prove that anonymous editing is a terrible thing. Why don't they just go over to Citizendium, where their elitist attitude would fit in better? That being said, requests for page protection would be the appropriate place to go - that's where requests for semiprotection go. You're much more likely to get a fast response there. Captainktainer * Talk 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, his goal is prevent anonymous editing, which is a foundation issue. Just re-revert over and over. Sprotecting will give him what he wants. --Kevin_b_er 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. If we forbid anonymous edits, he will simply create account after account. this would be moving in the wrong direction. The hassle of reverting him again and again is not that bad, and I think it really does prove him wrong. I withdraw my request, reverting him his the right thing to do. And thanks for this link CaptainKTaine, I did not know that page. — Mütze 19:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming by User:Curiousfactory

User:Curiousfactory is a single-purpose account, all of whose edits have been to insert external links to websites which coincidentally happen to be run by a company called CuriousFactory Inc. The user has now been warned four times with the appropriate spam warning templates; s/he has ignored these warnings completely, neither responding with comments nor altering his/her behaviour.

It appears therefore that User:Curiousfactory is highly likely to be an agent or employee of CuriousFactory Inc. who is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote their products and websites. Any chance a friendly admin would be kind enough to take appropriate action? — Haeleth Talk 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Ashibaka. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Willingsworth High School

Can someone check what's going on on this page? The edits seem to be vandalism-like, but not obvious vandalism, and I've already reverted it 3 times today. --ais523 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks vandalism like to me as well. Taken care of.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitic nonsense links

See contribs of this user. Repeatedly adding nonsense links to Talk:Israel and Talk:Iraq War and again and again adding antisemitic material on other pages. note: I am off until sunday night because of Rosh Hashana --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Coordinated harassment by -999 ,;Hanuman Das and Ekajati

The following message calling me Mattisse was left on my talk page:

---

Hello, Mattisse! -999 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello, Mattisse. Looks like I'll have to open another sockpuppetry case when I have time. Ciao. —Hanuman Das 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The results of the sockpuppet accussations are at the link below in which I was found justified in my tagging of articles and not a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)

Of the 5 articles mentioned in the complaint, four had been edited by 999 (Talk, three by Hanuman Das and four by Ekajati who has been using reverting to remove my tags extensively lately.

Ekajati is currently blocked for 8 hours for violating the 3 revert rule, but the last two messages on his talk page are from Hanuman Das. All of the articles in the complaint were edited by at least one of the above editors. Four were edited by more than one.

I believe the above three users are either the same person or working in concert to harass me and trying to drive me away from Wikipedia. There may be others involved, as all the messages on my talk page are extensively negative and lengthy ones. And most appeared in the last few days after 999 left his message. All the eccessively long ones were after his. I don't believe this is a coincidence, especially given that the finding of the sockpuppet mediator were that he agreed with my tags and the extensive negativity on my talk page seems unwarranted.

Please help me by stopping the harassment, unless you really do want me to leave Wikipedia, which I am beginning to think the powers that be do want. What should I do? Timmy12 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would advise all parties to cool it, and make no more sockpuppet accusations until there is available Checkuser evidence. In exchange, Timmy12, I'd recommend leaving no further messages on Hanuman Das' page. The best solution to this dispute is for all parties to disengage. Captainktainer * Talk 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Using a User page for advertising

A new user, User:Cpf, appears to have created a user page dedicated to advertising a real estate venture/agency. Looking through Wikipedia:User page, there does not appear to be any guideline being explicitly violated but advertising does seem to violate the spirit of the guideline. Any other admins have recommendations on what actions, if any, are needed to best handle this type of situation? --Allen3 ^talk 15:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Eliminating these is one of the principal activities of Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion. Notify the user about WP:SPAM, and if they don't respond, place {{subst:md1}} on their userpage and take it from there. (Filing an MfD is like filing an AfD, only without the category.) I wouldn't suggest taking action without debating it there first. --ais523 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Talk to the user about contributing. Suggest that Yellowikis is the place for this sort of thing, and that a Wikipedia user page should relate to one's activities as an encyclopaedist. (At Yellowikis, this business would warrant a main namespace article, although Yellowikis doesn't want straight copies and pastes, either.) If the user shows no interest in contributing, nominate the user page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Uncle G 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Just blank it and leave them a note telling them why. Deleting it is overkill, and takes too long for an action that's pretty clearly the right thing to do. --Improv 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed territory

What is the policy on disputed territory with regard to official size statistics? Antartica is disputed territory. Taiwan is disputed territory. Is there a quick and easy way to deal with whether the US or China is number three in total area? See [48] and List of countries and outlying territories by total area. WAS 4.250 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone close an AfD?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Wars
I nominated two articles a day or two ago except it now turns out they've already been through the deletion process (which I didn't notice at the time) and are eligible for speedying under CSD G4. Normally I'd do it myself but since I'm the nominator I thought someone else better do it. -- Steel 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name changes can make old AFD discussions hard to find. If you tag the articles with {{db-g4}} (I just did, for these two) and they are speedied, then the AFDs can be closed as moot by pretty much anyone. Cheers. -- nae'blis 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Usman Hashmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps creating non-notable articles about his family. ~ Flameviper 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

72.10.107.101

This user has been warned multiple times of vandalism. I found another instance not noted: Censor I suggest perm ban. He has done nothing constructive.

Thanks. -Domiko 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a case of simple vandalism, and because it is potentially a shared IP, and the vandalism has been isolated edits stretched over several months, a ban/block/etc. is really overkill. If such vandalism becomes problematic in the short term (i.e., multiple vandal edits in a matter of minutes/hours) then in the future, such reports should be made to WP:AIV. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:AlexWilkes

Please would an experienced admin run an eye over the contributions and the talk page for this editor. A flurry of articles with no obvious notability recently, a set of talk page warnings over that behaviour in the past, and a load of wasted time with AfD (etc) nominations. Of course, you may think differently. I don't want to go the request for comment route and waste yet more time if this can be solved easily. Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I second this - take a look at his history, he's creating a lot of work for people and REFUSES to communicate with other editors. I really think he should be blocked until he agrees to at least talk to other editors! --Charlesknight 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another User:Pnatt sock

• Superju6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like this sock indef blocked for its obvious attempt to mock/mimic my user name. Thanks. ju66l3r 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefblocked by User:Naconkantari. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible threat

I found this possible threat against Tawker (talk · contribs) on Tawkerbot4's talk page: [49]

That edit is about a week old, and while we can indef block the IP, I don't know what good it will do. Captainktainer * Talk 18:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about that, I think it's just trolling. Also, we generally don't indef blocke IPs, since even if they're not AOL or something like that, they can still be used by multiple people. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AIAV is chock full of vandals to be checked

As at 19:28 UTC --Anchoress 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As of then two of us were busy blocking ;) Petros471 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

LiverpoolCommander

I have indefinitely blocked LiverpoolCommander (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) due to a bit of 'investigating' which I carried out earlier on today. Details can be seen here. I am pretty sure there was enough evidence to support the block without a checkuser so I hope it was the right thing to do. I have also closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheM62Manchester as speedy keep due to this sockpuppetry etc. — FireFox ^(talk) _{20:29, 22 September 2006}

Looks reasonable, especially considering the activity on their user talk page today. --pgk 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I did have my suspicions about this user. He posted on ANI a few times in the middle of several heated discussions, something that is very uncharacteristic of a new user. Looks like a good block to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

<removed trolling - User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)>

Some classic Thewolfstar

This anonymous IP sock of User:Thewolfstar should be blocked. [50] It's a classic example. --AaronS 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --AaronS 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cruddler

Cruddler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a vandalism only account. Created and immediately started messing up articles. Please just put him out of our missery. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Please use WP:AIV in the future for cases like these. Naconkantari 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:WrestlingGod

Hey. I am convinced that this user is a sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac, User:3 Brands and User:Venables001, all of which were confirmed to be the same person stringing from a harassment issue that happened in June this year. Can someone help me out? Normy132 01:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look Guys, There are over 60 of us from the same Multi-User IP Address. Why is it that when someone creates an acccount from our Multi-User IP Address, they are accused of Sockpuppetry. I am aware of the harassment issue that happened in June this year because it affected everyone at our Multi-User IP Address. 3 Brands is gone and you can ask him yourself at venables001_extreme_machine@hotmail.com. Brisbane Sports Entertainments address can be accessed by leaving a message on my Talk Page. 3 Brands is banned from using Wiki. BSE has seen to that. We are not his sockpuppets and never will be.

Is it just me, or does this sound an aweful lot like admitting to having...some sort of weird multi-user account? --InShaneee 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well from memory I think he told either me or User:Moe Epsilon that he had access to some sort of computer lab and that he'll just move onto the next one if he gets blocked, which so far has been the case. Normy132 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh...alright. I'm going to go ahead and indef block, then. --InShaneee 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks. Normy132 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true, Venables001 has said to me that he comes from a computer lab that has about 100 differant computers in it, and they have a static-IP range, so whenever he is blocked, he just moves along to the next computer. That IP range has been active tonight in the sockpuppets's comments today as seen on User talk:DVD R W. Venables has been indefblocked from this site because of his persistant harassment on me and Normy132. Thanks InShaneee for the block. — Moe Epsilon 04:16 September 23 '06

B&W Anime Fan

B&W Anime Fan (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the {{splitlong}} tag from the Fist of the North Star page (the page is 83kb long) despite several reverts and an attempt to communicate. He has also made these comments (or reverted an admin to endorse that message). He has also showed incivility in this edit. I don't know what else to do. _dk 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks lik he started trolling after that, as well. I've given him a little time out to cool off. --InShaneee 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Concern - Wrestler's Real Name

Per discussion with several users, I'd encourage you to comment on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nigel_McGuinness. Nigel McGuinness is the trademarked stage name of a professional wrestler (his real name is publically available in USPTO filings). "Nigel" does not want his real name to be disclosed on Wikipedia.

For those interested in a quick summary: We were contacted yesterday by his webmistress, requesting that his name be removed. After a revert war with several users, she filed an OTRS complaint, the pages were locked, and the revisions deleted. Nigel McGuinness remains fully protected. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for further discussion as far as I can see; the users involved have acted apropriately, and the resulting actions are correct for the situation. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I will point out what is, to me, the crux of the issue - the fact that this man's real name is not published anywhere else. A Google search for the man's real name + wrestling came up with zero hits outside of Wikipedia. That means Wikipedia was being used as the primary point of dissemination for previously private information - which is something we are not. I will continue the conversation on the BLP noticeboard as necessary. FCYTravis 01:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real issue in putting someone's name in their article, particularly given the public nature of that information. This really isn't so much about Nigel McGuinness, but the precedent we're setting in regard to real names and stage names (see Criss Angel for a very similar situation). alphaChimp^(talk) 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The situations are not similar at all. The very first Google result for "Christopher Sarantakos" is this Forbes article on Mr. Sarantakos' life. The link between the real name and the stage name is widely known. I would not uphold any OTRS complaint about the use of this man's real name because it is well and truly public. In Mr. McGuinness' case, there is no such public knowledge and the only source citeable is a trademark database. FCYTravis 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Sarantakos name isn't on the public record, as far as I know, and his proponents try at all stops to remove his name. That case is the same vein in that, assuming in the Sarantakos case his name is known but not of public record while the McGuinness case has the name of public record but "unknown", they both have to do with wanting secrecy/privacy in their stage identities. We're an encyclopedia so I do not understand why factual and supported additions are to be removed at the whims of people involved - do we rate the level of publicness as the time when we start to include facts that are already listed such as real names? Are we starting to invent a point of publicity before information has been added or do we follow wikipedia is not censored? –– Lid^(Talk) 01:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We follow the idea that Wikipedia is not the first place anything should be published. Mr. Sarantakos' name is published in multiple mass media sources, hence there is no reason we should not publish it, because it is already widely known public information. Mr. McGuinness' name has not been published in any mass media sources and hence we should not be the first to open that door. FCYTravis 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a slippery slope in that we can't post sourced information because wikipedia has to regurgitate the information of media outlets. Why media outlets? The fact of the matter is this debate is about a complaint that has no real basis of opposition due to the information being in the public domain. Even though I can find zero full wikipedia policies that specifically deny his name to be placed here, and I've read through WP:NOT trying to find one and keep coming up with the "is not censored" part supporting keeping the name in, it could still be argued that it falls under WP:Ignore all rules and WP:BOLD as keeping it out interferes with improving the information of wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Public_figures emphasizes that basic facts should be published in reliable secondary sources (such as a newspaper or magazine article) before being included in our articles. A USPTO filing is primary source. Dragons flight 03:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Touchè, but I believe the second part, ignore all rules, still applies as this is specifically lessening the information of wikipedia and setting an extremely dangerous precedent (see Daniel Bryant's comments). –– Lid^(Talk) 03:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not unprecedented. We treat porn stars the same way. If it is not already out in the real media then Wikipedia is not in the business of revealing it. Though this case is more verifiable than the cases I've dealt with since the USPTO is presumably beyond reproach. Dragons flight 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The USPTO is a reliable source. It's relevant to the article. That's all there is to it - it should clearly be included. --Improv 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not all that relevant since knowing his real name tells you nothing about the character he plays (I'm assuming that the actor is not notable aside from the character.) But mostly I agree with FCYTravis, being the first mass media to expose a secret identity is not the kind of thing Wikipedia is intended to be used for. Dragons flight 02:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd suggest that the USPTO is a significantly more notable source that Forbes. If the fact was not verifiable, we'd obviously remove it per WP:BLP, but it is verifiable, and is in no way defamatory. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The USPTO is a reliable source, but is it notable? How is a trademark filing notable? Everyone who ever files for a trademark should be on Wikipedia? FCYTravis 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a chicken or egg debate, the article existed long before the trademark was discovered so the point of trademark filing leading to articles is not part of the debate at hand. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the wrong term. Obviously we don't have to make an article for every patent holder. But, the fact that that information is made publically available in said patent should allow it to be included. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of the Buckethead article may be of interest to participants in this conversation. Buckethead has taken great pains to keep his real name private. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since MTV and Rolling Stone published his name, he apparently wasn't all that effective. Dragons flight 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, guys. Daniel Brandt now has some more ammunition to have his whole article removed, because of this. If all it takes is to send an OTRS to WMF to censor information you don't want written about you, then WP:NPOV may need to be re-written. Daniel.Bryant 02:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Daniel Brandt card. Regularly and blatantly misused to justify the inclusion of anything we want about living people simply because screw them, who cares, we can do it, so we're going to do it. The question has been repeatedly asked - What relevancy does his real name have to his wrestling career? Where is his real name used other than Wikipedia and a trademark filing? Why should we countenance the use of Wikipedia as an investigatory tool about people's lives, rather than a means of encyclopedically summarizing their life and career based on reliable published sources? None of those questions have been satisfactorily answered. Instead, we get the same he doesn't want it in, thus we should put it in just because we can, and he can't do anything about it, neener neener neener nonsense over and over again. Ridiculous. FCYTravis 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the trademark filing a reliable source? I'm pretty sure it is. Or don't you trust the US Government agencies to get his name right...? Wait a minute! "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable..." - amazing! Oh, and "In its ambitious mission of documenting all human knowledge" (existing emphasis on Wikipedia:Content disclaimer) Amazing! Daniel.Bryant 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "Because we can", but rather because it's relevant. For articles about people, their name is pertinent. People's preferences should have no bearing, positive or negative, on what's in an article about them -- we're an encyclopedia, not a PR firm. If it makes it a better article, and it's based on a verifiable source, we should include it. I don't see any reason we should try for a sympathetic treatment of subjects. --Improv 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

From the previous examples of Buckethead and Criss Angel to every single character profile ever on wikipedia the real name is listed in the article, usually in the first line, even if that person doesn't want their real identity to be revealed to the public. Wikipedia is about facts, not ommitting them. The reason the published elsewhere question has been ignored is because it has no bearing on the debate, if it had been published elsewhere we wouldn't even be having this debate. The biggest issue is the precedent it sets, removing publically available facts because of a complaint when the facts are neither negative nor libel. Your ending line of "neener neener" is especially odd considering everyone here is keeping a level head and debating the topic fairly. If this passes does it mean that there is a level of public identity until which facts that are already known can be posted? It's a question that has huge ramifications in where do we draw the line? It's the precedent this sets that's the debate, not the individual. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

His real name (which I just found and started searching around for on search engines) is nothing but a marker in a governent database. For this, while his information is in the "public record", I think it would be well afforded that since his real name exists nowhere outside of said government database it should be kept private. The logic has already been cleanly applied to birthdays (yes, everyone has a birthday, and if I go through enough trouble, I can find someone's birthday and other information, and all stage names have a birth name assigned onto them), but it doesn't need to be instantly included into an article. Its dregging up private information that should've stayed private. Now, if the media comes out and writes about his real name, as in several other cases, the cat's out of the bag. Its not like critism, though. Critism is a whole new ballgame to contend with, and I'd trust that the OTRS people would think very hard about well-sourced critism material being demanded for removal before compling with any such demands. But its not, its private information, and the right thing was probably done to remove it considering the quiet nature of his real name. Now, who wants to improve some sourcing with me? Kevin_b_er 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again we're back at "private information" in the public domain and how that makes it still private. The case still stands in the literally tens of thousands of other character/stage name articles and their real names being listed, where do we draw the line? Many of those articles also list birthdates, in fact the vast majority seem to, where's the line? If secondary source reported the name they would be reposting the same content as the primary source, there's no difference in the context and the source is actually further back than when it needs to be thus adding additional steps to the detriment source of knowledge that is wikipedia. Public, not private, sourced information being removed on whims should not be what wikipedia is about. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I had decided, after my last comment, not to take any further partin this discussion; I have lifted my self-imposed parole just for this comment. Firstly, Kevin, I totally agree with you, and express my hope that the OTRS people would strongly consider whether to delete well-sourced criticism from a request. I was personally involved in something which was the exact definition of the aforementioned situation, and I was aggrieved to realise that Wikipedia had, in fact, deleted sourced criticism from an article. But that's the past, this is the present, and hopefully in the future WMF will consider their position more closely.

In this instance, I think the decision has to be made here is whether a state-actors real name is personal/private info, or is it public/needed. In most cases, a name would be public/needed, and hence includedin the article. However, the question is do many people know this person/actor by his real name, and if they do, is there enough to deem it notable? I have already expressed my opinion in this case, and won't just repeat it again for repeating's sake. So, if you ever see me posting on this issue again, give me a slap over the wrists at my talk page, and I wish everyone else good luck in this discussion, and lets hope that this discussion doesn't degenerate into incivility, insult throwing and name-calling. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on something posted above: It's not all that relevant since knowing his real name tells you nothing about the character he plays (I'm assuming that the actor is not notable aside from the character.) (by Dragons flight). If we're going to follow this, we'd have to remove pretty much every single professional wrestler's real name, regardless of whether it's verifiable, public information, or whatnot. This can't happen. McGuinness' real name does belong in the article. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

Suggestions to die, personal attacks, and GNAA-style spam

A user, Daniel 123, after complaining about my sig and my suggestion that he focus on more important aspects of the encyclopedia or file an RfC, became extremely controntational, tell me to "die", "The image that broke my monitor was the one of your face, not your pathetic little oil pit." and then GNAA-style picture spam, including the charecteristic captions. total diff is here. It's kinda funny this user has a Esperanza link in his sig. Anyway, Im requesting an admin look into this and possibly issue a block of a day or two. -M^ask 02:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 day. However, saying "Back off the psuedo-policing and start contributing some real content to the encyclopedia, we'll all be better off for it." troubles me. There are many people who spend a majority of their time reverting vandalism. The way I see it, Wikipedia needs editors that are devoted to improving the project, whether it be reverting vandalism or writing content. Naconkantari 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the psuedo-policing refferred to the notice about my sig, not reverting vandalism. I referred to that by name. -M^ask 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 204.98.2.17 (talk · contribs)

Noting here the edits by 204.98.2.17 (talk · contribs) here, here, here, here, here, here and here are blatant vandalism, and I have left the "test4" template on the Talk page. Orsini 03:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The quickest way to get these blatant vandals blocked is by listing them on WP:AIV. MER-C 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no vandalism within the last 6 hours. Perhaps the warning had its intended effect. Regardless, this is an AIV issue. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I might be misinterpreting policy, as I didn't think I could list this user on AIV before a "test4" template or a similar warning was noted on the user's Talk page before the current round of vandalism, and there wasn't one till I added it. If I'm wrong, please set me straight so I don't repeat this mistake. Orsini 04:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct. What generally happens is, if a user has recently recieved a {{test4}} or {{bv}} (or other, more-specific "Level 4" vandal templates, as viewed in the table here), and then commit another vandal act after recieving the Level 4 warning, then you report to AIV. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 65.222.236.25 (talk · contribs)

65.222.236.25 (talk · contribs) is vandalising, even after warning him on the talk page. - Vijaykumar 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to WP:AIV, where you may, and probably will, recieve a more speedy response. Just a note for the future :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that user was blocked in a very speedy fashion 1 2 Daniel.Bryant 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal information was posted to my user page

Somebody didn't like an edit I made to their file (a file which violates wikipedia policy by the way) and they posted a whole bunch of my personal information up on my user talk page. I want Danny or whoever to office that stuff away, permanently thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.152.217 (talk • contribs)

Reading your edit summaries and some of your posts I think you need to read Wikipedia:No legal threats. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, still going to post it anyways) Someone who has the appropriate knowledge/power will come by and review this, hopefully soon. In the meantime, please aviod making legal threats towards Wikipedia (1 2). Although your actions are understandable considering the situation regarding personal information and your anger at this being posted, please make a note not to do this in the future. I think we can assume good faith in this instance, but just remember this to aviod future problems. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PS the person who did this is called "Ima_Learning" but they also left an ip address if that helps it is 68.19.47.12

I don't want to make legal threats or break your rules but it is not right to have that information put up on there and I want it permanently gone ok? thanks.

How can you "assume good faith" when someone is trying to have my house burned down or give out my address or whatever? I am not trying to break any of your policies but there is a family here to protect and so forth please thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.152.217 (talk • contribs)

How do you know it was Ima_Learning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Is this just a suspicion, or is there any proof - your talk page history shows no editor of this name editing it, or adding personal details. By the way, please sign your name using four tidles ~~~~ in future on talk pages. Oh, and I was assuming good faith that you didn't realise that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate legal threats, and because of this ignorance no action might be taken against you - IP's and users have been blocked for legal threats in the past. Believe me, there is little room in the assuming good faith policy for users who post personal details. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it was that user because that was the user of the file that I edited and in the history of my page, they signed that name and their IP address next to it. PS it is the edit that says vandalism in all caps, that is the person who added it and also wrote their name in before the address of it. 65.30.152.217 05:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC) PPS - Sorry I am just upset I am sure you understand

Ah, I see - my apologies for missing this. Daniel.Bryant 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the relevant quote from the talk page Anyway, to get to the point, you are a VANDAL as you have VANDALIZED my video file page ( Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.ogg )by removing my Authentication Summary of this video file that I MADE ON 26 JULY 2006 and UPLOADED ON 27 JULY 2006 ... Have A Nice Day, Ima_Learning 68.19.47.12 06:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC). –– Lid^(Talk) 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also after I tried to erase/blank it out from there, some guy named Atomaton came in an un-erased it so now it is in the history in multiple places :( 65.30.152.217 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats and such aside - i think the user has a valid point about some personal info being remove from their talk page. I'll remove it unless somebody jumps up and down in the next ten minutes or so. Thanks/wangi 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont just move it, drop some sort of edit admin bomb on it. --I already forgot 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The personal info needs to be permanently deleted ASAP. It still can be looked up in the page archive. I'm pretty sure admins have a new feature to delete archive edits??? --I already forgot 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Daniel.Bryant 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POOF!...Nice work :)--I already forgot 05:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted a {{subst:pinfo4}} ~~~~ on the offending IP's talk page. Daniel.Bryant 05:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was so worried about it. It is permanently gone right like nobody can look it up somewhere, right? Thanks. I maybe won't edit things anymore I hope that's ok. 65.30.152.217 05:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Only an admin can view it, and I think you can trust them not to hunt you down or anything of the like. Daniel.Bryant 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note the user who, allegedly, posted the personal info was Ima learning (talk · contribs) not Ima_Learning (talk · contribs) who has zero contributions. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to whip up an WP:RFCU? Daniel.Bryant 05:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do it so I will let someone else do it ok? thanks. 65.30.152.217 06:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from RFCU, too blatant to require Checkuser

• Ima learning (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 68.19.47.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(related to the comments directly above)

The IP above, 68.19.47.12 (the poster of personal details), was involved in an incident where he/she posted personal information on the talk page of 65.30.152.217. The diff has since been disabled for viewing (see here), as the talk page was deleted and all the other revisions restored excluding this one. Obviously, admins can still view it thru the Undelete feature.

The last part of the message which contained personal details are published below:

“ Anyway, to get to the point, you are a VANDAL as you have VANDALIZED my video file page ( Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.ogg )by removing my Authentication Summary of this video file that I MADE ON 26 JULY 2006 and UPLOADED ON 27 JULY 2006 ... Have A Nice Day, Ima_Learning 68.19.47.12 06:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) ”

The above was referring to this edit, made by the victim to the users' image upload. Interestingly, the IP who posted the personal details reverted the source change (see here)

The signing of the name "Ima Learning" initated my suspicions. Prior to the message being hidden via deletion, it contained numerous references to the 65.30.152.217 (the victim) "commiting vandalism" to certain articles, many of which this user has edited (see Special:Contributions/Ima learning).

I think that, considering the .ogg reference in the quote and the username's log (look at the uploads), there is very minimal doubt about whether the user is the IP who posted the personal details.

Any doubt I had was eliminated by this diff - notice the edit summary, and the person who he is reverting. Then, not very long after, 68.19.47.12 (the poster of the personal details) posts on the talk page of 65.30.152.217 (the victim), making numerous references to this vandalism revert that Ima learning made only 10-or-so minutes before.

Really, with the logs and then the reverting diff to squash any thought of an imposter, this user should be blocked indefinitely for maliciously posting personal details of a Wikipedia editor. Daniel.Bryant 06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Ima learning (talk • contribs) indefinitely and 68.19.47.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 6 months. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair. User's main activity was vanity spamming anyway. Guy 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Pammylove

Pammylove (talk · contribs) has been very busy, creating dozens of articles on likely non-notable Australian models. Many of the articles are link heavy, full of badly formatted wikilinks (common magazine titles in ALL CAPS for example) and lots of dubious external links. It's late for me and I'm out of town for two days. Anyone feel like they need a new project? Thatcher131 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm tagging the ones I find, but there's a lot. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming by Dondavid

Dondavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a single-purpose account for adding external links to greatertalent.com . I think the account should be blocked (at least temporarily), reverted and investigated. Andjam 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped after he/she was given a Level 4 warning. Daniel.Bryant 08:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat/harassment over New Creation Church (Singapore)

User: Holland6 just posted this edit summary: "(Members of city havest church has been vandalising this article. IP adresses has been forwarded to local authority and the church for action to be taken.)" [[51]]. City Harvest Church is another church in Singapore. Does anyone want to follow up? Kla'quot 07:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not much we can do. We can't stop them doing anything (I personally think it's an empty threat), but I guess we could tell him/her to stop threatening other Wikipedia editors. I'll leave him/her a message. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow anon-IP vandalism at WYSIWYG

Over the last few months, WYSIWYG has been vandalised by anonymous editors roughly once every 2-3 days. I was wondering if semi-protection would be suitable to prevent this problem? The article is also currently in a fairly stable state, and hasn't changed substantially for a while, so it shouldn't get in the way of improving the article. JulesH 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, requests for page protection is one board over; they tend to respond a lot faster there. Also, in general, vandalism that occurs that infrequently generally doesn't call for a semiprotection; I'll watchlist it and help revert vandalism, but I doubt that the tag will be put on the article. Page protection, even semi-protection, is a pretty big deal; it temporarily puts the lie to our statement that "anyone can edit." Captainktainer * Talk 13:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1 month block of 67.163.90.218

After reviewing the contribution history of 67.163.90.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), I have decided to block the IP for one month. This IP has been engaging in persistent, though low-volume, vandalism for quite some time, and has made zero useful edits during this year. The user has been warned repeatedly, but has only been issued a single 24-hour block in May this year. The consistency of the contributions strongly suggest that this is a semi-static broadband IP which is likely, though not certain, to remain assigned to a single user for quite some time. As such, I feel that the prevention of further vandalism while the block is in place, and the possibility of sending the user the message that such vandalism is not tolerated, outweigh the risk that the IP will be reassigned to an innocent contributor who would have to either wait until the block expires or to request that it be lifted before being able to edit Wikipedia. As this is, nonetheless, an unusually long block for an IP address, I am announcing it here so that other may review it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated re-adding of speedy deletion tag by DrBat

User:DrBat talk is repeatedly re-adding a speedy deletion tag to Oscar Nuñez, even though the removal of such tags is an explicitly endorsed method (stated in the template itself) to end the speedy deletion process, and require going through normal channels. Gene Nygaard 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was to simply reverse a redirect. It was a noncontroversal move, and Nygaard gave no valid reason for repeatedly removing it .

Nonethless, the page was locked so I have formally requested a move, though why Nygaard had make such a big deal about a simple move of Oscar Nunez to Oscar Nuñez (simply changing the n to an ñ, as that is how his name is properly spelled) is beyond me. --DrBat 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

DrBat has now taken it to WP:RM, as he should have when the "speedy" was first removed, and the template has been removed from the redirect page. The incident appears to be resolved. Gene Nygaard 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikinamespace potential attack page

I recommended several times that Shortfuse (talk · contribs) move Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors to his userspace. I previously nominated it for deletion since the goal of the "association" is to fight attempts to delete articles that have been nominated for deletion based on them being either not notable or POV pushing of 9/11 related material that is outside the mainstream viewpoint (better known as conspiracy theories). In wikinamespace, Shorfuse has declared that he is going to both watchlist articles and editors that he and whoever joins his association are in disagrreement with. I would have no problem with this if he did so in his own userspace, but surely, creating an association in wikispace is simply a poor namespace for such an effort. I recognize other editors use their own userspace to monitor articles and sometimes also editors, but this is the first time I have seen it done in wikispace. I can't even see how this would qualify as a WikiProject, as the purpose of the association appears to be an advocacy platform for vote stacking. I have also firmly told Shortfuse that if he starts adding names of editors, (which is pretty lousy with the article currently at Mfd) the article should be speedied as an attack page and he may end up being blocked. I can't imagine that this effort by Shortfuse can possibly be one of good faith. The talkpage at Mfd[52] clearly indicates this editor is going to add names, and has has already done so[53] and even reverted my removal of the name with the edit summary of vandalism[54]. It's bad enough some of us get harassed off-wiki...do we have to tolerate it on wiki as well?--MONGO 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

...the stated purpose on the MfD/project is to ensure 9/11 articles remain NPOV. That means neither pro nor con for any related articles. Including CTs, whose articles are to be neither pro nor con. Like every other article. Per policy. So the stated aim of this group is to protect NPOV, ergo their aim is to uphold policy. Kind of RC Patrol, but NPOV Patrol. Maybe the user section should be dropped, but everything else seems appropriate. · XP · 18:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Kevinprior

Kevinprior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made no constructive edits to Wikipedia. The only use he has had was advertising his company, and then moving the page around so much that it was impossible to userfy it, and he even removed the warnings on his talk page to get himself unblocked. He has recently made an article about himself that I listed for speedy deletion, and now he continues to just edit his user page, and use it as free hosting. I think that some sort of indefinite block should be put in place for violating guidelines at WP:NOT and WP:U and his user page deleted for those guidelines. Ryūlóng 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

user:JayW and Radiant! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Last night, user:JayW left a message on the talk page of WP:COPPA which appeared to be a personal attack; he vehemently opposes the proposed policy. His comment contained phrases like "shut the fuck up, thanks," " I believe I already asked you to stop lying, sir," "Nice try," "Why don't you answer the goddamn question", etc. full comment here. I removed the post and blocked the user for 24 hours. He had already been blocked 24 hours earlier for (apparently unrelated) incivility by another administrator. Admin Radiant!, who also vehemently opposes the policy, replaced the comment today, in the edit summary stating "Replace comments by JayW that were removed by Firsron. I agree they're not very nice comments, but they aren't meaningless either, and removing part of a discussion is not good." I've had no contact with Radiant! before this, and his talk page is full of nice compliments from people glad to see he's back, but I don't believe reverting to a "shut the fuck up"-type comment is in the best interest of the encyclopedia, and can only cause a disturbance. JayW is free to make his point, but there was no need for that. I seek feedback regarding this incident. For the record, I generally supported the proposed policy, but haven't written there much, and I would have removed an offensive post like that no matter what the position. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• A subject like "children's privacy" is bound to raise tempers with people on both sides. JayW's comment was phrased rather nastily, I agree; however, part of it was a valid argument, pointing to psychological studies in rebuttal of an earlier argument by Captaintanker. It seems JayW feels Tanker is evading the issue, which would explain (though certainly not excuse) him being angry. Thus, calling the entire comment a personal attack is throwing the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. It would be more conductive to discussion to remove or strike the offending parts per WP:RPA, rather than removing all of it. >Radiant< 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the comments were written througout the message, removing them would leave the message somewhat unintelligible. While I strongly agree with you that a subject like "children's privacy" is bound to raise tempers with people on both sides, I've only seen user:JayW resort to swearing and personal attacks. Replacing a comment like that only encourages users to think that sort of activity is appropriate, and as he's been blocked twice within 48 hours now, that's not the message administrators should be sending. Further, if you felt part of the message was constructive, why didn't you yourself replace the non-offensive parts, instead of restoring the full message, including personal attacks? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I had noticed the block, and have no objection to it (although if this is about messages admins should be sending, one could argue that you're not a neutral party because you and Jay are involved on opposite sides of an emotionally heated issue). I didn't do a partial restoration of the message because I don't feel particularly offended by what he says and I have no way of knowing which parts were offensive to you. In my opinion someone who makes personal attacks stands condemned by his own words, and there is no need to hide those words. >Radiant< 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a neutral party because I have barely participated in the discussion (four posts in a month), never spoke to JayW on this discussion, and only generally supported the ploicy. As I stated above, I would have blocked anyone who left that type of message. It is unfortunate that you cannot tell what parts of a message which contains "shut the fuck up" might be considered offensive, and there's no need to "play dumb". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The "play dumb" comment borders on incivility. That said, the amount of effort required to refactor, strike, or clean up the profane/abusive comments in the original messages should be less than what you've expended here in the complaints. I can see that you had a point that maybe Radiant should have cleaned them up, but this is a wiki... you can clean them up too. Please drop this pointless to and fro argument and just fix it... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, George: I did fix it. And then it was reverted by Radiant. Hence this discussion. And anyone who says they're not sure what part of a message that contains "shut the fuck up" is offensive is "playing dumb". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Being the person to whom the messages are addressed, I'll admit I do find them very hostile, incivil, and a personal attack. However, I am a large, semi-muscular man; I'm not going to be driven off the project by comments written in anger, and I don't have a particular opinion either way as to whether they should be removed or stay in place. What I've chosen to do is simply disengage from the conversation; I've realized that it's unhealthy to continue with it, neither of us is going to convince the other, and it's somewhat the wrong forum for a discussion of the subject. JayW appears to consider my conception of pedophiles ungrounded and offensive; I can certainly understand why he would lash out. Were I an impartial observer, I would recommend that the block be served out fully (I have strong feelings about incivility on Wikipedia) and then have everyone get on with their lives.

I'd also like to take a moment to thank Firsfron and Radiant for contributing to the discussion on the policy page, and for being willing to publicly address the disagreements we have instead of allowing it to degenerate. Captainktainer * Talk 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having a thick skin, Captainkainer, and for your willingness to just disengage. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bokpasa tendious editing and personal attacks

After a relatively long time in Wikipedia, this is my first ANI report. I was proud of that but patience got its limits. This user is not a user who can discuss or understand matters easily. Their userpage is an attack on my person. He's got into a lot of troubles in the es and the fr wikis. Only gods know what he's into in other wikis. I accuse them of tendentious editing and personal attacks.

English language wiki

• Calling me a racist, Hitler, and an interist-morroccan censurer
• Lack of knowledge. Refer to Talk:Saadi Dynasty.
• Between this and that i blocked them twice. 3 different admins (User:Redvers, User:Pgk, User:JzG) declined their unblocking request. [55]
• Never brought any single affirmative source or reference.
• Creating a new article which i deleted according to WP:POINT.
• Never sign their comments. He's using a Moi signature which can be confused w/ User:MOI.
• A total non-respect of WP:MoS. Their edits are a total mess, yes!. A poor mastering of English.
• This behaviour reminds me of the banned User:Gibraltarian; an infamous Gibraltar-related articles POV pusher.
• The only good thing here is that he never used any sockpuppet.

Other wikis

• User:Ecemaml categorizing Bokpasa's accusations as lies (mentiras) Template:Es icon
• Spanish version user Tomatejc notify them of Wikipetiqueta Template:Es icon
• Spanish version admin Javier Carro blocks his account for (recreating a uncyclopaedic article). The article in question was called Derechos históricos españoles sobre Marruecos. Template:Es icon
• Blocked twice in the French wiki for the same reasons he was blocked here. Template:Fr icon -- Szvest 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign