Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Jonah Ayers

• Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jonah Ayers
• Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Sojambi Pinela (AKA Jonah Ayers)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive40#Biff Rose-related sock puppets

This long time problem user has recently been making attacks by posting private information of other editors, in addition to his usual mayhem of sock puppetry and edit-warring at Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Though the information has been removed, admins SlimVirgin and Dan100 can confirm the attacks). This editor needs to be banned in all of his manifestations. I suppose that will require an ArbCom decision. I'll ask an ArbCom member to do a sockpuppet confirmation. -Willmcw 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems very self involved for willmcw to be able to brand all those identities as mine without any real proof. I deny that any of those are my sockpuppets, and will say that I believe somehow willmcw is somehow related to User:Sojombi Pinola who is directly related to the article of note here, on Biff Rose.

i think it is a shame that when an editor has a disagreement with another editor that he can besmirch the other person, this is an administrator of wiki who is basically behving like a fascist using implication to fashion a noose around my neck. I demand retraction. he says I've done so many things, I have not!!! This most recent one is the worst. about the phone number. never!!!Jonah Ayers 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've personally collated a list of 13 different idioms this controller uses to vandalise various aspects of Wikipedia and other works I am involved in. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

I range blocked every IP he could possibly use, which is 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. We have no one else using any of those IPs. This is just for 48 hours. If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer. I know. It's drastic. But he just won't give up. We're up to 15-20 IPs he posted from. Just no other way. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list of IPs G has used and it's not even inclusive. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I note this probably means blocking all of Gibraltar. Now the pages in question are semi-protected is this needed? Morwen - Talk 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If it does it is a little counterproductive. We do need the Gibraltar POV in articles.. Secretlondon 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A locked out Gibraltar user comments:

I have politely explained twice to Woohookitty that the addresses he has blocked are part of a dynamic IP pool allocated to users of Gibtelecom, the largest of two ISP's in Gibraltar. This has been posted to the discussion part of his homepage, he deleted it without comment. He has locked out 2000 Gibraltar users unjustly.

He does not want to listen, and when he says "We have no one else using any of those IPs." he is simply not telling the truth, I normally use part of that IP block and I am certainly NOT the user he objects to.

Woohookitty seems to have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole and is unworthy of the privilige of being an administrator - I request that this block is removed quickly and that his status is reviewed.

I have been updating the pages on Gibraltar for some time (see record) - nobody has complained about my actions, and I have tried to deal with the Spanish user who wants to rewrite things his way politely. Woohookitty ignores this.--Gibnews 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what solution do you propose to sort out the Gibraltarian problem? Have you also politely requested Gibraltarian to stop his disruptive behaviour (the real source of this problem)?

And BTW, I don't want to rewrite things my way, just introducing the Spanish POV, something that your compatriot Gibraltarian doesn't seem to even allow. Besides, your concept of being polite with "the Spanish user" is certainly rather strange: downright lies, lunatic [1], feel free to post as much false Spanish propaganda about Gibraltar as you like or I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain who could treat Gibraltarians with respect and as friendly neigbours instead of wishing to engage in cultural genocide [2]. And last but not least, Woohookitty hasn't tried the IP range address (as the last resort) because "he has been upset by Gibraltarian calling him a fascist" (as you state in User talk:Gibnews#December_2005) or because "he have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole" but because Gibraltarian has proven that he's not able to work in a place like wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that no Gibraltarian is now alowed to edit the Gibraltar page- unless he lives outside Gibraltar! While I agree user Gibraltarian has been rash, he's trying to make sure that the Spanish POV isn't dominant on a foreign page. Bearing in mind the hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians, no bad thing. Blocking all Gibraltarians is an over-reaction. I suggest it is lifted immediately, and a fairer way found. As a newcomer to WIKI, far for me to suggest what that is, but I'm sure you have more options than barring an entire country from editing their own pages. Rockeagle 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No my friend, I'm afraid you're not totally right. Gibraltarian hasn't been rash, but definitely rude (you can see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) if you want more info. And no, he isn't preventing the Spanish POV from "being dominant". He's simply attempting to remove it. And in wikipedia there is no "own" or "foreign" articles. There are just articles that, as wikipedia clearly states, everybody may edit. And this is not a forum like those of www.xsorbit3.com, where simply shouting louder or using the most crude insult makes someone "win". There are quite precise rules and guidelines (WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:V) that Gibraltarian routinely violates on the grounds of the "hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians", which, according to you, it's "no bad thing". That's the real problem. --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Rant less, Quote more accurately, and remain on topic--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

being polite. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, please don't bait me. I was trying to be a dampening influence on some of the comments made here, so was deliberately understating. I'm not saying that Gibraltarian isn't being unreasonable, some of his comments are. However, some Spaniards have a very warped view of Gibraltarians, and Gibraltarians don't much like Spain, so care is needed to make sure it is a NPOV. I think we can agree on that much. Alternatively, we could try two sections: a UK/Gibraltar POV and a Spanish POV. However, I have been working on the History temp page, which I think is comprehensive and neutral, though maybe links to the Dispute page can be put in once we thrash out something for that page. If we can get the History page released, then perhaps we have made a start, and I can then focus on getting the dispute page into language we can both agree on, even if we don't like the points the other raises- because we probably won't. It IS a "dispute" page after all! So, are we going to edit, or just argue? Rockeagle 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no longer doing anything involving these articles. You guys can revert Gibraltarian's comments yourself. Have fun you all! I did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. Not a single admin reverted what I did. Not a one. I don't even speak Spanish. I've never been outside of Wisconsin much less been in Gibraltar. I have no Spanish or Gibraltarian in my blood whatsoever. I've never read either of the articles this is about. But yeah. I have a grudge against people from Gibraltar. yeah. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a hard work to be an administrator. Sure. --Ecemaml 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

yes its hard work, and with it must come responsibility. Blocking 95% of Gibraltar users from access is simply unjust. Bad behaviour by one does not justify it by another; Less is more, so all other comments as irrelevent.--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, fortunately Gibnews is here to tell us what is relevant and what is not. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion about blocking, not an excuse for a rant and as such it does not affect you, unless you want to silence everyone in Gibraltar.--Gibnews 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with blocking that ip range for 48 hours. Gibraltarian has been constantly using ip addresses to vandalize, and this was meant to put an end to it. To claim that Woohookitty is partial to one side or the other is absolutely unjust—how long have you known him? Have you seen the disputes he works with? He is doing his best to be practical and deal with the situation according to policy. You are allowed to be critical of his actions, but to suggest that he is acting in bad faith is absurd, and I strongly suggest that you apologize. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at the board, not the players and stand by my comments. if you have problems with one user thats what needs to be addressed.

I see a problem with an administrator; I also saw "If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer." The film '48 hours' had several sequels. There have been complaints.--Gibnews 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you complained. So. I didn't do another range block. I saw one complaint in my email. I looked through the discussion board and my email. You complained once, not twice as you claim. If you can find the first complaint, let me know. And you know what? After you complained, I stopped. And I'd also like an apology from you. I want to see this bias I supposedly have against Gibraltar. Look at the entire web through google. Look up either Michael Lindeen or woohookitty. And also look at all 16,000+ of my edits on here and show me my bias against Gibraltar. The real issue here Gibnews is that, as you admitted on your talk page, you basically agree with Gibraltarian. It is you with the bias here, not me. You make a comment that unlike us, you can talk to the ISPs in Gibraltar to get him stopped. Then why haven't you? You haven't because you think G is just and correct in his attacks.

Another thing. Look at this page. It is a list of evidence against G. Notice that the vast majority of it is not from me? I am point this out because on your talk page, you said "It seems that someone called user:Woohookitty has now locked out 95% of the users in Gibraltar as he has been upset by user:Gibraltarian calling him a fascist." Um no. He was originally blocked for the 135 offenses on the evidence page I cited. 135. After he was blocked, he starting using sockpuppets, which is completely against policy. So then I started short range blocks, which didn't stop him. So I did the longer 48 hour one. ANY ADMIN COULD HAVE REVERSED ME. Any admin. Admins get reversed by other admins every day. If what I did was so biased, why didn't others stop me? Because they knew there wasn't much else to try.

And people wonder why I'm ready to leave the project. It's because people like gibnews can make wild accusations with no basis in fact and they get away with it. If he doesn't apologize, there isn't a damn thing I or anyone else can do. I have him accusing me of abusing power when he doesn't know a goddamn thing about me or my work here. I've been here for a year now. I have 16,000 edits. I've been an admin since June. Gibnews, yours is the FIRST complaint against me on this board. Doesn't that tell you something? There's no abusal of power here. I was trying to stop someone who has violated most of our rules from posting. I did the range block for 48 hours. You complained. I stopped. How the hell this has become "Woohookitty is abusing his powers" is really beyond me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no apology to someone who blocks the entire ADSL pool of Gibraltar wrongly.

You complain of abuse from ONE user of that pool, and slam 2000 IP's used by around 5000 users, including me.

I have told you the implication of a global block yet you ignore the advice.

I have offered to trace the user here in Gibraltar and resolve the problem locally, you do not reply to my email.

Despite which I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem you cannot solve without killing everyone.

IF as you allege you have been subjected to repeated emails from the users, you can complain to the ISP or myself and it will be actioned but you do not.

You need to learn that with power comes responsibility and if you can't accept a polite and reasonable complaint against your abuse of authority, its time for you to consider your position.--Gibnews 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. Accusing an admin of bias and demanding his adminship is not polite. "I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem" is patently absurd. This discussion has degenerated into an exercise in troll feeding and I suggest we end it here, and go work on the encyclopedia. Incidentally, I just blocked five Gibraltarian sockpuppets today... Dmcdevit·t 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Amen, Woohoo is one of the finest admins we have, get over yourself Gibnews, sometimes drastic action needs to be taken against determined banned users. The only thought that should come to Woohoo's mind when he considers his position should be absolute satisfaction with his role here. --kizzle 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify something I said before, my decision on whether to stay with the project is not based on just this. It's been a long series of stuff that's got me dissatisifed with the project. Since December 2nd, I've had 163 headings on my talk page. It's just overload. And I'm being told every day that I'm things I'm not. In the last 2 weeks, I've been called power hungry, racist, a censor and everything else. I have a thick skin, but it gets to you after awhile. And then you have this. Gibnews, your first email to me was on the 2nd day of the 48 hour block. You completely avoided my question. Where are these other "warnings" and "complaints". I get up at about 4 am Wikitime. You wrote me the couple of emails you wrote me while I was sleeping. By the time I woke up, the block had expired. You make it sound as though you had been warning me for weeks. it's all just ridiculous. The block is OVER. Has been for 2 days now, as evidenced by Gibraltarian's socks. And "polite"? What do you consider polite. In your very first email to me, you told me that I should take time off and contemplate my role here. On a post on your talk page, you talked about how corrupted by power I was. How the heck is that polite? You don't even know me! You know how many admin things I do a day? 10-15. I do one thing that you consider wrong and suddenly, I'm just an awful, power hungry man. Again, where is this bias? Where are all of these other abuses of power? People make mistakes, gibnews. Anyway, I'm not saying anything else on this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for a little while now (though less than a year, I admit), and I would like to put down a small observation on this. Woohookitty is a good admin. He has always attemped to be fair in dealing with those who would work contrary to what Wiki stands for; I've never seen Woohookitty act in a rude, condescending or otherwise inappropriate manner here. What we have is a single individual (Gibnews), who has felt apparently slighted and rushed to judgement without any thought to whether or not his accusations or demands were called for. They aren't, of course. Woohookitty did what he felt was neccesary in order to preserve the peace and sanity of everyone who contributes legitimately to the article in question. This is also why Woohoo's actions weren't overturned by higher authorities; because he acted appropriately. Gibnews has already (as was shown in this very thread) asked politely by other users to calm down and to discuss the matter rationally, but he merely seems interested in presenting his own side of things and not listening to what others have to say. It's extremely difficult to deal with an individual like that, because oftentimes rational logic will get thrown out the window in an effort to preserve "his side".

Woohookitty, please don't leave the project. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been remarkable and invaluable. I count you as one of the people that can be relied on to tirelessly, thanklessly work towards bettering the project despite seemingly constant attacks from individuals who don't get their way. I am asking you, please, don't let the small minority win. Don't leave.

Wiki needs you. Daniel Davis 04:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Thank you, much appreciated! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'people make mistakes' and one hopes they also learn from them. You scorn any assistance from me is solving a problem you have not been able to address. I suggest you wait and see.

There has been a long history of trouble between 'Gibraltarian' and the Spanish, resulting in him being blocked, and I believe the whole Gibraltar IP pool, from editing the Spanish pages, these still contain defamamatory comments. That will be addressed.

In the meantime, as others say you are doing good work, please carry on doing so. I also intend to do just that. Less is more so don't go on about things ad infinitum, there are more serious things to be done.--Gibnews 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, you're beginning to resemble Gibraltarian too much, I'm afraid. Yes, the whole Gibraltar IP pool is blocked in es:. It's blocked in a week-period basis. We block for a week and wait for the new vandalizing from Gibraltarian. Last time it took less that a day to see the new vandalizing from him (Vandalizing? Yes, quite similar to what is currently being described in ). And as long as we don't implement the semiprotection feature (it's not automatic and is being voted in es:) the blocking will continue. The other possibility was blocking Gibraltar-related

Gibnews, you're right, the whole Gibraltar IP pool is blocked in es:. It's blocked in a week-by-week basis. We block for a week and wait for the new vandalizing from Gibraltarian. Last time it took less that a day after the expiration of the block to see the new vandalizing from him (Vandalizing? Yes, quite similar to what is currently being described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence. Besides, of course without any explanation, he violates the naming policy agreed on in es: with regard to place names, for example replacing Bahía de Algeciras with Bay of Gibraltar or Puerto Argentino/Stanley with Stanley; he's even funnier when he, not being a native speaker, intends to replace perfectly valid phrasing because he doesn't like it). And as long as we haven't implement the semiprotection feature yet (it's not automatic and is being voted in es:) the blocking will continue. The other possibility was blocking Gibraltar-related articles (and Falkland Islands-related, by the way) and, sorry, but it's not fair to block a set of articles only because of the vandalizing of a proved fanatic individual like this. Unfortunately, the measures that wikipedia may put in place to fight against people like this are quite limited, and administrators have to choose. I'm not keen to get burnout like Woohookitty (my sympathies, by the way) only because of people that doesn't understand wikipedia, people that doesn't love wikipedia as we do, people that come here only to continue with his offensive and rude insults they've got used to in places like xsorbit (you can see his messages there and verify whether he was a troll after or before posting in en:). And take it for sure, there is no possibility of removing such allegedly defamatory contents (I'd still like to know which of the current contents of the articles are "defammatory") for people that behave as Gibraltarian does. As far as I understand, there are only two possibilities with him: blocking the IP range (unfair) and semiprotecting all the articles he targets (more or less fine), but as long as he's publicly stated that he's determined to go on with his behaviour "for ever" I don't know what to do in the long term (semiprotection is not forever). I'd like to know whether there are other possibilities, but it doesn't seem so. --Ecemaml 08:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (administrator in es:)

I'm on extended break as of now. And again. It's not just this. Read my user page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody needs a holiday and a rest from things from time to time; If you are spammed or molested by any Gibraltar users, feel free to email me directly, otherwise I will leave you alone. My complaint here was about blocking Gibraltar not Gibraltarian but you have reverted the heading and really we have said enough on the topic. This is why I drew a line and hoped others would take the hint. No, I don't know you, but there again you don't know me either so perhaps we should start afresh when you are back.--Gibnews 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'am a regular watcher of Spain and sometimes Gibraltar as well. I must testify that Gibraltarian is not a type of a user that listens or discusses. The user doesn't respect any policy of Wikipedia. He's been notified many times that the day of his indefinite banning was on the horizons. His actions are not acceptable in this place.

Back to the subject. As long as everybody agrees about the vandalism of the user, the solution to this problem is simply an sprotected tag. Let's go back to work! -- Cheers -- Szvest 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

This is not really the place, but in the article Economía, it describes Gibraltar as a "paraíso fiscal" and then later correctly says the OECD states its not. Its one thing I agree with 'Gibraltarian' on.--Gibnews 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's not the place, but acording to the definition (in Spanish, see the authority on determining what things mean in Spanish here), Gibraltar is a "paraiso fiscal". We're not going to change things because a non-native speaker thinks that it should not be the definition in Spanish. BTW, see the article here on Tax havens. It (correctly, I suppose) lists Gibraltar as a tax haven (the usual translation of "paraíso fiscal"), so... where is the point? --Ecemaml 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gib! The point is that Gibraltarian acts against the policies. I may agree with him or not but I'd never tolerate their lack of respect of policies. If the problem is about "paraíso fiscal", it would have long been sorted out (as it is done in every article). The problem is beyond that and everybody should abide by the policies, starting w/ WP:NPA. Knowing in advance about the fact that playing with a large range of IP's would cause a disruption for all Gibraltarian users like you and many others and still keeping on playing the same tricks is a clear evidence that the user just don't care. Cheers -- Szvest 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes. Sort of human shields. --Ecemaml 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsden Redux

Since the previous discussion has become hopelessly stupid, I am lifting the block on Marsden. If he continues the trolling behavior that got me to put the block up in the first place, I am reinstating it at indefinite. My reasoning in this will be simple - Marsden exhibits behavior that has gotten many people banned before. He exhibits this behavior unrepentantly. He is, in short, more or less certain to get himself banned. Given the choice between a drawn out process that will result in a circus as he rants about the Injustice of it All, or quietly shooting him as the foregone conclusion that it is, I pick the latter.

If and when I reblock Marsden, I invite any admin to undo the block PROVIDED that they can actually give a substantive reason why the block is in error. That is to say, I do not care if it is against procedure - I want to know what's wrong with it. Procedure is not and never has been an end in itself on Wikipedia. But perhaps Marsden will take a lesson from the fact that he is so very close to the edge,and change his behavior - we'll see. Phil Sandifer 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil, I suspect I speak for not a small number of Wikipedians when I ask, who exactly do you think you are? You seem to imagine that you are some sort of savior for Wikipedia, breaking all the rules in order to ... well, it's not clear exactly what you intend. Why shouldn't someone shoot you rather than me, Phil?

Your comment on unblocking me, Phil ("OK, let's give Marsden a happy 'one last chance' and then see what happens."), belies what I think is a perverted understanding of what Wikipedia is: ultimately, this is a charitable effort, manned by volunteers. "One last chance," Phil? There seems to be a corrupt attitude among a lot of Wikipedians, especially admins (and cerrtainly not just you, Phil), that it is punishment to ban someone from Wikipedia. How long do you think the Red Cross would tolerate a volunteer manager who insisted that some other volunteers were unworthy of stacking sandbags against a rising river? And yet, isn't this pretty much the role you have tried to carve out for yourself at Wikipedia?

Whenever Wikipedia drives away another editor of good faith, that ultimately is a loss for Wikipedia. Sometimes it no doubt is necessary, but to relish doing it, as you seem to do, frankly suggests some significant moral defects.

My participation in Wikipedia became relegated to trying to counter what I see as part of its systemic bias. This wasn't by choice, and anyone who thinks I enjoyed it should take a look at the early work I did make glacially paced changes at the Zionism article, and explain for themselves how anyone could enjoy that.

But in doing this, I encountered an obstruction of reliable methods of inquiry from a couple other editors here: circular objections to changes, and the revert warring that sadly is ultimately what decides what stays in Wikipedia. It was not me, between myself and the group of editors that I have had conflicts with, who first abandoned discussion and reason in deciding what should be in Wikipedia.

But the regime is very strong. I don't know the extent to which different editors are consciously promoting propaganda as opposed to just reflexively attacking any threat to an establishment that they see themselves as a part of, but at this point Wikipedia systemically makes unwelcome (to say the least) anyone who questions certain aspects of the project. That sort of attitude inevitably leads to a spiral descent.

User:Marsden

I smell jasmine in the air...ah, the sweet seductive scent of eternal optimism.  :-) Tomer^talk 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden has been blocked indefinitely by Jimbo. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

With the comment that "Snowspinner was right", but as far as I can see, no other contribution to the debate. Great - doesn't he have better things to do than randomly over-rule community discussions? And more generally, what broader conclusions do we draw if Snowspinner's actions were entirely 100% correct (including failure to notify anyone of an indefinite ban, never mind justify it with anything other than block summary "hopeless troll" and WP:AN remark "Wikipedia does not need trolls with nothing better to do than accuse Jimbo of stacking the arbcom with Zionist Randroids.")? How long before users can be banned permanently by any of 1000+ admins (not there yet, give it time) for being persistently annoying or strongly backing a POV an admin disagrees with? This is a dangerous precedent, IMO. It's a slippery slope when you prioritise ends over means; product (user getting banned for bad behaviour) over process (proving that behaviour was bad enough to deserve it, and that ban has nothing to do with content dispute). Frankly, in circumstances where the user accuses editors of bias, we should be more careful about process not less, for reasons that should be obvious. Rd232 ^talk 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Count yourself ahead, rd232. It's Wales' project, and no one has any right to demand anything from it. But now at least you have a better idea of what the deal is. User:Marsden

How long before users can be banned permanently by any of 1000+ admins (not there yet, give it time) for being persistently annoying. Hasten the day. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I am part of the community process, not overruling it, and acting in this instance perfectly in line with our longstanding norms and traditions. Second, I'm quite sympathetic with concerns about slippery slope problems and the importance of process over results.

In this case, in line with longstanding policy, Snowspinner made a block which not one of our hundreds of admins was willing to overturn -- to me, this suggests a very strong consensus that could be formalized with a poll or something but to be honest, why bother?

Indefinite in this case does not mean infinite. If you'd like to start a poll or something as to whether he should be let back in, or start an arbcom case requesting the arbcom to consider letting him back in, I won't stand in the way. But, I think you can guess what the result would be.

There's another slippery slope to worry about, and this is that good people, thoughtful admins who care about quality, are frequently burned out by our excessive tolerance of nutcases. This can lead to a tendency over time toward having increasing tolerance of trolls and increased influence of trolls over policy. A very important counter-measure towards this race to the bottom is for us all to step back now and then and say, right then, this kind of thing is simply not welcome here, end of story. If I had the time to really thoroughly investigate several pending cases, I'd indefinitely block at least 20 more like him tomorrow.--Jimbo Wales 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. "I am part of the community process, not overruling it" - AFAIK, you didn't contribute to the discussion prior to your action, which was what I was referring to when I said "over-rule community discussions" (not "process"). The result of those discussions was that Snowspinner changed his mind (albeit mostly to get shot of the issue) and gave Marsden one more chance, unblocking him. You then overruled Snowspinner's change of mind with the comment "Snowspinner was right", and no other explanation. Frankly that strikes me as an odd and illadvised thing to do, unless you saw something inappropriate in the single contribution (comment above) Marsden made in the intervening period.
2. "Snowspinner made a block which not one of our hundreds of admins was willing to overturn" is incorrect: after the ban was brought to community attention (a week after it was done), and some discussion, I overturned it in favour of a 1 month block, and after that was reversed another admin overturned it again in the same way. And I recall a comment that a third would have done it if he didn't have Arbitration issues to worry about.
3. "Indefinite in this case does not mean infinite.". Really? Then what is the process by which indefinite is turned into definite? Is appeal to Arbcom really the appropriate means for dealing with all such concerns? (If there's another means, what is it?)
4. If "tolerance of trolls" is a problem we should define banning policy in a way that possible trolls can be warned of behaviour to avoid, and that admins considering such bans can use as a reliable yardstick (or at least a guide). "Trolling" is far too subjective a notion for as large a community as ours to allow individual admins to ban people on the basis of accusations of trolling without any attempt to prove it or to gain second opinion from others to support that judgement. That doesn't require the formality of Arbcom, but it requires some kind of process.
5. Failure of other admins to overturn a ban doesn't constitute process, because (a) we don't know the number of admins we can plausibly expect to notice a ban (even when it's announced properly, which it wasn't in this case) (b) we don't know the number of admins who'll serious consider evaluating the case; (c) the respect admins generally pay to other admins' decisions, mostly for reasons of practical efficiency (we'll generally assume there are aspects of a complex case that aren't obvious, and rely on others' judgement). In other words, the failure of anyone to overturn a ban cannot reasonably be taken as an endorsement: only explicit statements of support can be counted on. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
6. "If I had the time to really thoroughly investigate several pending cases, I'd indefinitely block at least 20 more like him tomorrow." Which cuts to the heart of the problem: if we had a policy which was well-defined enough to deal with this sort of behaviour consistently, the risk of appearing to arbitrarily exercise these powers would be rather less. Perhaps you could suggest some changes to Wikipedia:banning policy to help clarify these kinds of situation in future. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Rd232, you're confusing banning with blocking. Marsden is blocked indefinitely, in accordance with the blocking policy, for disruption and excessive personal attacks. As for your prioritizing process over product, you might want to consider being consistent in that regard, as you yourself recently blocked a user you were involved in a content dispute with, someone who thoroughly deserved the block, but had you been following process, you wouldn't have done it. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confusing blocking with banning. Marsden is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, which ban is enforced by an indefinite block. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not "in a content dispute". I came to the page via WP:RFC, made a remark agreeing with the majority, and participated in some discussion in an attempt to clarify the issue. I did not edit the article (except, after the block, to undo the excessive reversion after the user's severe violation of 3RR). Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that (above) you link (via a diff) to your comment on my user talk page, thereby excluding anybody who follows it from directly seeing the reply I'd already made there long before you posted the above comment - and which reply you'd evidently seen because you'd just replied to it. I'll assume that was just an oversight. Rd232 ^talk 12:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that you seem to prioritize process when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. The blocking policy says that we can't block where we're involved in the content dispute. You made a comment on the talk page shortly before the block that directly opposed the position RJII was reverting over, thereby involving yourself in the dispute, so strictly speaking you should not have blocked him, especially when the first admin to deal with the violation had decided not to. That's my only point. I agree that process should not be prioritized over product, I agree that RJII deserved a block, and I personally have no problem with you doing it. I'm only asking for consistency. Just as you're asking people to trust your judgement as an admin regarding RJII (even if strictly speaking the block may have been a violation of the blocking policy), so other admins were asking you to trust their judgement regarding Marsden. We do have to trust each other's judgement, even on occasions where we may not agree with it. If we don't, the result is these very harmful block wars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained that I did not consider myself involved in the content dispute. (I've also explained - on my talk page discussion with you - why I took action when another admin didn't: inaction was driving editors away.) Now others may disagree as to whether I was involved or not, but I object to what amounts to an accusation of hypocrisy, that I will preach on process but ignore it myself. As to the block war: yes, that was exceedingly silly, since the discussion was ongoing and there were over two weeks left on the 1 month block I instituted: i.e. no pressing need for anyone to pre-empt ongoing discussion as to what the appropriate length was, and the resulting to-and-fro about indefinite or 1-month blocks. Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Death threats? (Jimbo)

What's our policy on these? Do we followup with the ISP? Cops?

Here.

-- Curps 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, that's messed up. I'd seriously consider the cops in this instance as that is illegal in all 50 states, even jokingly.Gateman1997 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a nutter. I suppose the best thing would be to let jimbo know so he can decide. It would be great if he decided to follow it through and track this guy down, though I doubt it would happen. Martin 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The "is communism" makes me think it's a joke, but WP:BP has a provision for "personal attacks that place other users in danger". If it looks serious, then ISP all the way.--Sean|Black 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I blocked the user for indef, and I copied Crups post at Jimbo's talk page. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I once talked to a policeman about the issue of death threats. He said that a threat that even hinted at something like that, even if probably was a joke, must be reported in all cases to the police. The reason is straight forward. If it is reported then it is on record so if anything was ever to be attempted that in any way compromised the safety of the person targeted, even if didn't amount to much, there is something on file for the police to look back on. Having something on record is vital. In addition they have experience in accessing these things. Something that us might seem just a sick joke might to them, from their experience, not seem so innocent. A friend of mine, John, once received a death threat. It looked like a joke but to be safe he reported it. The police weren't as convinced as he was about its innocence and checked it out. The managed to find out who had found it and found that the sender did have a habit both of stalking people and of becoming violent when his victim challenged him about it. What seemed like possible joke turned out not to so innocent at all. Even if the sender did not at the time intend it as a threat, his past behaviour meant that if he was interested enough to send something, he was likely at some stage to start stalking and could have become violent. Reporting it nipped the threat in the bud. He was severely warned off by the police but John was warned to keep an eye out for the individual and shown a photograph of him.

The threat above probably is just a sick joke, but to be safe it is important that the police are informed of it. They are the people who can form a professional judgment on how innocent or threatening it really is. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. We're lucky enough that it doesn't happen often, but when it does, block them immediately, no questions asked, and inform those in the Foundation who can deal with such matters.--Sean|Black 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that Jimbo has a lot of personal information online at various websites (some of it is ours), all someone has to do is look for the right information and they pretty much they know where Jimbo is. So this is why some of us feel that this should be seriously looked at. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The user claims it's a joke; see User_talk:Yankee Hater. I'm not suggesting for an instant we unblock him, but FYI. I will leave the decision on whether to track him down, or just leave him indef blocked and forget about it, to wiser heads than mine. -- SCZenz 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Death threats are a banning offense, have been since Mr. Treason, will remain so as long as I've got a mop and a bucket. Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Most certainly. But do we do a sock check on the IP to keep the person out of Wikipedia forever, or just permablock the account and forget about it? -- SCZenz 01:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If I had checkuser, which I don't, I would not sockcheck until there was a suspicion of puppetry, rather than a fear. Phil Sandifer 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The question was more do we keep poking around to see if we can find suspicion of sockpuppetry, or just let it go completely? -- SCZenz 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Personally I feel anyone who makes a death threat, even jokingly, should be instantly blocked, for at least several weeks, if not permanently. — JIP | Talk 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, the account is permablocked. No question of that. What Snowspinner said above about "death threats are a banning offense . . . as long as I've got a mop and bucket" goes double for me. -- SCZenz 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fplay

I hae blocked Fplay (talk · contribs). I don't know what he/she is doing, but they seem to be using an unapproved bot to do it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fplay's no vandal. (S)he probably tried to do something reasonable (although I can't figure out what either), but didn't realize (s)he had to get the bot approved. I've offered to unblock if the bot is turned off until it's approved. -- SCZenz 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

After failing to recognize what was happening and taking intrusive action, Zoe says nice words but fails to actually undo her block (which she did with no discussion whatsoever), as Fplay is still blocked in an infinite manner. -- Emact 01:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fplay still hasn't indicated his bot is turned off. That's what this block was needed for; Fplay was running an unauthorized bot, doing something possibly unnecessary, and using quite a bit of server capacity to do it. Nobody's saying Fplay is a bad person, but Zoe did the right thing. I, or any other admin, can (and will) undo the block as soon as it's warranted. -- SCZenz 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, SCZenz. I don't know why Emact thinks we should unblock him when his bot is still running. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to note that Emact and Fplay are the same user. --cesarb 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Remind me not to feed the troll next time. android79 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"...his bot is still running". What evidence is there of that? -- Emact 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. But all Fplay has to do is say on his userpage that it isn't, and the block will be undone. Since the block isn't punative, or indeed a judgement on the user of any kind, there's no need for the innocent-until-proven-guilty logic you're alluding to. It's really all about avoiding further accidental waste of system resources. -- SCZenz 02:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions. I do not assume that Fplay is innocent. I am pointing out that Fplay has had a new requirement thrust upon him due to Zoe's inability to recognize what was happening, despite her have admin priviledges for more than a year now. I am pointing out that Fplay's edits have not been active since reaching the letter "Z" (as any person of meaningful experience would recognize). I will now ask on the page: What is Zoe waiting for? -- Emact 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He hasn't yet said anything on his talk page or emailed any admins (presumbably), so he remains blocked. What's the problem?--Sean|Black 02:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am noticing a trend here. Zoe is failing to respond while others interfere with the communication process. A familiar story. I am waiting for Zoe to respond. She is responsible for her actions. What is she waiting for? -- Emact 02:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

She seems to have stopped editing, since about a half-hour ago. If this was a problem for Fplay, s/he'd leave a message on User talk:Fplay. Any admin can undo the block, but there's no need to yet. If you've got an axe to grind with Zoe, grind it elsewhere. android79 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that Zoe has gotten the point: Fplay is now unblocked. -- Emact 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Err, no... android79 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are so right. 50-at-a-time does not quite cut it to monitor blocks. The list grows quickly. -- 68.164.245.60 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"...his bot is still running". Thre is no evidence of that. What is Zoe waiting for? -- 68.164.245.60 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We wouldn't know if it was, because he's blocked. This seems to matter much more to you at the moment than it does to Fplay. android79 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that others are interfering with the communication process in lieu of Zoe responding, undoing her actions or some other admin undoing Zoe's actions on her behalf. -- 68.164.245.60 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"interfering with the communication process"... no idea what you're getting at. android79 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To explain what he was doing... on Special:Wantedpages there is a Votes for Willys page which still has over a thousand red-links to it. This was apparently some kind of predecessor to 'Votes for Deletion' (now split into the various AfD, TfD, IfD, et cetera pages). Fplay was running the bot to make null edits to pages linking to that old article so that the old links would update to 'Votes for Deletion' and 'Votes for Willys' would no longer be listed so high up on the Wantedpages list. Or so I surmise from his edit summaries / actions. There's a more detailed explanation of it here, which is probably where he got the idea. Looks like the bot had finished running by the time he was blocked. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Fplay better use better edit summaries, and I truly wonder if it is worth touching user talk pages. That seems silly to me as it basically sends messages to a lot of people.

Also, making around 800 touch edits from one's own account greatly inflates one's edit count. Not that it matters much, but it would be wiser to get a specialized bot account for that kind of things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Touching doesnt involve making any edit at all. It is essentially like clicking save without making any change, it will never be seen in the history. If people want bot work done it should be taken to Wikipedia:Bot requests, and someone can do it properly. Martin 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates will update with a null edit, which does not appear in the article history or count as a user edit. This bot is defective and should not be used. Period. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, some of us do have lives outside of Wikipedia. And if Emact and Fplay are the same person, and Emact is trying to make it out like I did something wrong without explaing what he was doing and why he won't stop doing it, then I see no point in unblocking Fplay. I was only planning on blocking him till he stopped his bot, but now it appears he's intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ZOE: Your logic is flawed. Trying to retroactively saddle Fplay with "intentionally disrupting Wikipedia" after YOU disabled his account. He was not bothering anyone. Your approach is revisionist and hypocritical. Did he taunt anyone or ask for this trouble? No. Why did you disable his account? Because you did not understannd. In your ignorance, you made a rushed decision. Truly responsble people are ready to admit when they are wrong. But you are not making that admission. That is the problem. -- 68.122.124.33 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I still have hopes he'll realize his mistake, indicate on his talk page that the bot won't be used anymore without going through proper channels (see Wikipedia:Bot requests), and get unblocked. -- SCZenz 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see this edit. I'd love to know what Emact means by "of a certain demographic". User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he ment "people like Elizabeth Morgan". A lot of people around her got pretty badly damaged, but she managed to muddle through somehow and turned back to say: "What? What's the problem? I am happy. Why are you not happy?" -- 68.122.124.33 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fplay/Emact has stated that both accounts belong to one person [4], so that edit is pretty weird. My hopes are dwindling, but I'm gonna leave a little message for both accounts with one more appeal. -- SCZenz 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that Emact deleted that just prior to coming here to complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Deception and impersonation. "Talking to yourself" isn't mentioned, but this sort of behavior should not be encouraged. android79 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's such a bizzarely bad job of deception that I'm tempted to let it go (if possible). Anyway, I've left them "both" a message to stop playing games; I hope my advice will be taken. -- SCZenz 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have warned FPlay/Emact that I will consider further edits trying to get Zoe in trouble on this page to be vandalism. I suggest others do the same, complete with rollback buttons and vandalism warnings. This is getting really silly, for no reason. -- SCZenz 05:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention as a point of curiosity that he/they has/have pestered Jimbo about this now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that the Benevolent Dictator will come down hard on Zoe for blocking Fplay. --Deathphoenix 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is very foolish of you to be so sure about that. History shows that when privileged individuals of a certain demographic get their way without the constaints of fairness or logic (let alone a consistent set of rules), that, once those individuals get their way, there is a maniacal obsession to maintain the status quo. Zoe got her ignorant way: another Wikipedian's "edit count" has been reset to zero (again) and no one dares to undo what she has done, least of all, quite sadly, Zoe herself. -- 199.33.32.40 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

History also shows that Jimbo doesn't really care that much when one of our best admins rightfully blocks someone who then proceeds intentionally disrupt Wikipedia.--Sean|Black 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean: The log now provides abundant evidence of Zoe's popularity among a certain, other demongraphic of Wikiepdian admin; evidence that even Jimbo could not deny. There is an inconsistency in your words and actions: If Zoe is such a wonderful admin, then clearly she can handle this herself. You input has only increased the volume of the log and obfuscated Zoe's true nature. Try to find the discipline and maturity to recognize the fairness, relevance and validity of that logic and, then wait and see if Zoe has anything else to add. -- 68.164.245.60 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to review: Is does not matter was Zoe digs up after the fact about Fplay. The fact that she is attempting to dig up anything about Fplay after the fact indicates a problem and a weakness in her reasoning. What matters is what she knew when and what she did with her admin priviledges. By the account in existed only for a moment in this log (before one of her supporters removed it), but still resides in Jimbo's talk page, she acted hastily and, apparently, overreacted. Let us now see if Zoe cares to respond to this assessment. -- 68.164.245.60 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thegame05 (talk · contribs)

As much as I can't abide racism, I also can't abide people falsely accusing others of racism just because they can't have their own way. This is why I blocked the above user indefinitely earlier this evening: I'm making a note of this here because I'm off to bed and they might well come back on another IP complaining about the block. -- Francs2000 01:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Even given the above, an indefinite block is pretty harsh. On top of that, it seems bad form for admins to block those they appear to be having disputes with; they should ask for other admins to help. That being said, I agree with a block for the user, so I am lifting the indefinite and reblocking for 48 hours. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I retract the above; I thought it looked like a content dispute from the talk pages, but I've just noticed that there isn't even one decent edit in his contribution history. Leaving as is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to point that out. This user's entire edit history consists of adding nonsense to Cranford, London, vandalising/blanking articles, making legal threats and accusing people of racism. -- Francs2000 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat In Violation of Arb Probation

Schmucky was placed on probation concerning edit warring of articles related to China. He's gone out of his way to start an edit war on Guangshen Railway. I must also note that Instantnood was also put on probation (and was an AMA client of mine) but a look at the article history shows that Instantnood started this article innocently enough, all was well for two weeks and then Schmucky fired the first salvo on the edit war over issues precisely handled in arb [5]. I think Schmucky should be banned from editing this article, it would be unfair to do likewise to Instantnood as he started the article and there weren't any issues until Schmucky started the edit war, caused the article to be protected and even provoked a 3RR ban on the page in a matter of a couple of days. When notified of the case another administrator chose to "pretend the case doesn't exist" [6]. --Wgfinley 05:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but one of the proposed decisions (which only didn't pass because one member changed a vote) is that "Instantnood sometimes insists on using the phrase "Mainland China" in contexts which seem incongruent with the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China." So how is it inappropriate of me to correct exactly that when he insists on using "mainland China" when China or PRC is more correct? If I'm "editing inappropriately" (the requirement for me to be banned) then YOUR CLIENT needs to quit putting forth the kind of BS that needs correcting. I'm the one there adding more information to a translated article. I'm not the one that went past 3RR. I'm the one driving the talk page to try and find what compromises there can be. All 'nood can do is play revert games. He hasn't once put forth a defense of the use of that term other than that was the term in the translation. So who's editing inappropriately?

In the meantime, he's banned from proposing multiple renames and page moves in a week, and I detailed half a dozen to ArbCom for clarification of just what the enforcement mechanism is. Maybe instead of asking for me to be page banned, you should advise 'nood on how to actually comply with his much more restrictive probation. Are you just playing tit-tat for him? SchmuckyTheCat 05:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming if any of what you say is true how could one ever figure that out given the blatant hostility? As I said, you came into the article, an edit war ensued, the article had to be protected, it's a continuation of the exact same behavior that got you both put on probation, it needs to stop and you don't seem willing. --Wgfinley 06:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't seem willing? I'm playing by the rules. If I have any question that my actions are a violation of the ArbCom probation I use talk, I ask others to contribute, I make sure my edits aren't reverts, I ask for verifiability, I ask for NPOV, I do reference checks, and finally I go to the ArbCom to ask for clarification.

And yes there is blatant hostility. For over a year now Instantnood is trawling Wikipedia and changing references to China to "mainland China", placing Hong Kong as an independent country, creating POV forks, and etc, and it's still going on, he's still at it. On some articles he does the same edits that he did months ago and got smacked for it. Why? Does he think nobodies watching? No, it's because that's the kind of subterfuge he wants to use to push his agenda - over and over and over. I'm going to call him on it, and it's a game to him, but at least I'll play by the rules. SchmuckyTheCat 06:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If what I've done were trawling, changing every single reference of China or the People's Republic of China to mainland China, and placing Hong Kong as an independent sovereign state, then what are the English-language newspapers in Hong Kong doing? Should they all be sued and shut down? Wikipedia is a neutral and actual reflection of the real world, not something you yourself believe. — Instantnood 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on their editing, either one or both may be banned from an article if they "engage in disruptive editing". Any administrator willing to look into the situation may make that determination, if the facts warrant it. Fred Bauder 13:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on, I know there's an admin brave enough to take a look at this, the warring continues on the the article. --Wgfinley 19:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom

Dear Sir/Madam,

The information published on your web site regarding The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom is not true and incorrect. The author was an ex member of the Gay Government that was sacked and has used your web site to promote his lies and rumour. The article has been printed and i am seeking legal advice as much of it pertains to me (Dale anderson) I ask that you remove the article from your site and all referance to Me (Dale Anderson) the author has made the site so that it can not be edted nor changed and has no source to back up his lies.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter

Dale anderson

I reformatted this letter content so it would read properly.  ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

After checking I find no article named "The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom" and the article for "Dale Anderson" was a nn-bio/band vanity I speedied. Perhaps someone else knows what this guy is talking about.  ALKIVAR™ 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He's talking about Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Also check out Gay and lesbian kingdom. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Peter McConaughey blocked as sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark

I have just indefinitely blocked Peter_McConaughey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram_Stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Zephram Stark's ArbCom case.

Here is the evidence that links them:

• Zephram Stark was banned on 12 November 2005 (for six months). Peter's first edit was on 23 November 2005.

• Both editors focused on terrorism (Zephram on Terrorism, Peter on American terrorism), Declaration of Independence (United States) and Inalienable rights. Taking a look at the history of Inalienable rights shows very similar edits and edit summaries on this low-traffic article.

• Both editors are extremely vocal about alleged administrative abuse and are prone to Wikilawyering and long diatribes.

• Both editors have used original diagrams to illustrate their points. Peter Image:Organization_layout.gif and Zephram created Image:IAR.gif.

• Both editors have entered in conflicts with many of the same users. Besides myself, Peter has also been in conflict with User:Commodore Sloat, even denying that he was Zephram with the same use of sexual innuendo [7] that Zephram commonly used. Carbonite | Talk 13:29,

30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Any doubt that Peter is not a sockpuppet of Zephram should be put to rest with this evidence. On 10 November 2005, Zephram created Coving. This obscure article has only been edited twice more, most recently by Peter McConaughey on 20 December 2005 [8].

• "Zephram Stark" has also been active on other web sites. On a Seattle Press message board [9] "Zephram Stark" from Dallas, Texas commented "Have we given all of the power of the legislative and judicial branches to the executive? This is not the definition of a democracy or of a republic. This is pure despotism and the Declaration of Independence has told us what to do with despotism." Here on Wikipedia, "Peter McConaughey" from Texas (see his User page), makes constant comments about despotism and references the Declaration of Independence [10] [11] [12].

• Peter has commented [13] about CheckUser:

"The Cabal is hoping that vague innuendo will be enough to create an official case. After they gain the legal right to snoop my personal information, they will be free to reveal what they already know. Don't be surprised to hear something along the lines of, "We had no idea about this before the case opened, but look what we have discovered now that we have a legal right to investigate the personal information about this editor!"

Of course, none of the information they reveal will be direct or a threat to Wikipedia in any way, but it will be enough to hang me in the court of public opinion. We all have skeletons in our closet."

Though this comment seemed like paranoia when I first read it, it makes much more sense due to his status as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Note: CheckUser will not turn up data because the Zephram Stark account has not been used since 11 November, and CheckUser only contains Recent Changes data.

It's still unclear whether one of these identities is a real name or both are made-up. In any case, bans apply to people, not user names and the person behind these accounts is clearly not allowed to edit any under name. Carbonite | Talk 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The case against Peter being a sockpuppet is circumstantial at best, is it possibly you just don't like what other people point out? More than one person is likely to have similiar opinions to both Peter and this "Zephram Stark". If I take up Peter's cause are you going to accuse me of being a sockpuppet too? The Zephram Stark arbcom evidence page actually lists quite interesting evidence that some admins often claim "sockpuppetry" against groups of users that have very geographically distinct IP addresses and in every case one or all of the users directly challenged the admin's interpretation of an article's content or sources. This seems like a case of admin retribution after protracted POV disagreement. zen master T 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't block Peter for having similar opinions to Zephram, I blocked him because he was Zephram Stark (who was banned by the ArbCom). Over many months I has the unfortunate experience of becoming an expert on Zephram's behavior. I've strongly suspected that Peter was Zephram for some time now, but wanted to wait until I was 100% confident before blocking. As a side note, I am also quite sure that you are 'not a sockpuppet of anyone. Carbonite | Talk 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you possibly be so sure Peter is Zephram Stark? Is it possible your frustration over the Zephram Stark case has clouded your judgement? Though I've been looking over the Zephram Stark arbcom case and I can't seem to find a justification for that original block, certainly 6 months seems exponentially disproportional of a punishment. zen master T 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the evidence above. Does it seem reasonable to suggest that someone who joined days after Zephram was banned, and edits the same pages with the same edit style and happens to be from the same state and gets into conflict with the same editors and makes the same rants (on and off Wikipedia) is not the same person? I wouldn't have blocked if I wasn't 100% sure they were the same. As for Zephram's original block, I believe it absolutely was deserved, but that's a matter for the ArbCom. However, the six month ban will be reset since he never actually stopped editing. Bans are per person, not per account. Carbonite | Talk 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw Zephram Stark's personal attacks but I wonder if he himself got frustrated over being censored and mislabeled? Does wikipedia policy allow an admin to block a user with numerous edits as a sockpuppet merely if they are 100% confident? Surely a committee should decide, perhaps the arbitration committee itself? Allowing one admin to block an editor, who I believe has contributed significantly to Wikipedia, is way too dangerous of a power as it has too much potential for abuse. It is obvious you and Peter have disagreed over many issues so perhaps you should have asked a neutral admin to investigate your belief of sockpuppetry rather than block him yourself? zen master T 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate Zephram's original block; that's a matter for the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants to review the evidence, they're more than welcome and in fact I posted a request for a CheckUser there before it was brought up that the data only goes back a week or two. If an admin reviews all the evidence about (and that provided by Commodore Sloat [14]) and still truly believes that these two users are not the same, then the ArbCom should look into the case. Carbonite | Talk 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is: complete and indefinite blocks of a user with significant contributions to wikipedia is not something that an individual admin should ever be allowed to do, the burden of proof should be on you to prove to arbcom that Peter is Zephram rather than the other way around. Basically, the fact you and others have had multiple disagreements with Peter taints any possibility of your appearing neutral on this issue. zen master T 17:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not get much out of checkuser, Zephram has not edited for a very long time. I have not seen enough evidence to be sure, but I am busy doing other things. I feel comfortable with Carbonite's decision but there is always some small doubt. Fred Bauder 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• The evidence seems kinda good, but Carbonite has had the pleasure of studying ZS's style in more detail than I have (my mind tended to blank after just a few sentences of his blathering, so I'm not sure I ever finished any of his longer rants.) For me, the graphic evidence (use of graphics, that is) is quite strong; annoying as ZS is, his graphic skills are very good; it galls me a bit that some of his more complicated stuff is done using software I worked on for a decade (AutoCAD), and he does a good job of it. He explained his process on some or another page. Quite talented; it would be wonderful if his energy could be harnessed for good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied with the evidence and consider this a righteous block. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Users with significant contribution to wikipedia should not be blocked by an individual admin (even if admin friends of them concur), only the arbitration committee should decide indefinite blocks for alleged sock puppetry. zen master T 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder and Kelly Martin are members of the arbitration committee. If you can find another member of the ArbCom who would like to formally evaluate the block, then further discussion might be fruitful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a member of the arbitration committee, and (in hindsight) the sockpuppeting is obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Carbonite's block of Peter after the fact is very different than Carbonite having to make a formal case for sock puppetry to arbcom. A formal case should indeed have to be made, especially for a user with significant contributions. Also, if such a arbcom case were attempted Fred would likely have to recuse himself because he Zephram and him had their disagreements it seems, so this all goes to show the apparent bias here. zen master T 19:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I support having this go to ArbCom, but only for the sake of being thorough...I have had overall pleasant relations with Peter McConaughey and am not familiar with Mr. Stark...however, the similarities of edits seem to indicate that Peter is Zephram and has indeed evaded his ban by creating a sock account.--MONGO 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that this is Zephram Stark is very strong. Thank you to Carbonite (who unfortunately had the opportunity to become an expert on Stark) for spotting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Carlisle

Please protect this article, it will become another Bogdanov Affair. --Glenzierfoot 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection should be requested at WP:RFPP instead of here. --cesarb 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Projects sockpuppets

Usernames:

• Projects
• Vesa
• Gildyshow

Repeated attempts to calm person down by some other editor, which turns out was in vain. Keeps being generally, well, annoying. Keeps removing sockpuppet boxes, which just made it obvious that they are the same, as all 3 userpages blanked within 2 minutes. Not sure if I'm supposed to revert when people remove sockpuppet boxes, or what, but based on the work the other guy has done to calm PVG down, seems like he's still being disruptive. I think a block of at least a week is in order, considering how long this has been going on. 24 hour blocks are useless, anyway, but of course, your discretion. I'd just like to see something done. Thanks Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Right, I have tried to work with this user but progress is just too slow, it taking an great deal of time, and now I he is angry at me also. Also he will not sign his posts despite re-peat-ed requests and help, and I have told him I can't talk with him anymore if he can't agree to do that. So I don't know what more I can do. I have asked him to get an advocate, and quick. I have looked for signs that he can be turned around but I haven't seen a single good edit yet, just insults and blind determination.

I hate to seem him blocked. He's not a kid. It's cold in Chicago now, and a long way from Serbia. And George Reeves still lies in his grave unavenged, forgotten. To be unavenged, forgotten... that is a terrible thing, and perhaps a fate shared by a man in Chicago.

But.

The thing is, he is editing from the Chicago Public Library, according to my DNS reverse lookup. I wonder what the procedure is for that? Is it possible to block the Chicago Public Library? It would not be necessary to contact the library to pinpoint this user, would it? Because if that is so he must surely be warned.

At User:Vesa user page is a list with links of known dames and IPs used. There is also an entry in the vandalism page under Minor RU, Minor IP, and Pages. Herostratus 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

While I suspect that the above is largely true, Wahkeenah claims that I am also one of the sockpuppets. (If anyone thinks he might be correct, I suggest that they examine my contribution list.) So people may want to approach the sockpuppet accusations with some caution, at least if that is the source. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Jmabel, you are clearly NOT one of the sockpuppets. The list and evidence is maintained at User:Dijxtra/Sock by Dijxtra who first discovered this user. You haven't been put on the list, and you haven't had a warning tag put on your user page, and nobody ever considered that. It was just an off-the-cuff remark by Wahkeenah, probably made in the heat of fighting off real sockpuppets. These things happen, but you're right, he should NOT have said that. But nobody thinks that about you or questions your edits. Herostratus 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Assistive technology

Apologies for bringing this here, but I've gotten no attention on WP:VIP. A persistent spammer is editing Assistive technology from a variety of IP addresses, repeatedly adding a commercial link, often removing legitimate links to non-noncommercial resource lists in the process. I seem to be the only person reverting. I suppose spamming is not absolutely blatant vandalism, and I see that, without noticing, I just reverted for the fourth time in just under 24 hours. I hope no one will consider this a WP:3RR violation on my part, but I request that someone else please watchlist this article, since it is beginning to look like I'm edit warring, which is really not my intent. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlisted, for now.--Sean|Black 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

TNX. - Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

George W.Bush

Can we unprotect it? Semi-protection is a bad idea, an article should be protected or not at all - not halfway, as semi-protection is. Maybe deleting and restoring the article is a solution to the problem. --Whitewalls 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection is Wikipedia policy, and if you want to oppose it, go to Wikipedia:Semi-protection and discuss the issue there. In the meantime, if you want to edit the article but cannot, go make some constructive edits on other articles to give us some evidence you're a legitimate contributor. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Closure of WP:RM vote on Islamofascism (term) -> Islamofascism by User:Marudubshinki

(copied from WP:AN) User:Slim Virgin has already raised this issue on User talk:Marudubshinki#Islamofascism, where that admin closed the move request by counting participants in the neutral discussion together with those who voted move in order to arrive at a consensus to move. Comments by experienced admins on closing WP:RM discussions and assessing consensus on the talk page appreciated. --- Charles Stewart 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet, so if another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. In summary, Islamofascism (term) was moved to Islamofascism after 54 per cent voted in favor, whereas WP:RM suggests a minimum of 60 per cent. Full details at User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Nandesuka for a second opinion on this a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet, so if another admin could take a look instead, that would be very helpful. In summary, Islamofascism (term) was moved to Islamofascism after 54 per cent voted in favor, whereas WP:RM suggests a minimum of 60 per cent. Full details here, and see here for the poll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look and give Maru my second opinion. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(Copy and pasted from elsewhere. Sorry for the delay)

SlimVirgin asked me to look into this issue as an uninvolved party and offer my opinion. Without getting in to the specific merits of whether or not I personally think the page "should" have been renamed, I think this is a case of biting the oldies. Page moves are typically doable by anyone, and the 60% guideline on WP:RM is phrased somewhat loosely. The whole point is that if you end up on WP:RM, the move is controversial. The stakes are, frankly, low here — the substance of the article is unchanged — and getting worked up over a few percent one way or the other seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. It seems wrong to me that we should give an admin less discretion in deciding how to close a page move discussion than we do when closing an article deletion discussion.

I think Marudubshinki should be encouraged to close out the discussion however he thinks appropriate, and people should be encouraged to redirect their energy into improving the article and making sure it stays properly focused, rather than fretting over the semiotics of whether or not a parenthesized word appears in the article title.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to the hate mail. Nandesuka 23:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, some day I'll make a list of things you generally shouldn't do on WP:RM. Like moving a page against a WP:RM descision when you were involved in the debate just a couple of days afterwards. Arg!

And well - there a lot of simple moves on WP:RM like:

1. Normal page moves
2. Cut n' paste fixups
3. History merges
4. Simple mispellings by authors
5. Plainly obvious uncontroversial moves, usually changing a case of a letter for updates in the MoS.
6. Sometimes some minor merges, but those are rare

WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Was it Marudubshinki who was involved in the debate, RN? Anyway, regarding the title, it seems to have been settled; thank you both for your input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The user, BrandonYusufToropov, who moved it back to the current state was involved in the debate. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I finished taking a look over the thing. My personal descision would have been no consensus (the version with the term added to the end). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, RN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This template was created shortly after an WP:RFC was filled against adminstrator User:Kelly Martin over the issue of her deletion of Userboxes. While Kelly has been told of this RFC, I believe it is highly inappropriate for this template to be used in order for an RFC to take place. Not to mention, some of the wordings of the template have attacked Kelly and does not follow the RFC's rules of displaying a neutral report. I ask that this template should be seriously considered for speedy deletion under the guideline that its only purpose is to attack a user. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just want to add that I changed the text to a more neutral tone and it's been been reverted back to more alarmist and POV wording by several editors. Please watch and at least keep it neutral if nothing else. thanks Rx StrangeLove 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all possible to "keep it neutral" as it is a pure call to arms. Now nominated on WP:TFD. David | Talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree and am glad to see it gone. Rx StrangeLove 07:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted on TFD, I tagged it as deletedpage. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have respeedied this as a horrific abuse of the template namespace, blocked all those involved in its creation, and closed the TfD. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Both the deletion and the blocks are a gross violation of WP:BP and WP:DP. Firebug 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's nice. The template, on the other hand, is an abomination to everything that Wikipedia stands for, and that trumps pretty much everything you can come up with here. Phil Sandifer 17:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am certainly opposed to the blocks. Neither misusing the template namespace, nor soliciting assistannce with a silly problem, are blockable offenses. -- SCZenz 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, this is going to WP:RFC. Firebug 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• As the deletion is clearly out of process (this is not an attack page, it discusses actions and invites comment), I have undelted. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • how is Template:Help Wikiboxes not an attack page? It's clearly aimed at gathering a lynch mob. Rx StrangeLove 17:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked two of the three users that Phil blocked; the third was already indef blocked for other (albeit related) reasons by another admin. I won't re-unblock, but I think some concrete explanation needs to be provided for blocking them. Using WP:IAR to delete inappropriate pages/templates is one thing—using it to block substantial contributors is quote another! -- SCZenz 17:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• In my view they are they same thing -- totally inappropriate, and highly damaging to the project. But I do agree that out-of-process blocks are even more clearly against policy and more damaging to the project than out-of-process deletions. DES ^(talk) 17:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Process is a means to an ends. This template was an active attack on those ends. It is perfectly clear which of those needs to win out. Phil Sandifer 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. I'm reinstating. We do not need a meticulous and exhaustive masturbatory discussion of this. Every part of this template is an insult to the community. It is a wholesale misunderstanding of everything that Wikipedia is. No policy, no rule, and no guideline exists that can possibly outweigh how monumentally bad this situation is. The message that this is wholly unacceptable needs to be clear and draconian. I am reinstating all the blocks and the deletion, and will continue to do so. Phil Sandifer 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the deletion of the template. The blocks are grossly inappropriate; no justification other than "this is a bad situation" has been given. -- SCZenz 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The justification is this - blocks are enacted when people do very bad things on Wikipedia. This template was more harmful than anything Willy on Wheels ever did. Ergo a 48 hour block for its creator and 24 for anyone who edited it to strengthen it is wholly appropriate. Because we construct electric fences with clear "Never do this again, EVER EVER EVER" messages when we have to. Phil Sandifer 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree this template should be deleted, but how on earth do you justify blocking those users? Martin 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What other methods do you think were appropriate of notifying userbox contributors of the ongoing out-of-process deletions? There is no evidence that any of these deletions ever reflected community consensus, and, indeed, the comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin make it clear that most users did not want these boxes deleted. We have a perfectly clear process (WP:TFD) for deleting templates that are felt to be unneeded or destructive. These actions show contempt for this process, and for the Wikipedia community. Firebug 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contempt for the process is increasingly well-deserved, as the entire aftermath of Kelly's actions demonstrates.

"The message that this is wholly unacceptable needs to be clear and draconian. I am reinstating all the blocks and the deletion, and will continue to do so. Phil Sandifer 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)"

1. You're banning people permanantly from Wikipedia for linking to an RfC.
2. You're very much in support of Kelly Martin's abuse of admin

Bias much? Someone else should be handling this, not Snowspinner. And if Snowspinner's going to go on a personal vendetta against people that dare link to a valid RfC that happens to criticise his friends, maybe he needs his sysop privileges removed.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly's my friend? Aww, man, I would have sent her a Christmas card! Phil Sandifer 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually they're only 24 (or maybe 48) hour blocks. -- SCZenz 17:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm. Last time I looked it said "indefinite" - the blocks made by User:Cryptic and User:Neutrality

And in any case Snowspinner here just vowed to "continue to reinstate the blocks", presumably indefinitely. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So, Snowspinner, you think you should be able to delete anything you please, and community consensus be damned? If this is the case, it's clear that you can no longer be trusted with administrative powers. Firebug 17:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So remove them. Phil Sandifer 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly is Wikipedia:Request for de-adminship? AFAIK only an arbcom action or a decreee from jimbo or a self-request can de-admin anyone. It might be argued that that should not be the case, but so it is at present. if I am mistaken, please tell me. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship. Mark¹ 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Help Wikiboxes is clearly an attack page and anyone who continues to create them is blockable. We don't tolerate attack pages anywhere else, we shouldn't tolerate them in this case either. Rx StrangeLove 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it an "attack page" to say that templates are being mass deleted out of process and advising users where to comment if they disagree with this? Firebug 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly aiming to gather a lynch mob together, look at the various versions and the wordings. This is not an "advisement". It's aimed at gathering a group of like minded users to go to the RFC and attack a user whether by signing a view or by creating one of their own. Either way it's not a balanced and neutral message. When I tried to NOP it people kept reverting to a more alarmist version. That says it all right there. Rx StrangeLove 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I second Strangelove's words. Radiant_>|< 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of God of War

User:God of War was indefinitely blocked by User:Neutrality, who gave "trolling" as the reason. Certainly, some edits of God of War warrant a block, for example [15], but I question whether the block should be indefinite, and I don't see a pattern of warning edits on GoW's talk page leading up to the block. I have raised this on User talk:Neutrality but have not yet received a response.-gadfium 05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that Neutrality has unblocked him. Never mind.-gadfium 05:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this comes close to warranting a {{usernameblock}}. Radiant_>|< 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would we block that and not block Mars (talk · contribs) and Ares (talk · contribs)? Uncle G 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Call for edits to Bigfoot page.

My name is Beckjord, and I have NOT called for vandalism, despite some paranoid responses I have seen.

Editing for the betterment of the page is not vandalism.\\

beckjordBeckjord 07:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with editing for the betterment of a page, is that betterment is a very subjective concept. It's hard to use "betterment" or "fair" (such as that proposed group of yours, WAFE) since what may be "better" or "fair" for one group, is not necessarilly true for another group. The best compromise I would suggest, is trying to edit to WP:NPOV, which is a neutral point of view. I think that while it's possible Bigfoot does exist, portions of me don't think so. The best way to present that information is to not make any significant conclusions regarding the sides of a subject, and letting a reader guide him or herself into drawing thier own conclusions. Just my 2 cents.--Toffile 08:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling anyone who disagrees with you "amateurs", and saying you don't care about trying to find consensus with "amateurs" shows that you really don't have any interest in "bettering" the article, but only in imposing your own personal view on it. If you want to retract that comment, then we can talk. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

protecting page, edits and push POV of user:Mikkalai

Hello, please can you unblock Transnistria page? It seems that this bias Admin user:Mikkalai had some large edits there, then he blocked the page. I don't agree with him to removed so much refereces including very neutral from BBC.

He was warned one time by Admin user:TSO1D "rv vandalism -Miky stop " (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33437730&oldid=33426842) Bonaparte talk 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The page was unlocked by another admin, since what was going on, to that admin, was a content dispute, which is not considered vandalism. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to another Admin it was solved, however this was not the first time when he did this. And yes, he did this before to Moldovan language. He always edits the page first, then he blocks the pages on reasons of vandalism. We may delete now this post, since it's solved. But I doubt that he will refrain himself in future from doing this kind of edits. Bonaparte talk 10:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The post will be archived in due time, but, I strongly suggest you sit down with Mikka and trying to find out what issues you both have in this article, submit the both of yourselves to mediation or just not work on the articles for a period of time and just cool off and relax. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 10:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have similar problems can we come to you to tell you? -- Bonaparte talk 10:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte a word of advice - Don't revert. The moment I removed the vprotected notice you reverted - this will achieve nothing in the long run. Edit the article and cooperate with those who have opposite views. This is the only way to achieve a stable and neutral article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert Theresa. But look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33468672&oldid=33468577 another russian friend push the POV fork again. These guys don't want to cooperate and discuss on the talk page first. So much to tell about their democracy... Bonaparte talk 10:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed he's also been rolling back the deletion of Category:Soviet repression structures and people, which had a valid CFD. I'm rolling those back to comply with the CFD decision. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I also redeleted the Category. May need to slap a {{deletedpage}} on it if it gets recreated again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding

Sockpuppet suspicions against Hollow Wilerding expressed by Mel Etitis and Bunchofgrapes have now been confirmed through a CheckUser check by Kelly Martin.[16] The sock accounts, Winnermario and DrippingInk, have been used to support and argue for HW's WP:FAC nominations, creating a false impression of community support for her Featured Article candidates. The most recent such sock support is for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, which became a Featured article on December 19; see Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. At her recent disastrous RFA, HW protests her innocence of the puppeteering allegations,[17] claiming that Winnermario is merely a friend from another website and DrippingInk a neighbor. From the discussion at the RFA, DrippingInk might alternatively be a meatpuppet sharing the same computer—something that's denied by HW, however. The socks have been elaborately buttressed by complimentary and apparently fake dialogue with HW on the respective talkpages and at FAC; compare this recent comment by Bunchofgrapes.
If nobody objects, I will ban the socks indefinitely and block Hollow Wilerding for two weeks for abuse of the FAC process. I'm also considering banning her indefinitely from FAC, since she has egregiously misused it. Any thoughts? Bishonen | talk 11:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

From a brief look at the archived discussion, Majora's Mask probably wouldn't have passed without the puppets' support. If we're satisfied that they are puppets, then something should be done about that (summary removal? FARC? probably best to enlist Raul). Mark¹ 11:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Raul has a nice link to this thread on his talkpage to start the new year with when he wakes up. As for satisfied, well, I don't rate a personal opinion, but if we trust CheckUser, it seems they are.[18] Anybody who's interested should also click on Bunchofgrapes' telling comment here. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

I fully support blocking the two sockpuppets. :) Ambi 12:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Lucky Raul! I also support blocking the puppeteers immediately and indefinitely. [[Sam Korn]] 12:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The puppets have to be excluded. On reflection, the block of Hollow for a week is at least a start. Geogre 13:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I have blocked the puppets indefinitely; the only question is the Hollow Wilerding account. Only a one-week block, say you, Geogre? Maybe that's enough. I hope to get Raul's input on the question of a FAC ban that I raised. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking the Hollow Wilerding account does raise the problem that AFAIK, blocks are intended to be for preventing harm rather than for punishment. I wouldn't shed too many tears for her, though. Mark¹ 14:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, we're not going to block in revenge for the harm she has done to the FAC process (even though besides the puppetry it includes general disruption, see comments and links at the RFA). Perhaps a ban from FAC, with blocks as appropriate in case the ban is ignored, would be enough. What a business, though. :-( I wonder if anybody has ever been banned from FAC before. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I now understand that the entire community has been against me since the day I signed up here. This displeases me greatly. Okay, I have some stuff to tell you people. User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario and myself, User:Hollow Wilerding all share the same computer. They are not sockpuppets of mine, they are merely a sibling and a friend who is living with me. If you choose not to believe this, that is your loss, and your problem. Not mine. I was hiding this from you because I believed that if it had been revealed then I would have been blocked for inappropriate usage of Wikipedia. User:Winnermario no longer accesses Wikipedia because she is busy — she is currently studying English literature, and User:DrippingInk logs on occasionally as he is an artist. I am mortified to know that the entire community has been against me because I am different, as some of my contributions have been truly genuine, especially Luxurious (song), Shakira, and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. And no, Majora's Mask would have definitely passed even if they did not vote on the FAC, as it had five other support votes, and an object or two or something withdrawn. If I am blocked for misuse of Wikipedia, which actually is not misuse, I will be filing an RfC. It is not fair for us to be blocked because we feared we would be treated as sockpuppets of each other because we all share the same computer. That is why we kept it a secret. I apologize for any harm I've caused you, but this is the real me. I would appreciate it if I just edited the encyclopedia the way I want to — I'm disappointed, I must say though, as this is a ridiculous way to start the new year, but hey, this is Wikipedia. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes the three of us so special? We were unable to edit on the Wikipedia community without several users lashing out at us. I did absolutely nothing to get to this position today. DrippingInk did not do anything either; Winnermario did, but we're going to exclude her from this conversation. I contribute to Wikipedia almost everyday, and have been attempting to elevate numerous articles to substantial quality. I do more than some users who have been on this site for two years have. Yet I am still treated as though we're all sockpuppets of each other. Have any of you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I was only doing my best to make some articles become excellent, and never intended to stir any controversy. Actually, if I might say, it was all of the other users who stirred the brew. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's what I was looking for! This whole thing really is quite a shame, as you are such a good editor. Although HW has done some... questionable things, during her time here, I think this is the real deal guys and gals. If you talk to her only a little bit you'll find that all those quotes that are spread around of hers aren't an accurate representation of who she really is. And if her roomies do nothing but support her in everything she does on here, how is that any different than a lot of the voting that goes on in this place anyway? Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 15:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel like for the first time on Wikipedia I can show my true colours now that everyone knows who DrippingInk and Winnermario are. If people want to see the real me, then User:Search4Lancer is right: I can do it now! Perhaps I should have announced this a little while ago. I was bottled up from the community because I feared for my life on this website (does that sound just a bit unusual to be saying)? I hereby request the unblocking of User:DrippingInk, as he did not do anything to deserve this. Actually, he currently is unaware that he is even blocked; User:Winnermario can remain blocked, as she no longer accesses Wikipedia, but please remove the notice saying that she is a sock puppet. She is not! I just want to help the community, but it seemed as though everyone was attempting to prevent this. I will ensure that DrippingInk no longer votes on any of the FACs I nominate. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bishonen really despises me. I have been finding messages posted by him regarding User:Winnermario and myself in several places around Wikipedia. A grudge can only be held for so long. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I may just be more cynical than you, Lancer, but this was hardly a heat of the moment denial. Hollow and "DrippingInk"'s bogus conversations indicate a quite impressive level of deviousness. Mark¹ 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogus? No. Those conversations were the two of us socializing in an attempt that our IP addresses would not be discovered. You have to understand that we brought no harm to Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, it is you and the other group of Wikipedians inflicting the harm by throwing every specific detail at us, regardless of what it is to ensure our blocks. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have been bold and stripped this article of its featured article status, since it achieved that status through outright fraud. Nandesuka 16:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your effort is futile. It received enough votes to become featured, and I spent a lot of time on it to ensure it achieve featured article status. Should it be stripped, I will be taking extra measures. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article, discounting the two support votes from DrippingInk and Winnermario, received 6 support votes and three oppose votes, roughly 67% support. I'm not familiar with the percentage required to become a FA, but this seems borderline to me. There really aren't any "extra measures" you can take, AFAIK, except to resubmit it — which, if it is as good as you say it is, it should pass with little difficulties. Hermione1980 16:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly! If the article is removed of its FA status, and I get blocked permanently, what kind of an example is Wikipedia setting? "You can accomplish something, however because you are afraid of an IP-sharing issue, we're going to remove your hard work, and remove you as well". —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Such as what? Nandesuka 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I will file an RfC. It is not fair to remove these pages of their statuses until this situation is resolved, because it makes the rest of Wikipedia look like a powerhouse that insists they are always right. The subject in general—me, in this case—looks helpless and has no chance of saving herself. Anyway, next case to ensure my block. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OK. I have stripped The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask of it's featured article status, and posted a message on WP:AN indicating that I have done so, and why. You can go ahead and file an RFC if you wish. My personal opinion is that you would be better served by apologizing to the community and help the article pass the FAC process legitimately than by filing an RFC complaining that I have undone what you accomplished through fraud. But you have to make your own decisions. Nandesuka 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly! If the article is removed of its FA status, and I get blocked permanently, what kind of an example is Wikipedia setting? "You can accomplish something, however because you are afraid of an IP-sharing issue, we're going to remove your hard work, and remove you as well". —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC).
        • I posted this message above your comment. As you stripped it of its FA status, I am going to be restoring it, as you have exhibited a disgusting attitude toward this website. Hermione1980 made a comment that it would have passed anyhow, and I have decided that it would be best for me to take serious actions. Never remove someone else's hard-earned work because they committed "fraud", which was not believed to be so. Wikipedia is going to be the end of itself since it has users who are arrogant due to a hierachy that was formed by the people who materialised the site; admins, which should not be existing on this site. Starting off the new year by hurting my presence on Wikipedia is going to be regretful. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that it would have passed anyway. I said that it was borderline. I also said I wasn't familiar with the guidelines for FAC. Hermione1980 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are right, and therefore, I apologize. Please forgive me. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Apology accepted. No problem. Hermione1980 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the FA status of this article. The general rule has nothing to do with the number of support votes, and everything to do with whether objections are being met. Sockpuppeting in support of a FA is thus a kind of useless procedure - unless Raul has dramatically changed his evaluation procedure, what he does is look at the objections and see if they're actionable and substantial. If not, the article gets promoted. Phil Sandifer 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mark this date down: I agree with Snowspinner 100% here. FAC is not a majority or supermajority case: it is a unanimity case. There can be no substantial objections. Thus, it possibly shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Further the "extraordinary measures" threat, along with the "the whole site is organized against me" (should that have been "we?"), indicates some very unhelpful attitudes, attitudes that don't belong on Wikipedia. Deception is never a good policy, and achieving your goals by lying is evil. The blocks are in place for lying, at least three times, and attempting to avoid the first block by setting up a new account. Setting up yet another account, as appears to be taking place, is only going to result in wider blocks, as well as attempts to actually contact some of the people this user is pretending to be. Geogre 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What strikes me about this mess is that, taking him at his word, from the get go, User:Hollow Wilerding was aware that the activities of himself, User:Winnermario and User:DrippingInk could be taken as sockpuppet activity, since they shared the same IP. And yet, instead of coming right out and saying, "Okay, we got three people here sharing the same computer - we are not sockpuppets, we are just two siblings and a roomie," they go to great lengths to actively conceal this information. Real conversations or no, those conversations were done in an effort to deceive. If the three of them had come clean from the beginning, and perhaps promised not to act on the same things to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, it could have been worked out. Instead, they opted for skullduggery. This does not engender trust at all.

My suggestions: Strip the article of FA status with leave to resubmit for FAC by someone else. Next, and this is the most generous thing we should do: remove the sockpupper notice from User:Winnermario and unblock both User:DrippingInk and User:Hollow Wilerding on the condition that the two agree not to vote on the same actions, or have their votes invalidated (and notices on their user pages to explain the shared IP situation). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we never told anyone because when you think about it, it isn't really any of your business. This is Wikipedia, and some of its users could be living in New Zealand or Europe or South America for all we know; we don't have to reveal our mundane identities. The article should remain with its status, and this account I am currently operating, User:Hollow Wilerding, is going to merge with User:DrippingInk so that the controversy can be placed aside. A new account, User:Siblings CW, is being created today for a fresh, clean slate. And also because today is the beginning of the new year. ;) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

To quote you above: "It is not fair for us to be blocked because we feared we would be treated as sockpuppets of each other because we all share the same computer. That is why we kept it a secret." (my emphasis) So to take you at your word, you hid this from everyone because you knew that sockpuppeting accusations would be leveled if people found out. And so they have. Like I said, the most sensible thing would have been to be upfront about it right at the start, but you chose badly, and have damaged your own credibility as a result, regardless of how good your edits are. I would suggest that User:Siblings CW have a notice on their user page about how it is a shared computer, and also stay away from voting on the same articles, or I fear that this will blow up again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A notice on their page saying it's a shared computer? What's the point of that? Plenty of us have let someone else use our computer from time to time, and you don't see us roaming around with such a sticker on our foreheads. And they can't bloody well vote on the same things now anyway, as they're now sharing a username. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 19:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking of User:Siblings CW, not the shared account. That will still appear to come from the same IP and look like a sock. My suggestion is to pre-empt further accusations in future, rather like the shared IP notice on various anon-IP pages. That is, if they want to prevent this periodically flaring up every now and then and go through all this again, they should be up front about this from the beginning. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's what we're going to do about the article. I am leaving it on the featured list for the time being, along with its featured tag. The FARC will continue, with the probable result being to remove its featured status. Assuming that happens, Hollow will then have the opportunity to renominate it to the FAC. Raul654 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, here's what I'm going to do about the editor. I deduce from Raul's message that he's against banning HW from FAC; therefore, I will instead block the Hollow Wilerding account for one week for disruption, abusive sockpuppetry, and inveterate deception. I'm sorry, but User:DrippingInk will remain indefinitely blocked, since I can't postulate that HW has any credibility at all, after all her twists and turns, always with the word "honesty" in her mouth. I have also blocked the new sock account User:Siblings CW indefinitely. To Hollow Wilerding: if you have any interest in continuing to edit this site, don't evade this block by creating any new accounts whatsoever during the block. If you have any more sock accounts already established, don't use them while you're blocked. Note that during the block, you can still edit your own talk page, and people will be watching it. You can also e-mail any administrator, or e-mail the Wikipedia:Mailing list, if you wish to protest the block. I'm cross-posting this message to User talk:Hollow Wilerding. Any objections, comments? Bishonen | talk 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Further input requested: Wikipedia is not a battleground

Well, I don't know, I really don't. HW's response on her talkpage to my block, see previous message, contains among other things a legal threat (though admittedly a pretty ridiculous one—" I may even go as far as suing the Wikipedia Foundation for misuse of allowing its users to block innocent victims") and a promise that "when I come back, it isn't going to be pretty. A new account is once again going to be established for DrippingInk and myself to use come our return." IOW, a new multiuser (that's not allowed) sock (not that, either) account to replace the one I blocked a few hours ago. Going by past edit warring on WP:FAC and recent activities (see her contribs for reversions of FAC, FARC, and sockpuppet templates today before she was blocked), I don't suppose it is going to be very pretty. I really don't know. Is there any point in keeping this user around at all? Wikipedia is not a battleground. She has always treated it as one, very much including when she edited as Winnermario. Should the present block be lengthened, in the hope of making the user more aware of realities before an RFAR becomes necessary? I won't do any further blocking myself, since, for one thing, HW is increasingly claiming the whole thing is a Bishonen grudgefest. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a cooling off period for HW is definitely warranted. Raul654 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One that's infinitely long, I hope. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since input was requested... I think the whole thing is just weird, and agree that HW needs to cool off, and any new accounts created to eavde the block should be blocked. I don't really take the legal threat seriously here. Do agree strongly with WP:NOT a battleground, and would like to see constructive edits from HW afterward that take this into account. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we turn legal threats into grounds for permabanning?--Tznkai 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a battleground? Tell them. On-topic, though: I think perhaps He/She/They should get to keep editing at one account, but make it their choice: if it's the new User:Siblings CW, so be it, as long as HW is then blocked indefinitely. If that lets him/her/they feel like it's a "fresh start", all the better. I feel like we already have all the evidence we need that this user should not be allowed to run multiple accounts, though. A corollary of that seems to be that as long as HW maintains that "a new account is once again going to be established for DrippingInk and myself to use come our return", the main account should remain blocked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter what side of that you fall on, 142kb of bitching is inexcusable--Tznkai 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent trolling there! I give it an 8 out of 10, but I'm the East German judge on these things. Phil Sandifer 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit to slight confusion of what your definition of trolling is here. Care to explain?--Tznkai 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bringing in a totally off-topic issue as an ad hominem attack. Phil Sandifer 03:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tabling the impending discussion on whether accusing someone of trolling is an attack, ad hominem implies "against the person". Exactly who is being attacked here?--Tznkai 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not really helping anything either, you must admit.--Sean|Black 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bunchofgrapes that this user shouldn't have more than one account. But I'm very much against the "sibling" account notion also, as confusing, and a bypass of the normal way of changing one's username (which is to ask a bureaucrat to... change one's username). It seems to me to be a blatant attempt to obfuscate the sockpuppet issue. And with (supposedly) two people using one account, which of them is accountable for what the account does? It's not desirable to provide problem editors with extra opportunities of blaming others for their actions, and that's why such accounts are discouraged. I've blocked User:Siblings CW and reverted the redirects to it of Hollow Wilerding's userpages. Any admin can unblock the siblings account, but I'd like to be on record that I'm against it. I won't unblock it. Bishonen | talk 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since they've just been blocked for using two accounts under the same IP, it seems illogical to disallow one account for them. This way, at least vote-stacking or similar antics won't be a problem. Also, "accountability"? If there's any serious problem, we have no more hard facts than the IP anyway. When they share one, they just have to take the blame for each other's actions, but that's life. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when weren't sockpuppet accounts allowed? They are discouraged, but they certainly aren't disallowed. Furthermore, nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE does it say that you cannot have a multi-user account. Bishonen, you obviously have some reading up to do. You are pulling policies that don't exist out of your ass just to block HW, and that is completely unacceptable. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Search4Lancer, that's a lot of ignorance and bad faith you impute to me, and quite a tone you use to express your certainties in. Sockpuppet accounts used for votestacking or for creating an impression of greater support aren't "discouraged", they're outlawed by official policy: please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Public accounts are disallowed. Bishonen | talk 03:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sockpuppet accounts used for votestacking et al are not allowed, but that is not what you said. You said sockpuppet accounts aren't allowed. In addition, it says nowhere in the policies that public/shared accounts are not allowed. Fine and swell if you're going to point me to some other page, but if it's to be considered a policy, it needs to be on the policy page. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Public accounts are disallowed (that's an account where the password is broadcast or widely shared), but shared accounts do fall into a grey area: isn't User:Hydnjo two people? (I could be confused there.) There's no policy that I know against it, though it's not a good idea. As for holding such an account responsible, whatever one does, both are responsible for. All with a big grain of salt as far as believing that this actually is two people.

Bishonen is spot-on regarding both sockpuppet policy and Search4Lancer's incivility. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to be in any way rude here, and the only effect being rude is likely to have is to make other people discount your opinions. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes - It is very difficult to please everybody with 'civility' when such blatant idiocy is rampant. I really don't care one way or another what people think of me. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hydnjo is, indeed, a husband-and-wife team of editors. While that's not made clear by any sort of disclaimer on their user page, the photo captioned as "Heidi & Joe" is probably sufficient... android79 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best we tread with caution. It is not impossible what Hollow's saying is true, so I will be unblocking the siblings account. Hollow still not use this account for the duration of the block against her main account, however. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the following from User:Hollow Wilerding's user talk page:

...Wow. I am devastated. So multi-users are not allowed, are they? Then we have a huge issue. If multi-users are not allowed, why have User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario been blocked? If we can't have a shared account, then we have no choice but to access individual accounts, and as it stands, that's going to be under the same IP address! Yet for some peculiar reason, both of the accounts in mention above have been blocked! That means both William and Mariah will have to create new accounts, yet I am positive User:Bishonen will block them again because (s)he will assume that they are sock puppets all over again! What a terrible issue this is! I hereby demand myself to be unblocked so that I can file the RfC right now. You seem to have cut a thread.

1. You never told me that a multi-user account was prohibited, so therefore, you call it "another sock puppet account".
2. You continue to believe that User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are sock puppets.
3. You have failed to register Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
4. It doesn't appear as though you read any of my responses and comments at the administrators' board. Does this indicate you wanted to ensure my block?
5. It was my decision not to tell the entire Wikipedia community that we shared a computer. Therefore, you cannot assume bad faith, yet you never assumed good faith either.
6. User:Bishonen has abused his/her sysop abilities, and should be stripped of them immediately.

—Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the user who has been blocked; 1) she seems to have been blocked in an attempt to exclude her from the conversation at the administrators' board in order for her to receive punishment without any objections or responses; 2) everyone believes the other accounts to be sock puppets which indicates that no one is following Wikipedia:Assume good faith; 3) is there a reason that User:Hollow Wilerding be punished for this in the first place? If there really are three separate users accessing the same computer, there is no reason to block all three of them because they did not want to speak the truth. This entire accusation is a form of abuse and also an example of over-powered admins whom have the ability to taunt oneself a bad name. Since no sysop has verifiable references or sources that User:Hollow Wilerding is one person, this block is unacceptable. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 64.231.128.57 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding's block extended for block evasion

64.231.128.57 immediately above is according to Kelly Martin's CheckUser check probably being used by Hollow Wilerding. It's in the same dynamic address range as the IP Hollow Wilerding posted from before she was blocked; it could theoretically have been used by another customer of the same ISP. But I don't believe that for a moment. (And no, assume good faith actually doesn't mean "pretend you're stupid"; it means assume good faith, and if the assumption is disproved, so be it.) Here are some curious coincidences besdies CheckUser:

1. The newbie anon is a wholehearted supporter of HW, which, not to put too fine a point on it, is a very unusual attitude outside of the small flock of users who live in HW's computer. No single user voted Support on HW's RFA.
2. HW has specifically expressed frustration at not being able to post to WP:ANI, and the anon has remedied that by moving a selected post from her talkpage here. The anon also actually raises the same point. Another similarity is that they share the same obsession with WP:AGF, perhaps the only policy "they" know the name of, yet probably not the first that most people would refer to in a case like this.
3. After posting here, 64.231.128.57 went on to edit several pop music articles, which is HW's great interest on Wikipedia. Please note especially that the anon edited two articles, Garlic and Mariah Carey, that have nothing in common except the special interest HW takes in bringing them to FAC quality, as shown on her talkpage (now deleted, but see the history).
4. 64.231.128.57 talks like HW. Some people may consider this a subtle point, but I'm confident they'll know what I mean if they've read HW's articles before copyediting, or her input on talkpages. HW's writing style is very characteristic. Consider for instance the anon's phrase "over-powered admins whom have the ability to taunt oneself a bad name".

IMO these points together easily amount to 100% certainty. I've blocked 64.231.128.57 for 8 hours only, on Kelly Martin's advice, to minimize any risk of collateral damage. I have also extended Hollow Wilerding's block to two weeks, starting now, for egregious block evasion and the attempt above to falsely insinuate support for her position as expressed on her talkpage (go read it, folks!). If any more IPs from the same range should appear to edit HW's special-interest articles and/or support her position, I encourage admins to block them on sight. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Appears entirely conclusive to me. I support the actions. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bunchofgrapes. Hollow Wilerding implicitly admits the deception in her reply to my block notification. Perhaps more startlingly, she vows to continue to evade her block: "I will continue to log on to separate IP addresses as long as I am capable of in order to boycott this notorious situation." I ask again: is this a user we want to keep around? Take a look at her talkpage for assorted vague threats ("Prepare yourselves for hell"). Bishonen | talk 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting worse: Concrete legal threat now [19]. Hollow is doing everything (s)he can to make sure the answer to Bishonen's last question is "no". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the appropriate response to persistent legal threats? Blocked indefinitely, and protect the talk page? Nandesuka 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't say who she's filing a lawsuit against, so can't be considered a legal threat, as you don't know. Maybe she got hit by a drunk earlier, and is filing a lawsuit against him for pain and suffering? You don't know. This is a good editor that you're just doing everything in your power to hammer away at. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Per Bishonen above, AGF =/= PYS (pretend you're stupid). [[Sam Korn]] 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Search4Lancer, you must be kidding. 23:18 1 Jan 2006: [20] Hollow Wilerding "may even go as far as suing the Wikipedia Foundation for misuse of allowing its users to block innocent victims". 00:09 2 Jan 2006: [21] You yourself tell her "Don't make legal threats. It's immature, and makes you look as such. Legal threats are also a good way to get oneself blocked forever." And now you want anyone to believe that today's [22] and [23] ("Legal action is commencing") might be about a separate matter? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it is a distinct possibility. A small one, but nonetheless. :-) Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 01:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage User:ThomAsFISH

Please read the user page User:ThomAsFISH. Most of his edits are vandalism, and this user page seems to be a catalog of his vandalism. I Don't know if he has gone on to be another person or what, but I don't want to remove his page myself. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanked the page save for the vandal block notice. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Porn box covers

I'm a bit concerned about this one. Firstly, though, let me state for the record a few things to get them out of the way:

• I find porn to be vile and exploitatious (if that is indeed a word - you know what I mean however)
• I find fairuse images to be... not so good, should we say?

Anyway, have a look at this user's uploads. Basically, they are all box covers of porn DVDs, all tagged as fair use. Don't you think we are skating on thin ice here? Don't we frown on fair use images? There seems to be a hell of a lot of them on DVD box covers. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The ones that are orphaned clearly can't be fair use, and so should be listed for deletion (it's only fair to give the uploader the opportunity to attach any that he's missed to the appropriate articles). But other than that, ones like Image:Minka vhs 98235V1.jpg do seem to be pretty good fair-use candidates:

• they're web-sized (we might want to downscale a few to the size called for by the infobox, but I've found none that are big)
• they're intended for publicity
• free images of the subjects are very difficult to obtain (although not impossible, as the comparable Image:Tera Patrick 2.jpg shows)
• they represent a tiny proportion of the overall work concerned (the DVD movie), and no loss of income for the copyright holder is forseeable (who buys a DVD just to look at the cover?).

It would be better if the DVD cover images were used for the articles corresponding to the DVDs themselves (gosh, I hope we never have a bunch of those), but I think it's not unreasonable to use a DVD cover showing the star of a film on the star's page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The ones I've looked at don't seem to be very graphic (and no more graphic than you'd expect for articles on porn stars). There seems to be a widespread practice of using album covers to illustrate musicians' articles (not just articles on the albums themselves); I can't see any difference between that and using these to illustrate articles on porn stars. Quite why we have articles on porn stars I don't know. Mark¹ 14:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It relates to Wikipedia's definitions of notability; the Hebrew Wikipedia, for example, purged those out. Back to the images, this type of format seems to offer more detail, fairuse-wise, but I'm unsure whether that makes a difference or not, legally. El_C 14:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, that's the book! El_C 15:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. has listed these images for deletion, saying "Unfortunately, while fair use is claimed, they are not used to illustrate the DVD in question (but rather the subject featured on the box cover), which goes against WP:FAIR.". Anyway, this discussion doesn't belong on AN/I: it's an unexceptional fair-use/IFD matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure it belongs here: my question was a specific call for advise on a particular matter. That's what I established WP:AN for. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it's "exploitative" :) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic numerals (page content)

After some wikipedians had trouble accepting the WP:RM (see above #Arabic_numerals_requested_move) and started Talk:Arabic numerals/naming as "disgruntled users spin-off", but more or less "controllable", protracted edit warring on the Arabic numerals page itself has far from stopped.

It appears extremely difficult to direct users who want to impose either the "arabic" or the "hindu" POV in the page towards the ongoing discussions at talk:Arabic numerals, prior to proceeding with major swaps/"cultural superiority"-type intrusions in the article.

OK, so far, but now user:DPSingh, whom, as far as I know, just comes out of a week of block, gives it another go: diff

This is not 3RR (one of this user's first edits after a week of block), yet "mildly" disturbing, on top of all the other disturbance going on.

I post this here, while:

• Blocking the article would not solve anything in this stage IMHO;
• Sysops keeping an eye on this might be beneficial (I think several of you do this already: thanks for your patience and efforts!)
• Maybe act very strict on disturbing behaviour: help users see, that whatever the cultural differences, it's best to tackle differences on the talk page, and not by POV-pushing/slow revert warring directly on the article.

Anybody any ideas? --Francis Schonken 14:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Obesanes

Please can someone help out with this particular article? --Blackwhick 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a relatively routine AFD debate to me. It's not an attack page or damaging anyone, let's just see if anyone comes along to claim it's real. David | Talk 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Islamist terrorism

64.229.170.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of either Yuber or Farhansher, see article history - other users have been banned by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with much less evidence than this (blocking two friends of mine permanantly with no evidence or check for edit-warring with these two same users) so yeah.

IP has no contributions other than reverting on that article using edit summaries that suggest it's an existing user, and only appeared a short while after Yuber got to his maximum 3 reverts on the article (history) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't used up my 3 reverts on the article. My 3rd edit was to comment out the paragraph and ask for another source, so I still have one more revert left if I choose to use it. Also, if you look at the contribs of that anon, you'll see I made an edit to the talk page 2 minutes after he or she did, and the address doesn't seem to be an open proxy anyways. I suspect it's just Farhansher editing while logged out.Yuber^(talk) 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't "get" 3 reverts. That's just what it takes to get blocked under WP:3RR. Stop revert warring now, or I will start blocking parties on both sides for revert warring. Nandesuka 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think 64.xxx IPs are available in my country . And I wont travel thousands of miles to revert one article . Cheers F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article until disputes are resolved. If the edit wars continue I will protect it comepletely. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the semi-protection policy more closely. Do not semi-protect in the case of edit warring simply to stop the anonymous editors. Semi-protection is only for severe vandalism. It's unprotected now. And never protect after the edit warriors are already blocked for 3RR. Protection is harmful. Dmcdevit·t 02:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it wasn't just edit wars it was anonymous editor who were accused ob being sockpuppets who were violation the 3rr rule, which that would be considered vandalism. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Violating 3RR is edit warring, not vandalism. In any case they were already blocked and have not come back. Please be more careful. Dmcdevit·t 02:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From WP:PPol "A temporary protection is used for: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request." There were at least e different anon ip addresses which violated the 3rr rule, the protection would have been justified based upon the above rule even if they hadn't violated the 3rr policy, but in this case that the anons were showing a disregard for the rules of wikipedia it was definitly justified. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that 1) considering they were (and are) already blocked, there is no edit war to stop, and 2) semi-protection is not to be used for edit wars. It is only for severe vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the Full Protection policy, and then applying it to the Semi-protection policy, In that case I should have fully protected it, as semi protection is only for vandalism and full protection is for edit wars. However since there was a large number of anon users, it looked like that after those 3 were banned that more would come. But either way it looks like they are gone. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

64.229.170.117 is neither Yuber nor Farhansher; the technical evidence is conclusive. Nor do I see any evidence of malfeasance on the part of the individual editing from that IP address. Please refrain from making wild accusations of sockpuppetry. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin out of control on Islamist Terrorism

Some admin unlocked Islamist Terrorism where a group of islamist editors had gotten it locked; instead of discussing openly, they waited until now and are now revert warring it again.

Muslim admin Svest user:FayssalF (side comment, that's a lousy thing to do, signing some other name than your username) jumped in and blocked two users who were standing in the way of the islamist POV pushers, while letting editors like Yuber (who is under RFAR sanction not to be a disruption on islamic topics) get away scot-free and refusing to block any of the islamists who were edit warring.

I've now used two reverts and been accused of being a sockpuppet. This is beyond control. Request re-locking to the version from Phroziac.

Also appears user Snakes is possibly a Yuber sockpuppet. Low number of edits, similar topics, edited talk to put in a Yuber comment.

Ask on WP:RFPP and stop calling people names. -Splash^talk 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Second report: As a response to my reporting here, user:FayssalF instituted a retaliatory block. I make my apologies for what will likely be termed "block evasion" but his conduct in blocking me for reporting here, and then placing a report on his talk page demanding I provide evidence (which he knew I could not do) of Yuber's violations is bullshit.

Statement by User:FayssalF

I was on a spritual break when I noticed on my watchilst Islamist terrorism popping up and bouncing non-stop. I went to have a look at its hist page and noticed the 3RR being neglected and kicked off like a football! I set the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on fire:

User:66.69.139.191

• First kick [24]
• Second kick [25]
• Third kick [26]
• Fourth kick [27]

Action

• User being informed about the matter
• Ipblocklist

User:66.246.246.254

• First kick [28]
• Second kick [29]
• Third kick [30]
• Fourth kick [31]
• Fifth [32]
• Sixth [33]

Action

• User being informed about the matter
• User already banned reverts with a sneaky comment
• User:Jayjg blocking proxy

User:Snakes

• First kick [34]
• Second kick [35]
• Third kick [36]
• Fourth kick [37]
• Fifth [38]

Action

• User being informed about the matter
• User questions why
• Ipblocklist

User:66.69.131.124

• First kick [39]
• Second kick [40]
• Third kick [41]
• Fourth kick [42]

Action

• User being informed about the matter
• Ipblocklist

I didn't want to get this homework! Seriously! It was up to the notifier to bring the board their justifications on why this islamist Godzilla (and all the names on my talk page that never bother me - cool beens!) admin who shut the doors to the angels, the lovely flying birds, at their face! But, anyway, for the sake to get rid of the ist syndrome, I decided to state that this time will serve as a testemony and I'll be tolerant as I am judging on a per case basis. I also has to add that tolerance is too much in demand and risking having a an eco bubble burst would be no good thing. I hope I presented my stuff clearly and happy to answer any reasonable question whatsover! Cheers -- Szvest 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount , Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll

The technical evidence indicates that User:DisposableAccount, User:Paulcardan, User:Llbb, and User:Bbll are all the same editor. I've blocked Llbb and Bbll, but I wasn't sure which of the other two to block, since DisposableAccount is the older one, but Paulcardan appears to be the real one. They should both be blocked, one permanently, and one temporarily to discourage sockpuppeting; I leave it to other admins as to which. Also, I've permanently blocked User:Marx marvelous; though the technical evidence tying it to the others isn't strong, it's still obviously a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple accounts belonging to the same person is not the same as these accounts being sockpuppets, and is not cause for blocking. Sockpuppetry is abusing multiple accounts to create the illusion of agreement, not simply owning several accounts. As the blocking admin, the onus is upon you to demonstrate this deception has been undertaken; technical evidence alone is not evidence of sockpuppetry. User:Bbll appears to have no edits at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Jayjg#Check user request. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In future, when you're posting to say you've blocked someone, and you have both technical and circumstancial evidence, please provide links to the latter in your post telling us about your blocks. If you'd done so in this case, I wouldn't have wasted the last ten minutes looking through their contribs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Finlay, with respect, the sensible thing would be not to comment until you know the facts. Perhaps you could ask a question in future, rather than weighing in with an opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not how things work, at least not how they should. When someone blocks an account, they need to explain their reasoning. They shouldn't wait to be questioned, and its not a respectful use of others' time to have that evidence, but not to bother presenting it in the forum where they announce the block. The burden of proof lies entirely with the blocking admin. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobblewik and User:Talrias

Would an uninvolved admin please review user:Talrias's blocks of Bobblewik (talk · contribs)? Talrias is involved in a content dispute with Bobblewik over the latter's delinking of stand-alone years (like 2006), and is arguably leading the opposition to it. He has also several times tried to delete the section of the MoS that Bobblewik is relying on; yet despite that involvement has blocked Bobblewik twice (the latest for a week) for following what the MoS currently says. I have unblocked Bobblewik because I feel Talrias is too involved. I did this only with a view to restoring the status quo ante, but in general I dislike undoing other admins' blocks and do it only rarely. I've also expressed a view on the Bobblewik issue and so feel uncomfortable being involved. It would be very helpful if someone could take a look with fresh eyes. I left a note for Talrias here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's clean up a couple of misconceptions; I haven't blocked him twice for "what the MoS currently says", I have blocked him firstly for what I saw as bot edits despite not having permission to have a bot, and secondly for ignoring pleas to stop his edits given the significant opposition to them. Do you actually disagree with the reason for the block, or do you just disagree that I should have blocked him? If it was the former, you should not have removed it but asked me to explain my reasoning (which I would of course be happy to do), but if it was the latter, you should have unblocked him and reblocked him yourself. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to you blocking in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute: not just a dispute you're involved in, but one that you are leading (and may even have started). I am tired of admins being accused of being "involved" over every irrelevant interaction with a user, and equally tired of admins undoing other people's blocks, so please believe me: this is uncharacteristic of me. However, this is a crystal clear case of an admin being directly and deeply involved in the very content dispute that triggered the block. Please don't block Bobblewik again over this particular issue. In fairness, I should add that I agree that it may be inappropriate to use a bot to make contentious edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe you figured out my (admittedly shallow) motives so quickly! I of course blocked him so I could gain advantage in a discussion, and not because he had previously ignored a number of requests to stop his edits, nor that there was significant opposition to the section of the MOS in question. Come on SlimVirgin, your accusations are ludicrous. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked. There is a lot of dispute at the moment as to that section of the MOS, which was slipped in with minimal input; it's very clear that, at the least, there is no consensus about what do with linking dates. This means that someone should not be running unlinking them at rapid-fire speed with what amounts to a bot. Bobblewik has been asked to, at the very least, stop making mass edits until this is worked out, and had previously agreed to, before silently beginning them again this morning. If he wants, he can create a seperate account for his bot edits (or bot-like tool edits); else I feel we have little option than to block his main account until this is worked out. Ambi 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the word you were looking for is "option"--Tznkai 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Eeh, my grammar not so good this morning... Ambi 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that firstly, users should only ever make large quantities of style-based changes if it is absolutely necessary to do so, because really it would be best if they were fixed in the course of ordinary editing; moreover, making masses of changes to what are essentially minor wikisyntax issues, but cause a big difference in the method of page linking, seems to me to be an unwise thing to do. If there was consensus for both this change and Bobblewik's bot/bot-like tool, and he was using a separate account for the edits, then I suppose it would be OK. But he is using his main account, which is not generally in accordance with Wikipedia norms (Wikipedia:Bots etc.) and performing a change which does not have consensus. Thus Talrias was perfectly correct in blocking him, since he had been warned - as his talk page indicates - and had clearly not heeded the warnings given. Bots are quick to run, but a pain to revert, due to the large quantity of edits. There was thus no other approach that Talrias could have taken. In addition, the accusations of Talrias' involvement being the sole origin of his intervention is a non-sequitur at best, and an attempt to claim fault by impugning ethics and motives at worst. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do think that Talrias was at least somewhat involved- not to the extent that s/he shouldn't have blocked Bobblewik, though.--Sean|Black 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to move that the term "involved" be banned from all discussions of admin conflict of interest. Can I get a second? :-P --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (who has not been following the discussion)

You've got a point, actually—but then everybody would say "in conflict", "connected", "currently married to", and so on :).--Sean|Black 07:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Random thoughts: I fully agree that it was right to block Bobblewik for making large-scale changes without consensus (when will people learn that others get pissed off by that?). However, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict. I've long felt the lack of a simple "request for help"-type page where we could call for assistance, without the rambling discussion that this page always fills up with. Mark¹ 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiCritic

I have indefinitely blocked WikiCritic (talk · contribs) as a troll and an account created solely to disrupt Wikipedia. He is the creator and sole editor of the ridiculous crap at WP:LEGAL, and those are the only edits he has made. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I support this action. Obvious role account with no article-space edits whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII

Having been blocked for 48 hours for disruption, RJII commenced the exact same behaviour on his return at economics of fascism. He refuses to discuss edits on the talkpage and has made the article very difficult to edit. This behaviour has scared off other editors. He is also agitating to have a page unlocked with the aim of creating a POV fork, which was one of the actions that had him blocked in the first place. The consensus on talk was clear that the article needed fixing, and the first step was to change its name. RJII insists that this contravenes the vote on AfD, because the latter did not call for a redirect. However, the content of the article is largely the same and a redirect has not been created, only the title changing. I've asked him to discuss edits on talk and his response was to tell me I was "disruptive". James James 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note for him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Brazil4Linux again

Looks like User:Brazil4Linux is avoiding his 1 month block for gaming his 3RR block with sockpuppetry. Can I get someone with Check User to verify that this is indeed one more sockpuppet? User in question is User:Dungeon Siege / Special:Contributions/Dungeon_Siege. I think if this is proven to be him going around his 1 month block I think its time to make it indef. Thanks in advance.  ALKIVAR™ 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and while your at it could you also verify that these are definately him (they all had too much in common, but i'd like definitive confirmation).  ALKIVAR™ 12:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's not a sock, he should be looked into anyways for repeatedly posting copyrighted material to HD DVD. (And, if you look at the history of HD DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you'll see some other IP's have also restored the copyrighted material; could also be him). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents- I am absolutely convinced that it's a sock, and the evidence that the others are socks too is overwhelming as well. It's just such an obvious pattern of behavior, especially with the individual's use of logged out IPs. Even if you remove the completely identical speech patterns, calling everyone else "vandals" and attacks against Microsoft and the US, we have the IP patterns-

User will make edits with his account. User uses up his 3RR or gets banned, which is when the user will follow up immediately with logged-out edits that directly enforce their page version. Those logged out edits trace right back to the veloxzone.com.br or dialuol.br ISPs that Brazil4Linux uses.

Brazil did it-

Brazil4Linux uses up his 3rd revision-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kutaragi&oldid=30329737

02:48, 6 December 2005 Brazil4Linux

So he starts using IP 200.147.61.151 to enforce his version of the page against the group consensus. Repeatedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kutaragi&oldid=30400785

200.147.61.151 traces to dialuol.com.br

Quackshot did it-

Quackshot uses up his 3rd revision-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nintendo_Revolution&oldid=31623947

So he starts using 201.29.35.148 to enforce his version of the page against the group consensus. Repeatedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nintendo_Revolution&oldid=31719324

201.29.35.148 traces to: user.veloxzone.com.br

ForeverWatch did it, Oddie did it, CoreSystem and BreakingRules did it (mostly to try and repeatedly replace my userpage with a picture of a donkey),

And now Dungeon Seige is doing it.

Dungeon Seige makes his last edit-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neowin&oldid=33584843

And he uses 201.29.59.5 to enforce his edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neowin&oldid=33602573

201.29.59.5 traces to: user.veloxzone.com.br

He's created himself a paper trail. Daniel Davis 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

On User Talk:Jimbo Wales#About the Personal Appeal User:Dungeon Siege complains about Wikipedia's abusiveness but all of his "proof" is about User:Brazil4Linux. Jedi6 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mazda Levante

Can someone please help with this article?? --Sunfazer 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism

If you see any vandalism, copy it into here: User:Sunfazer/Vandalism

- and quote the user who did it! The page is an archive of various vandalism types, and is useful for the CVU. --Sunfazer 15:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That is going to be a big page. If you're looking for a way to collect records of vandalism, you can collect a bunch quite quickly by watching Recent Changes for admin reverts. (Look for any edits with the summary Reverted edits by JoeBlow(talk) to last version by JohnSmith.) The preceding edit(s) are almost always vandalism or user tests; check to be sure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's for the CVU to see examples of persistent vandals. --Sunfazer 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Try watching the block log, too—there's usually a good supply of vandals there. Running through the list of old ArbCom cases would also give you some hits. Are you looking for persistent vandals who haven't been blocked...? I'm curious about the ultimate purpose and use(fulness) of the list. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think CVU should be able to recognise vandals by now. If not, one must wonder what on Earth they think they've been doing all this time ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh few examples are ok, hence the word example. You do not need to log all vandalism. There are plenty examples generated in the past 60 seconds at any given time. CVU ment to lure more people to RC patrol and assist them in identifying vandalism. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not for routine vandalism.... but wacky vandalism! --Sunfazer 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean WP:BJAODN? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work

I, as a returning student trying to finish my degree, BA, have come to rely upon your web site for relevant info for topics of discussion at school,

               So A Big Thanks For All Your Hard Work!!!

What, may I inquire, is this doing here..? -MegamanZero|Talk 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Such behavior is generaly adequate for a block as it falls under trolling. Do not begin about it being 'minor'. Similar behavior is visible on his contributions. He is supposed to be on his best behaviour, he should be making an effort to at least try to be an exemplory editor for people like me to even consider "forgiving" his earlier behaviour.

He has shown great improvement over the time since he has been unblocked. We did not have vandal bots causing havoc. I guess one can call that improvement. People should write vandal bots and then be forgiven. No one minds their 'minnor' annoyance otherwise would get them blocked.

Why do wikipedians such as myself as well as many others have to tollerate the nonsense he posts here and there every so often?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• You don't. Just don't read his comments. Quite simple, really. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If his comments arent worth reading I do not see why he should be allowed to contribute, this guy vandalised my userpage over 400 times (nonstop with vnadalbots 5 waves) alove --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's where I draw the line. Such disregard for policy and overlying inconsideration for articles and pages is uttertly unacceptable. I recomend a 24 - 48 hour block right away. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

400 times..?!! Geez. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad article, undisputed because of big following - Sockpuppets? What to do?

Could somebody help me here? I found an article that seems to defy any definition of a "good article" (it's extremely biased, outragious claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ). So far, so easy, but there is a devoted following of wikipedia users that seems to prevent any sensible editing or removal of the article. What should I do? Article here: Aladin. Is there a way to look for sockpuppets in the article history and the currently running vote for deletion (here)? Any help (and votes) would be greatly appreciated, thank you. Peter S. 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've listed it in AfD here, and an overwhelming number of editors, with no prior relation with the editing of the article, have voted for Strong keep (10 keep and strong keeps vs your single delete vote). Just because you have been thoroughly defeated in your nomination doesn't mean you have to go after the voters. And also, I strongly object to your accusation of the word sockpuppet here, people have voted according to their own judgement, which CAN go against your nomination. What you can do is to refrain from false accusations and Personal attacks like this. Thanks. --Ragib 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I've never heard of him - but I'm not into magic. I don't think having worked for the GLA is worthy of a wikipedia article - and he took time out from his magic career to do that so he's not that great a magician. I smell a rat tbh. Secretlondon 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have AfD. --Ragib 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed we have, we are in the middle of it. Peter S. 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Ragib, you see I was *asking _if_* there are sockpuppets there. I never did any accusations, that's solely your interpretation. Like Secretlondon, I really smell a rat here. Peter S. 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You can check out the contributions of the users. Sockpuppets tend to be created solely for ballot stuffing. Lack of contribution histories indicated the existence of sockpuppets. --Ragib 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there are some forms of sockpuppet-checking that are reserved for administrators (WP:SOCK: "If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related"), which is what I was requesting, amongst other things. I'm sorry if my writing induced disrespect in you, I didn't mean no harm, as long as we both try to make wikipedia a better place. Peter S. 22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

mCheckuser is only available to ArbCom members, and used sparingly to protect user privacy. As I said, usually, the lack of prior contributions is the first way to detect sockpuppets. Thanks. --Ragib 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe nominating it for deletion was not the best way to deal with the nauseatingly promotional text. Why not try making the tone encyclopedic, paragraph by painful paragraph? It might actually make it better, or at least will force his devotees to admit their inability to recognize and reject blatant advertising material. alteripse 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, that's what I tried in the past 3 months - didn't work out (check the talk page and the history). But then again, if you remove all the promo-stuff, all that is left is an article about a unnotable person (abstract of aladin: he performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the City of London, that's all), so that's the reason why I nominated the article for deletion. Peter S. 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Or a dude who was International Magician of The year 1991 [43] but I've mentioned this on the delete page. All the users who have taken part can't all be sock-puppets. Englishrose 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Englishrose, the organisation behind "International Magician of The year" doesn't even have a website, how notable can this award be? There are thousands of such smallish awards with grandiose names. Bottom line is, Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the London gov, so I really really can't see how he's notable. Peter S. 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• [44] Over a 1k google hits for the phrase. But this needs to be mentioned on the afd page. Lots of others disagree with you. By all means check if they're sock-puppets but if they're not then let the vote stand. Englishrose 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's more like 123 hits: [45] Google is very bad at estimating hit numbers for rarely asked queries. Compare those 123 hits to Academy awards [46], where you get 4+ million hits, and it's obvious that "International Magician of The year" is a very small show. And as I said, there is not even a website for it. I cannot see how he is notable, sorry. Peter S. 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that many of the claims in notability in the article are highly deceptive. It, for example, quotes Inside Magic as having called him all sorts of great things, but actually reading the source shows that the editor of that publication had never even heard of the guy and was simply quoting a student newspaper, one that may have gotten information wrong or simply quoted from a press release supplied by the guy himself. The article in Inside MAgic was polite, but questioned the qaccuracy of one of the claims that magician made (to having allegedly quitting a society that didn't admit women, when he knows several women in the society). This whole article stinks to high heaven. Google results on this guy are practically nonexistent. There is no evidence of this person having ever actually won an award other than third hand info and the guy's own self-promotion, and the award certainly is not very ntoable in the field.

We need more editors to take a look at it, as it looks like a combination of spam/hoax going on here. DreamGuy 23:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The guy seems like an indefatigable self-promoter, but he IS featured in an up-coming National Geographic television feature [47]. I don't think they would have featured him if he were a complete hoaxer. Just clean up the article and don't try to delete, OK? If he's going to be on TV, people are going to be looking for him on Wikipedia. So, let them get a straight look without hype. Zora 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• TV stations have been duped before, Zora. Your linked program is about refugees, he was portrayed as a refugee. There are 100+ Million refugees in the world, not every one of those needs a wikipedia page (although they need shelter, food, money, peace and justice restored). The article claims "He performs from bombay to las vegas and has appeared on National Geographic", which is clearly a misleading statement. As I said before, once you cut through all the promo language, you end up with a boring person that doesn't warrant an entry in the wikipedia. Those are my reasons for delete. Peter S. 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Any admin able to tune into this station and watch the program? Would come in helpful to settle the argument. Englishrose 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Aren't you convinced by reading the summary on that website? The description clearly doesn't state "Tonight appearing: Aladin, the great magician". It talks about refugees, and refugees only. Peter S. 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of everything else said above, I'm concerned about this issue because 30 hours after Peter S. listed this article on AfD, the discussion was closed as a "Speedy keep". Aren't we supposed to keep these debates open for seven days? Doing so would not harm the article (it's not going to be deleted until it gets a lot more votes for that). I just heard about this article, & I feel that this premature closure of the matter will only harm this discussion over the article, & lead to another listing on AfD almost immediately! -- llywrch 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:King of Hearts didn't have proper authority or reason to speedy keep it, so it was undone. He should have kis knuckles smacked. DreamGuy 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here: everyone makes mistakes. No need to villify King of Hearts as long as he meant well & admits he acted hastily. -- llywrch 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I looked through the AfD. A few people commenting are relative newcommers, that a closer might choose to disregard. I placed notes for the benefit of the eventuall closer. Most seem to be of at least several months standing here, with at least hundreds of edits, and some are respected long-term editors. I see no evidence of a sock-fest or of more improper comments than many AfDs generate. DES ^(talk) 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Delonnette

Is repeatedly inserting unformatted images into articles, despite requests from other users to read the appropriate tutorial pages, considered vandalism? Because that is exactly what Delonnette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing. Note that he/she has been asked countless times to provide source and copyright information for the images that he/she uploads, and continues to upload unsourced images and dump them unformatted into the article namespace. He/she has already been blocked for vandalism, previously uploaded unsourced images and violating the 3RR on Michelle Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and has only left one comment on his/her talk page (a response to why she uploaded identical images under different filenames). What do the policies and guidelines say about this type of behaviour? Extraordinary Machine 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Inserting unformatted into articles, isn't really a problem, but repeatedly uploading images without copyright tags is. I've come across this behaviour before with another user about a year ago. I don't think there are any definite policy guidlines on it. In the end we had to use common sense and simply delete any untagged image as soon as it was uploaded. It was the onl7y way to get the message through. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the warning Extraordinary Machine gave on Delonnette's talk page, I'd suggest waiting two days for source information on the noted images, then delete them if none is forthcoming. In line with Theresa's comment above, I'd say that any additional unsourced uploads should be shot on sight until the user gets the hint. (If that doesn't work, then escalating blocks may need to be applied; I hope it doesn't come to that.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has said, not too long ago, that it's OK to block users who are uploading unsourced images repeatedly even after warning. This is a real threat to the project and must be stopped. As far as unformatted, just fix it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this user closely and trying to communicate with them, and get the distinct impression from their edits and uploads that they are quite young and probably don't fully understand the ramifications of what they're repeatedly doing. I think any future communication with this user needs to bear that in mind. -- Francs2000 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you block them. They may very well simply come back under another username. Whereas if you delete their "work" they will probably get the message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't worked in the past: on at least two occasions in the last month I have had cause to delete a whole load of images uploaded by this user that had been tagged appropriately and not actioned. -- Francs2000 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting tagging them for deletion.I'm suggesting deleting the moment they are uploaded and then going to her talk page and stating that you did it and will do it again and again until she either stops uploading or starts tagging the images correctly. 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hollow Wilerding

I have blocked her indefinitely for repeated block evasion, sockpuppetry, disruption, personal attacks, and the whole general "Don't be a detriment to the project" package we do occasionally. Phil Sandifer 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the legal threats [48]. I support this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also protected her talk page. Phil Sandifer 00:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war over WP:RFC/KM

A load of admins have been deleting and a load of other admins and users have been restoring or recreating the redirect WP:RFC/KM to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin (see Special:Undelete/WP:RFC/KM. I suggest we block them all for 17 years for getting involved in a really stupid edit war. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the standard block for a lame edit war something like 17 seconds? --cesarb 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we not do things that suggest that the lynching of one of our most respected community members is a major Wikipedia page that requires a shortcut. Phil Sandifer 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too, which is why I just re-deleted it, and re-protected it. I wonder how long it'll last? -- Francs2000 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If the original creator deleting it solves anything, I'll be more than happy to delete it if restored. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a shortcut that's easier to type than the whole damn mess. Other RFC's and RFAr's have shortcuts, I don't see why this one is suddenly so special. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Example of an WP redirect to an RFC?Geni 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex/WP:RFC, knock yourself out. You can modify that to look for RFAr shortcuts too. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

hmmm only 3 legit parrelles and two of those created by the user on the reciveing end of the RFC. All created nov 2005. Not much of a president.Geni 01:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And the precedent for deleting shortcuts out of hand and for no legitimate reason? Examples? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

fallacy of the excluded middle.Geni 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex/WP:RFAR/, one of those is from January of 2005. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I know. That is why I refered to RFcs only. RFArs area little diferent since if they result in parole they basic act as policy descission for the user on parole. There is also the issue that RFAr cases can set important presedents. That may be cited in future cases.Geni 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your reasoning, I'm just hoping you'll all stop soon, grow up and go and do something constructive. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, I agree about wheel wars, and as you were recently involved in/caused one of the nastiest we've seen in a long time, when you reduced Marsden's block twice before he was blocked indefinitely by Jimbo, I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How wonderfully off-topic of you, with a rather significant exaggeration of what took place (I didn't cause it, and it was hardly one of the "nastiest we've seen in a long time" seeing as I just reduced the length of a block duration twice and I discussed it fully both times). I would be grateful if you stopped posting messages criticising me everywhere as you often get your facts wrong in them. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a WP link for an RFA. I don't see a need to start now. I don't think anyone has broken the 3RR and blocks would be a really great way to increase tension. Not something we want to do. Just explain in carm terms to those createing it that what they are doing is not consistant with wikipedia practice. If you want to see something slighty worrying cheack out what links here for that page.Geni 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You all should be bloody ashamed of yourselves, and since when do we care about "raising tensions" when it comes to 3RR? This stinks more and more of the rules only applying to the little people. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that accuseing me of all people of only applying rules to little people is ironic. Of course I will rexamine the case to deterime if there has been a 3RR violation but as yet I don't think there has been.Geni 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV, WP:RFAR/TDC, WP:RFAR/Libertas, WP:RFC/N75, WP:RFC/LAW, et cetera. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we not describe a process by which the community tells a user their opinion on their behavior as a "lynching." It's not just disrespectful to Kelly, and to the community, but also to those who have actually been lynched. Lynching is a process that typically involved mutilation, bodily harm, and gruesome execution, not discussion. Can you turn the rhetoric down about 11 notches, please? It's hugely irritating when trolls on the RFC page describe Kelly as a Nazi fascist (or whatever), and it's hugely irritating when those defending her describe the RFC process as a lynching. Believe it or not, there are plenty of editors on both sides of the debate that, surprise surprise, want to actually build a good encyclopedia, and not just cause harm to a group of way c00l IRC best fri3ndz forever omgwtfbbq1111one1. Nandesuka 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "lynch mob" has kind of become a desensitized phrase. Phil Sandifer 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear God. Let me just say I hope I'm not the first person to point out that there's an encyclopedia somewhere around here. I don't care about userboxes, I don't care about shortcut links to RFCs, and the sheer amount of time-wasting that's going on at that RFC and elsewhere is mind-boggling. Really. En-cy-clo-ped-i-a. Dmcdevit·t 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Dragons flight 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, this is _so_ not about the userboxes. It's about the fact that one person's view of what constitutes the best way to build an encyclopedia shouldn't trample anothers. It's about having the smallest shred of respect for opinions that differ from your own. It's about people behavining as if they understood that when you've got some powers, you should use them responsibly. I think userboxes are dumb. But I also have never been more disgusted with the powers-that-be than in the last few days. For Mike's sake, "lynching of one of our most respected community members"? How about some WP:CITE to support that mouthful of marbles? - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could, but it's been deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And, lets be frank, it's not the 700 odd admins who build this encyclopedia, it's mostly the scores of grunts who don't have the power to just delete and protect something they don't like. Show some bloody respect for the Morlocks. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was an invalid speedy... at any rate, I somewhat agree with Aaron. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if I can state my bit as the person who finally deleted and protected the deletion: I saw a page that five other admins had tried to delete before me and did the delete/protect to provoke discussion, which has worked. If I can have assurances from parties involved that they're not going to start edit warring over it once again I am more than happy to restore the redirect. -- Francs2000 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are some tough things being said about Kelly Martin. I also think that she was trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopædiac. I support anything that achieves that but I think was Kelly Martin did, however well meaning, showed gross disrespect to everyone. I have worked with people in public office and there is one clear lesson directly relevant here. Where your actions arouse such intense anger you r career in whatever you were doing is dead in the water. You will have lost the credibility and respect you do to do the job. If you adopt an attitude of "I'm just going to ignore this and it will blow over" after causing such an enormous reaction (100+ endorsements of criticism of her so far, and growing by the minute!!!) you are finished. The only way Kelly can salvage her career on WP is to say

• I realise my actions have caused offence and that was not my intention. I did what I believed was in Wikipedia's benefit but obviously I misguided how I did what I did. I apologise.
• Rather than compromise the credibility of the arbcom I am resigning from it.
• I am also voluntarily resigning by adminship.

If she does that, the entire affair will calm down. In a few weeks the whole affair will be forgotten and she will have done no lasting damage to her Wiki-reputation. She would probably find that she would at a future date be re-elected to the arbcom and as an admin, on the basis of her apology and that she acted honourably in stepping down.

If however she hangs on, the likelihood is that controversy will follow her to the arbcom. She will be criticised for everything she does as an admin and like others caught up in far less controversial incidents she will end up quitting WP in frustration. IMHO, putting on my admin-hat and political advisor-hat, her position is untenable. When your action causes such a firestorm of a negative reaction, either you apologise and diffuse the situation, or you stand firm (as she seems intend on doing) and try to hang in there. As anyone involved in leadership positions (whether in politics, business, non-governmental organisations, charities, general organisations, etc) knows, in instances like this to try to hang on is sheer suicide. If she tries to hang on she will be destroyed by it and will end up quitting Wikipedia. It boils down to two options: 'resign and rebuild', or 'be destroyed'. Those with experience of crisis management know that there is no middle ground. (BTW a political consultant would have charged at least €2000 to give advice to someone in business in a similar situation!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's please not bring that nasty discussion here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I decree that this article needs modification. (and that's all folks) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Germanic People - a problem with an anonymous editor.

We are having a bit of a problem with vaguely trollish behaviour on the part of an anonymous editor (IP: 24.60.161.63) He/she/it initially contributed just a bit of patent nonsense, which is easily ignored, but now the person is borderline disruptive in aggressively asserting original research and a few other more minor problems. Dieter Bachmann seems to have the matter in hand, and doing well with it, but I thought to mention the matter here so that others can keep an eye on the discussion.

On the talk page, the anon.'s contributions begin at: Talk:Germanic_people#Request

... and gets progressively more annoying as one scrolls down. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

postscript: apparently he/she/it also blanked a recent edit of mine to that talk page. Lovely. I fixed it.

kaiser permanente discussion

pansophia attempting to personally identify a user on kaiser permanente discussion board

---

I pointedly did NOT identify this person out of respect for his privacy, though I could have easily. I'm only trying to clarify the bias of someone who has been throwing around a lot of accusations.

--Pansophia 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniel Matheson

Said user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who was banned by ArbCom decision from editing any article relating to Freemasonry. The evidence is linked in the template on User: Daniel Matheson's user page, and his edits focus solely on introducing anti-Masonic content into the Freemasonry article, when said content is more properly linked from Anti-Freemasonry, and Anti-Freemasonry is already linked from Freemasonry. Said user is also getting close to a 3RR violation. MSJapan 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding yet again, Requests for comment/Bishonen, and trolling by Search4Lancer

Please see section "Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding" above for the abusive sockpuppeteering, deception, and misuse of WP:FAC that got User:Hollow Wilerding banned. Her much-threatened RFC on me, which is going to make all our lives hell[49], has now been created by her new sock account User: Siblings WC (note: not the same as User:Siblings CW, which was already blocked). Snowspinner has blocked the new account indefinitely. And I have blocked yet another IP from Hollow's range, 64.231.155.175, which was used to post on my page. If these accounts really have anything to do with the real person mentioned on the userpages, Toronto teacher Courtni Wilerding (which I doubt), I just hope school starts soon. The RFC hasn't actually been filed—it's not listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment—but it exists all right. I suppose I ought not to respond to it..? It's sort of temptiing, but it would be a) cruel, b) technically/policywise an atrocity, as it was created by a blocked user busy evading her block, and c) probably a waste of time, as I expect somebody or other will be in a hurry to delete it. Before that happens, I recommend it as light reading for those immersed in the dreadful swamp of Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. The RFC/Bishonen section "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" is very nice.

All kidding aside, I'm very surprised at the role User:Search4Lancer plays in this sad affair, not least on this page. I can't understand what's behind such silly/malicious behavior as the ruleslawyering "distinctions" here, the trolling here, and, especially, the endorsement of this RFC, in collaboration with a blocked user—essentially, encouraging her to use yet another block-evading sock account, and helping her conceal it from the community. Search4Lancer, what are you doing? Are you simply amusing yourself in your own way, or do you have an undisclosed relation to "Hollow Wilerding", or what gives? Bishonen | talk 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

WP:RFC/KM part two

Is there any reason that a couple of 24hr blocks should not go out for this? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, scroll down just a bit... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You know how after a certain number of edit conflicts in one day you just start to ignore them and hope for the bast? Sorry. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist and Snowspinner blocked for 3RR

I've blocked both Karmafist (talk · contribs) and Snowspinner (talk · contribs) for 1 hour for 3RR violations on the redirect WP:RFC/KM. The 3RR violation is clear and blatant, and I've treated both equally. I'm not trying to take sides, I'm trying to restore an ounce of civility to this nutty situation. -- SCZenz 04:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What links to WP:RFC/KM; only two real pages (Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules and User talk:Jimbo Wales) ink to it. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is a couple of 3RR violations. And incivility and wheel warring out the wazoo—but it's the 3RR violation that's on firm ground. -- SCZenz 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah put my comment in the wrong section sorry, meant to put it upstairs. Anyhow, YOU've now been blocked by Phil, amazingly. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there some reason that admins get off 96% easier for 3RR violations? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be an amazingly good idea if you stayed out of any discussions about Snowspinner for a little while at least, Aaron. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Holy Mike. [50]. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Snowspinner unblocked Karmafist (but not himself), claming that my 3RR block was unjustified. Judging it was inappropriate for him, as involved party, to decide that, I reblocked Karmafist. As a result, Snowspinner blocked me for wheel warring, and User:Sean Black unblocked me. It doesn't seem my effort to shock people into being more civil has improved much. If anyone thinks I acted incorrectly in this, I'd appreciate comments. -- SCZenz 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck no, keep up the good work. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.--Sean|Black 05:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think you acted inappropriately, simply because it wasn't a revert war, it was a delete/undelete war, which is a different kettle of fish. Possibly still bad, but you shouldn't try to shoehorn it into 3RR policy. I would not have disputed a one hour block on both of us for abject stupidity. :) Phil Sandifer 05:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The history says it was a 3RR block, because you didn't actively delete/undelete. Wheel warring like that deserves a block too, and abject stupidity is a nice bonus, if you want to think about it that way. This behavior cannot be our standard mode of operation—a regular user acting like some admins have been would be blocked a lot longer, and that's not fair. -- SCZenz 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd have accepted a wheel warring block too. That's why I found your wheel warring so ironic as to require forceful comment. :) Phil Sandifer 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if we're interprating "wheel war" broadly. More like a "wheel scrimmage" :).--Sean|Black 05:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You were involved, so overriding my block of Karmafist was inappropriate. It was your wheel war, not mine. -- SCZenz 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Detail also says that deleting and restoring are under the auspice of 3RR, so there really is no wiggle room. If someone doesn't block them for the extra 23 hours I'm going cry all over my keyboard. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, admins have the option to choose what to do, and I made my choice. -- SCZenz 05:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist unblocked himself, under the misapprehension that Snowspinner had unblocked himself, so NSLE blocked Karmafist unblocked Snowspinner. I reblocked Snowspinner and Karmafist both for 30 more minutes. -- SCZenz 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I unblocked Snowspinner, rather. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've struck through and fixed it above. Thanks for the correction; I was in a hurry. Sorry for overriding your decision, but I think having both users serve their time was fairer. -- SCZenz 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Crikey! It's hard to sort out who blocked whom in this sort of situation, innit? If only the software could be simplified to give a simple report: "User:X screwed up, block him for 24 hours. Have a nice day." fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled by all of this - the pile-onto Kelly, the opposition to alleviating that pile-on, the wheelwarring on karmafist's part, the wheel warring on SCZenz's part in his blocks, Aaron's apparent determination to step up his hostility in light of his admonishment - everything. This is not an environment in which people committed to what Wikipedia actually is can survive - they are forced to choose between watching the place come down around them, or behaving unacceptably in a desperate attempt to extinguish the forest fire. That's a fool's choice, and I'm done making it.

I'll be back Thursday, maybe. Phil Sandifer 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My God, Phil, actually I'm surprised by your apparent sheer inability to admit any wrongs, and to stop. You've made enough potshots against Aaron, but right now, it's you who blocked the admin that just blocked you, you who is wheel warring on WP:RFC/KM, you who is wheel warring at Template:Help Wikiboxes, you who handed out punitive blocks to two users who disagreed with you, and I don't even know what to say about the SPUI block. This is not to excuse the other wheel warriors, but give me a break... This is quite possibly the lamest flame I've seen here, and you and everyone else who participated in it shame the rest of us admins. Get over yourself. Dmcdevit·t 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? I fucked up. I wheel warred. The problem is that there isn't another option to fix the problems. The problem is that every decision making process through which one could raise a reasoned objection has become clogged with the exact crap I'm objecting to. The only way to oppose it is to wheel war and push on with no regard for the consequences. Which is what I did. That is also, however, reinforcing the fundamental problem. So there's nothing to do. Until the community gets its head out of its ass, there are no right options. Given a choice of only wrong options, I decline to choose. Phil Sandifer 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, this sounds like hyperbolic Chicken Little-ing; Wikipedia worked mostly well yesterday, and, barring further wheel wars, will tomorrow. I get it. "The only way to oppose it is to wheel war" is overblown and preposterous. Edit warriors and uncivil people are fond of saying edit warring is the justified to correct POV, or that they don't need to be civil to POV pushers. And we're all fond of telling them that edit warring is never warranted, and that civility is not negotiable. I never thought I'd have to tell an admin that wheel wars are never okay. If there is something so fundamentally wrong with the system (IAR and all) that you cannot act without wheel warring, then perhaps you ought to say that and fix the system before wheel warring. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Phil! You fucked up. Saying "I fucked up" and following it up with "but I was justified" is not the impression acknowledgement of responsibility that you seem to think it is (and baiting Aaron while you do it is pathetic). Wheel warring is rarely (I really want to say never) justified, and was certainly not justified in this instance. "But I had no choice!" is something we've heard from other people engaging in such tactics, people you may remember: Everyking, Stevertigo ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here are the behind-the-scenes details of my block:

1. Phil is complaining about the userboxes on #wikipedia, and mentions that if someone makes a {{user furry}} he'll go apeshit.
2. I am rather surprised that it doesn't exist yet, seeing that we have Category:Furry Wikipedians, and figure it's better for Phil to go apeshit on me than on some hapless noob who creates it.
3. I create it, and Phil accuses me of disrupting Wikipedia (how?!?) and thus violating WP:POINT. So he blocks.

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see the frustration with the situation has reached this point. I welcome further review of my actions, which I have already tried to explain above; please leave comments here or my talk page. -- SCZenz 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't envy you your choice, SCZenz, but I just wanted to say that it's clear to me that you're trying to be reasonable. So whether or not the involved parties see it that way or not, I just want to say: thank you. I, and I'm sure a lot of other users and admins, are glad you took the reins. That way I didn't have to. Nandesuka 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your actions, SCZenz, you tried to diffuse the situation by giving all sides a time-out. Seems very reasonable, at least in my view. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept your actions as good faith use of administrator discretion. I remain dismayed that you contributed to the problems you were trying to solve. Phil Sandifer 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you did and I wish you had blocked them longer. This is insanity has to stop, and it looks like neither of them is going to end it themselves. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, you actions were reasonable and supported by policy. With otherwise good faith contributors, there is no need to jump straight to the 24 hour block even for a 3RR violation, the policy says "up to" 24 hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The shortest 3rr block I could find in the last 2000 blocks was 12 hours by Woohookitty of LGagnon and Leyasu, both after this all happened, and one by David Levy of ChrisB, also for 12 hours. Can we at least be _honest_ about the double standard? - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This 3RR block is shorter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Users in good standing are naturally subject to shorter blocks than well-known troublemakers and (sadly) newbies and unknown editors. There's nothing wrong with being more lenient to admins, who as a general rule (there are exceptions) have a looong history of good behaviour and trustworthiness. The issue becomes when one decides that an admin has used up his supply of goodwill, and I'm not certain we're particularly good at judging that. When admins do meet up with the Cluestick of Fate, they seem unreasonably surprised, and that's surely an indicator that something's wrong. Speaking of things that are wrong ... uhhh ... shutupshutupshutupshutup ... what are you still doing here? Get on IRC and get off Snowspinner's back! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to not use the full 24 hour block for 3RR violations unless it is a repeated violation. The main idea behind the 3RR is to stop people from edit warring, not to punish them for doing so. That is why we don't block people for 3RR violations which are a week old. If a one hour block is sufficient to stop the user from edit warring so that s/he can return to make good edits to other articles after the block has expired isn't that better than imposing the full 24 hours? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

a 24 hour block basicaly forces the editor to sleep before they continue editing.Geni 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(this might not be the best place for this) I started really adding to WP a little bit back (about a month). I thought I could really add to something to WP, by editing, getting experience - I was aspiring to be an admin to really help make this an encylopedia to is useful to me and others. But see what has happened (to KM, above) and seeing that even admins act like immature brats as well has made me totally disheartened and I think that the situation is now getting to the stage where it is driving editors away from WP. This is getting rediculous. (will I get blocked for this?) novacatz 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• ScZenz was absolutely in the right here, If I were him, I would have done the exact same thing.
• Since nobody was responding on AN/3RR, I had to IAR and stop Snowspinner's premature IARing since there was no policies or guidelines backing his actions.(all of this could have been easily avoided if Snowspinner went to WP:RFD instead of feeling that he was above doing so like everyone else)
• Novacatz has gotten it right, and I think the comment he says at the end says it all. Right now certain people at the top echelons believe that they're above anything and can destroy users acting in good faith at their whim. If this continues, you will have a never ending series of things such as what happened last night or a never ending series of people leaving because they feel as though their voice will just be ignored. I've seen two people this week, and several more on the verge(when Redwolf24 is almost there, you know it's gotten bad)
• I didn't particularly want to do what I did, but I'll act similiarly if I have to. And at this point, it looks like I probably will unless the community at large says to people like Snowspinner and Kelly Martin and even me that acting unilaterally is not necessary and will be stopped. karmafist 13:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner and Karmafist have both acknowledged that they broke process and 'acted unilaterally', but have stated that this was necessary for the good of Wikipedia. No. Not breaking process is what is necessary for the good of Wikipedia. How can anyone see that it is wrong and harmful for <person A> to go outside process, but not for them to do so? Wikipedia operates on consensus. This shouldn't be a new concept. Someone does something you don't agree with you go through the process... think those userboxes are harmful? Nominate some on TfD, start an RfC on whether they should be deleted, and/or talk to Jimbo about it. Wikipedia will not collapse and die if those userboxes stay around a few more days. Don't like a shortcut to an RfC on the mass userbox deletion? Put it on RfD... Wikipedia will not collapse and die if that redirect stays around a few days. Don't like the summary deletion of the shortcut? Put it on DRV... Wikipedia will not collapse and die if that redirect is missing for a few days. The fact that someone else violated process or policy (CIV/NPA come to mind) is the worst possible reason to do so yourself. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Putting your own viewpoint of what is good for Wikipedia over the will of everyone else is 'killing Wikipedia to save it'. Consensus is the cornerstone of everything we do here. Putting oneself above that consensual process is always wrong... even if you are completely correct in your views of 'what is best'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CBD, you could have easily stopped things last night rather than getting up on your pulpit here, once again. Snowspinner would have likely reverted on DRV, RFD or elsewhere in this case since he feels justified to do whatever he wants, something you've said about me. Our world slowly is going blind, and that's not going to stop until fullscale reforms of all policies and guidelines occur. Until then, eyes will be continually taken for eyes, as you quoted above. karmafist 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So it's 100% Snowspinner's fault and 0% your fault? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Karmafist, I spent last night experimenting with the complexities of WeebleCode vs hiddenStructures and inventing what I think may be a radical new way of performing content variation (or a way to give all the devs coronaries... the jury's still out). I couldn't have 'stopped' last night 'cuz I wasn't part of the bickering last night. I provided some examples when requested and disagreed with the view that calling something 'moronic' wasn't a personal attack, but I was pulpit free. Yup, today we've got a pulpit. It needed to be said... even if you didn't hear it. Maybe we're taking out 'ears' too. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

This mess has stemmed from the actions of two people, yet seems to be dragging a whole lot more folks into it, as well as the image of admins in general. Overall, the issue that has been argued over is, as usual in these circumstances, a tiny one. We know that Karma and Phil both violated 3RR, and wheel warred into the blue with themselves and others. Blocking again is just going to cause more problems, and is ultimately futile anyway (though ScZenz was right in his actions). So, Karma and Phil should both volunteer a total 24 hour wikibreak - no blocking or unblocking or reverting, just step back for a day, take a nap, get a bite to eat... the differences between the involved parties seem too large for them to drop it, but they should at least try to chill a bit when they come back. Anyone else involved should leave them alone, too, if they aggree. If they aggree, January 4, 0:00 UTC to January 4, 23:59 UTC seems reasonable to me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian vandalism

Anyone got checkuser capability to help out with a persistent vandal targetting Australian related high profile articles? See User:Crocodile Dundee and associated sockpuppet accounts for more info. Listed on WP:VIP over an hour ago. Help!. -- Longhair 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we have a new North Carolina vandal to watch out for. Will he attack Holden car-related articles next?? --Sunfazer 12:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note, the moment the Australian related vandalism stops, Willy on Wheels starts. Perhaps one and the same, or a copycat. -- Longhair 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights revert war

There has been a revert war on the User Bill Of Rights, apparently by Benjamin Gatti and SEWilco on one side, and 172 and Nandesuka on the other. I've protected this page in the version before the reverts started, which is obviously m:the wrong version. I have made a few edits to that page (which were reverted along with the rest of it), which some may see as involvement, so I'm posting a note here. Radiant_>|< 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs) I'd appreciate input from other admins about this user. S/he's been here for just over two weeks, seems to make very few useful edits, and spends most of her time causing problems and insulting people. She has 500 article edits (most of which I guess are reverts), but 1,633 on talk, project, and template pages. [51] I get e-mails every couple of days from editors she's offended wondering how long they have to put up with it. She's been warned many times and blocked 10 times, but nothing makes any difference. I asked her to stop again today, [52] but her response was to change the header of my post, [53] delete my second post, [54] then alter my first one. [55]

As this is an encyclopedia, I'm wondering what the benefit to Wikipedia is of her presence, and I'd like to know whether anyone agrees that the account should be blocked. Or if I'm wrong and she is in fact contributing constructively in some non-obvious way, I'd appreciate hearing about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this user is limited, but I do have some, and it hasn't been positive. She was extraordinarly rude and disruptive at Zatanna over a fairly minor issue. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I also blocked her there for violating 3RR. While blocked for 3RR several anons began to show up to continue reverting. The article remains protected, in part because she (and other users) cannot agree on this continuing problem. You may also be interested to inspect this diff [56], the results of a sock check suggesting that Miss Selina Kyle may be User:Chaosfeary. (I note that she left a message on Chaosfeary's userpage as well [57]). · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the last block of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, by Kelly Martin, may have been a bit of a stretch. See User talk:Kelly_Martin#Chat transcript for why the block was done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but just a brief note to confirm that MSK, in my experience, has contributed only hatred and disruption. Zora 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppery of user:Brian Brockmeyer

I have suspected that Almeidaisgod (t c) and Flavius Aetius (t c) is a sock puppet of Brian Brockmeyer (t c) and used for revert wars.

Evidence I gathered can be found here [58].

I asked for a checkuser already and it's a match.--Ichiro 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)