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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:1B6

User:1B6 has posted on my talk page ([1]) (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Wikipedia) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage ([2]) and talkpage ([3]), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised ([4]). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would love to help this user re-establish conection with his account and verify and when his password or email was changed. But since my RFA failled miserably and was closed within just a few hours, I can only watch, wait and see what another administrator will do. I'm not not bitter though! (sarcastically) --CyclePat 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Raspor

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and [s]he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if [s]he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if [s]he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

25 to 3 against, and you're questioning the claim that there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate? And you're simply mistaken that most of the people objecting to him are not on his side of the topic, off the top of my head AvB and Filll are. Also, by your own reasoning here we should note that you happen to share his view on the topic as well, so I'm not sure where you think that line of argument will get you. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm a Christian and believe that the God of the Bible has created the universe, I'm not an ID proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Or any other type of creationist in the extreme US sense for that matter. I fully accept scientific findings supported by a robust body of evidence, which includes evolution. At any rate, the RfC has been sufficiently advertised so the virtually unanimous agreement with FM's assessment is highly significant. AvB ÷ talk 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that raspor seems to have had so much difficulty in reading and following policy, specifically WP:3RR which he was warned of twice (in the first instance not in the recommended format) and allowed to get to 8 reversions before being blocked, then treated it as an unfair personal attack that he'd not been allowed to argue against. As this comment shows he's still having difficulty in understanding what behaviour is expected of him: you've had some success in discussing some things with him, Philip, and it would be good if you could persuade him that he should fully comply with the rules so that an ending of the block is not immediately followed by a repetition of disruptive behaviour. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am in full support of this ban. Based on how he has responded poorly to even the numerous calm and friendly attempts to guide him I suspect he'll be back to his disruptive ways as soon as the ban is lifted. With that in mind I think he has no business editing any ID or ID related articles until he demonstrates an ability to respect other editors, Wiki policies. He could do that by limiting his edits to non-controversial subjects. Mr Christopher 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Raspor's edits to his talk since he's been blocked, I see he's not only continued the personal attacks/name calling, but escalated [12][13] and has made his talk page a locus of disruption drawing responses from a number of editors. Considering that even while in the pokey he's continued the very sort of disruption that landed him there in the first place, misusing the one priveledge he retained while blocked to turn his talk page into a source of friction, I think Raspor is a hopeless case and therefore a permanent block is the only thing that will put an end to the disruption. And sooner rather than later to spare the community any additional time and goodwill being wasted. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another editor is encouraging him to initiate a freep fest (ala Free Republic) as a means of retribution for his "treatment" here [14]. How very odd. Mr Christopher 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just cautioned both against that at Raspor's talk page. Amazingly bad advice from User:Geo.plrd. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time Geo. has given improper advice - [15]. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The advice is even more worrying given the fact that Geo.plrd is active in advocacy, making him an important source of advice for confused or misconstrued editors. --HassourZain 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried about that as well. If there's any oversight going on at WP:AMA, this certainly the sort of behavior they need to be looking into. It should be brought up there I suppose. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uggggh. I spent far too much time reading up on this case. I've given Raspor a final warning about disruption, and after one more infraction I'll protect the page until the block expires. There's not much point to a block if the person continues the very behavior he or she was blocked for in the first place. -- Merope 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the records on Raspor's talk page the observer may note that I've done my best to try to get him to understand the purpose of Wikipedia fruitlessly. I cannot help but think that either he simply cannot understand it or refuses to bother with it, and as I said some time earlier, it's like trying to bail water from a boat using a dixie cup. If I weren't so incorrigibly hardheaded, I think I would have given up trying to help him a while ago. --HassourZain 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, you have demonstrated an amazing patience with raspor and your good faith efforts to be helpful have been noted by me. Mr Christopher 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain's efforts are 1st class through and through. It's people like him that make up for the shenanigans of the others and keeps contributing here worthwhile. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, guys. :) --HassourZain 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks too for your admirable and patient words. One problem that came up earlyish was that when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it. The WP:TROLL article definition is dependant on motive, which of course is impossible to judge, and so is useless for defining behaviour which is what's important. The WP:DE article focusses on article edits rather than talk page disruption. Should these guidelines be changed or clarified? .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"...when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it." That's typical 'victim bully' behavior. Dean Dad, in writing about The College Administrator's Survival Guide, by C.K. Gunsalus (Harvard U Press, 2006), notes that Gunsalus distinguishes between traditional, assertive bullies, who throw their weight around with bluster and force, and 'victim bullies,' who use claims of having been wronged to gain leverage over others. He goes on to write "that unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things. So when the initial accusations are dismissed, the victim bully’s first move is a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more. Victim bullies thrive in the no-man's-land created by the deadly combination of slow and cumbersome processes, and failure of administerial nerve. I've had some experience with these, and I can say without reservation that they are, by far, my least favorite editors to wrangle. It's not just that they're unpleasant and batshit crazy; they're self-righteously unpleasant and batshit crazy. They're implausibly persistent. Gunsalus makes the correct point that the key to defeating victim bullies is the classic administrative pincer movement of process-and-time. Easier said than done, but still right." FeloniousMonk 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, FM. On his talk page Raspor coninues to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of fundamental Wikipedia editing policies as well as being unfamiliar with intelligent design in general (as evidenced here). This is something he has shown since day one. I suspect he has either not yet studied any of our policies or has decided they are of no use to him. This makes working with him impossible. If he'd spend some time actually learning our policies his disruptions would go down by 99% or so. With this is mind, what happens after his block is lifted? I mean from an administrative standpoint, I pretty much know what to expect from him but I'm curious if/when he starts acting out again, will a new Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report need to be submitted or will we utilize this existing one? And will there be an administrator assigned to monitor his behaviour? Mr Christopher 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, judging by his comments on his talk page [[16] my attempt to answer his question(s) seems to have sent him into a mental tail-spin. He seems to be looking for the word "theory" now in every article and inisting we change the other articles to read like the ID one. How can we work with such a person when he begins posting on the article talk page again and not just on his own personal talk page? Mr Christopher 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer the "what next" question - it all depends on how Raspor acts after the block runs out. If he decides to act within accepted norms, then he will probably be given a second chance. If he continues to act as he has been, then I'm sure someone will re-block him. Guettarda 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit only spot checking his contribs, but this seems like a case where someone, a subject expert, feels his areas of expertise are being poorly represented by the articles and subject novices who are "equal" with him in the WP system. The user is thus getting frustrated and some apparent mob rule against him by other editors is been making matters worse. CyberAnth 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who's who in your analogy. However, raspor has shown no expertise, rather an uncanny ability to play on people's desire to explain things, then pick on points with a remarkable resemblance to standard creationist arguments and interpret or ignore the answers to emerge triumphantly having proved his point. He did it with Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence, and even confined to his user page, here he goes again. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the original post more clear. CyberAnth 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read through Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence to the end of the talk page, you'll see that raspor keeps any expertise well concealed. .. dave souza, talk 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, sorry, I may be dense because I am still not following you. Who is the subject expert you mentioned and what subject is their expertise? Thanks. Mr Christopher 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From the link you gave and the link he gave therein referencing his talk page on the matter, the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID (or whatever naming variants it goes by). He seems to feel his expertise area is being very poorly represented in articles. He appears to have gotten very frustrated and, from it, done some communication games; but I think this is more a reaction to what really does appear to me as some "mob rule" against him and his views. Keep in mind that my analysis here is coming from someone who is looking in from the outside. You might want to give him an olive branch and really listen to his concerns and see how they can be incorporated into the article some more. In short, appease him by addressing his concerns some more. No one will get their fill plate. That means everyone. CyberAnth 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I am perplexed as I have been studying intelligent design for several years now, I routinely read both sides of the debate even today. I have also read a tremendous amout of posts and responses from raspor since he stumbled upon the intelligent design article and I have yet to read a single item written by him that suggests he has even a conversational understanding of intelligent design. and certainly not a subject expert on intelligent design. But based on what you have expressed I am obviously overlooking very important information and evidence that should be weighed in this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. Would you mind helping out by showing a few diffs/examples where raspor has demonstrated a subject expertise in intelligent design? Thank will help me and I think others here quite a bit. Thanks again. <insert> also, some examples where he simply came accross as "obviously knowledgable" would help too. Mr Christopher 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Intriguing. I appreciate that CyberAnth has only been able to spot check raspor's contributions before commenting, and the sympathy is entirely understandable. However the impression that raspor was immediately set upon by a mob is not supported by looking at his start on the ID article. His first contribution there on 22 December was unfortunate, as he deleted the previous post and was reverted.[17] [18] with the comment (please do not remove or edit others' posts), then he did the same again on the talk page[19] and on the page of the editor who'd reverted the first comment.[20] This could of course be a newbie's error, but oddly enough it's a mistake raspor did not make almost a month earlier when first editing a talk page.[21] Anyway, that mistake was sorted out and discussion resumed at Permission. If you read down you'll find editors responding to raspor's opinions by asking him to "please read" archives at links they provided, "If you have some new points which have not been hashed out already, please feel free to bring them up" and to "Please provide a reliable source" for his assertions. He did not do the latter, despite having learnt the hard way about the need to cite sources on his first article by the 28th of November.[22] His responses lack such niceties of politeness, and introduce allegations of bias and inaccuracy without any supporting citations. If that's being set upon by a mob, it was a remarkably polite and patient mob. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth: you said the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID. Really? I have not seen any evidence that Raspor knows much about ID at all. On the contrary, s/he seems to be sadly unaware of much of the issues surrounding ID. In fact, Raspor recently said that s/he was starting to read the Wedge document, which is one of the fundamental documents related to ID. While Raspor is very aggressive in his/her assertions, s/he has not displayed much knowledge of either ID or science. Guettarda 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth is mistaken, Raspor is hardly a subject matter expert. As seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor he is regarded as not knowledgable on the topic of ID by every credible long time contributor to that article. The fact is the greatest cause of Raspor's problems here, other than his refusal to comprehend and follow our policies, is his incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. He is apparently either aware of only one side's opinion, or he is intentionally promoting only that side's view, neither of which makes for good editing. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just provided an evidenced summary that suggests raspor is as wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter as he is of fundamental Wiki editing policies here that I think is worth considering. Mr Christopher 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor's understanding of the subject matter has been made irrelevant by his attitude and actions. Throw him out. But let him return when he is ready to abide by Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:AGF. AvB ÷ talk 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor's agenda

Raspor's edit here makes it crystal clear that his agenda in editing Wikipedia is not to help preserve NPOV when editing the Intelligent Design article, but to show the embittered and hateful atheists that intelligent design simply is. I issued a warning that characterizing the other side of the debate as atheists (and bitter ones at that) violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and possibly even WP:NPA. I have zero experience with RFCs, but if someone wants to tell me where to put this diff (or to copy it over for me), he or she is free to do so. -- Merope 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he's already clearly demonstrated that he's more interested in causing disruption than contributing in good faith, as this comment indicates: [23] His 1 week block for disruption ends tomorrow, and since he's exhausted the community's patience by continuing the disruption while blocked, by all indications his wish may be granted. FeloniousMonk 01:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC

Looking at more recent edits[24] [25], raspor appears to be an outraged victim of what s/he perceives as unfair treatment. While his or her behaviour continues to match the description in Edit warring, I've not seen any evidence that this is deliberate trolling. However this all shows that raspor has to be treated very correctly. Further disruption on various talk pages is likely unless raspor has learnt to keep to the purpose of talk pages and to stop aggressively demanding answers to apparently off-topic questions. .. dave souza, talk 09:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

His block expired today. Will he get an official notice to that affect so that he knows? The other day he had asked how much longer it was going to be so I am assuming he does not know. I think an admin or other neutral party should inform him. Mr Christopher 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

One day since his block expired and he's again out of his tree disrupting Talk:Intelligent design with off-topic incoherent rants and trolling his user talk page. Not to mention uploading unlicensed images which he's put to good use flouting WP:POINT on his talk page. Minimizing his disruption is taking up way too time and effort of at least four contributors with far better things to do, like write an encyclopedia. He's long past having exhausted the community's patience. FeloniousMonk 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed he is now accusing an administrator (who has been doing an exemplary job if you ask me)of "siding with the darwinists" and also stating she is "biased" and he wants to know who "monitors" her. It's on his talk page. Maybe it is too soon to judge but based on his behaviour after his block was lifted he does not seem to get it. Any of it. This is getting out of hand. Mr Christopher 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After trying to negotiate with him, I'm just spent. His POV pushing, his baseless accusations, his attempts to engage users in debate over principles rather than articles, and his persistent refusal to be civil push me to endorse a community ban. (Uh, if a ban has been proposed. If not, I propose it.) -- Merope 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban (community ban that is, the sooner the better) Mr Christopher 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban - this guy just does not get it, and the patience of the community has been exhausted trying to explain. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

what is a community ban?? raspor 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN. From all of Wikipedia, in this case. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban Guettarda 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. FeloniousMonk 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has gone on long enough, so I've gone ahead and blocked him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the ban will stick if no admin will unblock, but is 5 hours long enough for a community ban to be discussed? From the sound of it, the block is totally justified, but from WP:BAN#Community_ban:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as part of the review process. Additionally, "community ban" wording should be noted in the block log. With such support, the user is considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users."

I'd have thought a longer discussion period was warranted. And how many is a "handful" of admins or users? PS. The link you give in the template will break once the thread is archived. PPS. Banned user should be listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users - I haven't done so as there seems to be the need for a little potted history to go with the entry. Worryingly, that whole page looks like a vandal shrine. Carcharoth 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhapse we can think of it as a temperary injunction while the discussion continues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I failed to read the much longer part of the thread further up the page... That is more than a handful of users. If that previous discussion is the basis for the community ban, I'll stop quibbling. Or call it an injunction, whatever. Same end result in all likelihood. Carcharoth 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind we're dealing with someone who got a 24 hour block, and then a seven day block (both within 8 days). And now he has earned a community ban. It's not like this ban was the first course of action. Mr Christopher 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can't defend his reaction to Merope's posts on his talk page, and any defence I put up of him would be outweighed by everyone else, so I have little doubt that this ban would have happened anyway. But I do wonder about the integrity of a discussion on a ban that is over so quickly that it's finished before one of his main defenders (me) even knows it's happening. Even if he got a just outcome, that's not justice being seen to be done. Philip J. Rayment 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify some points, this thread has been open for 10 days. For a comparison, RFAs, by which community consensus is determined regarding whether an editor should receive administrative tools, are open for 7 days. Anyone who wished to discuss this user should have been able to do so within these 10 days, as many above did. 10 days, with evidence that is pretty much as clear as daylight as in this case, is more than enough time to garner community consensus. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse a community ban. However, shouldn't the length of the block be discussed? For one thing, an indef community ban means the user has to wait for a year before they can appeal to the ArbCom, instead of being allowed to do so straight away. AvB ÷ talk 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that sentence in WP:BAN only applies to bans issued by the Arbcom, although it needs clarification (will ask on the talk page after this post). I was under the impression that the Arbcom can override us any time they wish, if they choose to do so. As for length, in my opinion, any block longer than a week rapidly approaches pointlessness, as any user that needs to be kept away from the encyclopaedia for longer than that probably isn't going to have resolved their problem by the time they get back. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording at WP:BAN seems, indeed, ambiguous. Your take on it sounds much more realistic. I've been wondering if we shouldn't somehow take into account Raspor's apparent age and/or inexperience in cooperating with others. His behavior may well change over time even if he does not consciously acknowledge what he did wrong and decide to follow Wikipedia's rules in the future. I would like to welcome him back as soon as he is ready to do the latter. An appeal would provide that option. AvB ÷ talk 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had a hard time figuring out whether Raspor is unable to see the problem, or whether he is just trolling. As I have said in the past, I am willing to support a community ban only on articles related to evolution and creation, including talk pages, for some extended period (like a month, initially) to give him/her the opportunity to learn to be a Wikipedian on topics that are both less controversial and (hopefully) ones s/he can approach from a more dispassionate position. A week away didn't help. So either a month away from Wikipedia, or a month away from evolution and creation related articles (broadly defined), with the option to extend it to other topics if s/he behaves similarly elsewhere. Obviously if my suggestion is followed, Raspor should be given the choice of which option s/he prefers. Guettarda 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>For that it is worth I doubt he would behave any better on less controversial subject only because his comments tell me he either has never read a single Wiki policy or has no use for them. Even his post ban comments on his talk page reflect he still doesn't get it and believes he is being victimized by "darwinists". His inability to objectively observe his own behaviour makes him a social liability in any setting. If there is a discussion of "lessening" his ban I don't care what he edits as long as it is not ID, evo, biology or science related. That said I would pity those editors who find themselves having to work with him on any subject. Philip J. Rayment has shown an interst in him, perhaps we might let him work with Phil on an article where he has been a significant contributor. Mr Christopher 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not endorse I don't believe a ban from Wikipedia is appropriate. i can see a ban from ID and maybe a block, but not an indef ban. Would anyone be willing to mentor Raspor, as an alternative? Geo. 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Mentoring I offer my services, as one who is uninvolved in this case. Canadian-Bacon 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I believe that's what I was trying to do. The problem is he refuses to read any policy that is linked for him (as evidenced by his comment that I didn't answer his question about what a community ban was after I linked him to WP:BAN.) But, hell, if y'all want to beat a dead horse, be my guest. -- Merope 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. Raspor has been given enough opportunity to turn over a new leave, and continues to refuse to do so. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The office of Bridgestone is editing Firestone page

See these edits: [26][27][28] Reverted by WP:VP2: [29] [30][31][32][33]

User:199.48.25.10 Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.10

User:199.48.24.11 Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.24.11

OrgName:    Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 
OrgID:      BRIDGE-12
Address:    One Bridgestone Park
City:       Nashville
StateProv:  TN
PostalCode: 37214
Country:    US

NetRange:   199.48.16.0 - 199.48.31.255 
CIDR:       199.48.16.0/20 
NetName:    NETBLK-BFS
NetHandle:  NET-199-48-16-0-1
Parent:     NET-199-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-5.BS-FS.COM
NameServer: DNS-3.BS-FS.COM
NameServer: DNS-6.BS-FS.COM
NameServer: DNS-4.BS-FS.COM
Comment:    
RegDate:    1993-11-12
Updated:    2002-07-31

RTechHandle: DB-ORG-ARIN
RTechName:   Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 
RTechPhone:  +1-615-237-6008
RTechEmail:  *********@bfusa.com 

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-01-10 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

What can be done?

I am in the middle of a checkuser with a possible Bridgestone employee who resides in the hometown of the Australian headquarters. This user has been deleting the same exact content as the Bridgestone office in Akron, Ohio was deleting. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

What is the wikipolicy on this? What can be done? Travb (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

see WP:COI --BozMo talk 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, added it to noticeboard: [34] Best wishes, Travb (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From your (sub)talk-page:

Find out who User:Mobile 01 really is, and get him booted indefinetly for blatantly abusing wikipedia. Find out if the wikieditor behind User:Mobile 01 is or ever has been an employee of Bridgestone/Firestone (personal information will be collected off wikipedia, and presented to admin / User:Jimbo Wales via e-mail).

How do you intend to get this "personal information"? What sort of personal information are you refering to? --Larry laptop 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We have Bridgestone employees editing Firestone. See: User:Travb/m#Bridgestone_employees_start_deleting_sections_of_Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company_16_November_2006_to_presentTravb (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How have you found out that LucaZ is a sock? Are we expected to just take your word? I asked you for evidence the last time you raised this and you were unable / unwilling to provide it. Please provide evidence. Proto::► 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you answer my question in detail? Who are you, and why do you keep defending Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? I'm not sure why asking you questions about your stated purpose is "defending" Mobile1 - I want to know about something YOU wrote on YOUR subpage? So what's the answer? how are you collecting this information and what information do you plan to collect? As for who am I - I'm Larry laptop - what more do you need to know. --Larry laptop 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: User:Travb/m#Bridgestone_employees_start_deleting_the_page_16_November_2006_to_present

5 minutes after the Bridgestone employee deletes the page, User:LucaZ makes his first edit. Lets wait for the checkuser. All we know for 100% sure is that bridgestone employees have been editing this page.

Can we all agree that it is important for the wikipedia communitee to know that a corporate office of Bridgestone is actively editing it's wikipedia article? Travb (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused - above you say most definetly a sock from the Bridgestone Ohio office, now it seems you say based on no evidence. So if you have no evidence but he's most definetly a sock.. do you not think you should be a bit more careful about throwing the term "sock" about? --Larry laptop 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like his evidence is the editing pattern, which we do accept here as evidence of sockpuppetry. When he says "no evidence," he seems to be referring to the incomplete checkuser request. Let's not get hung up on semantics; if Travb is right, then we have a major (not to mention newsworthy) conflict of interest here, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. The pattern suggests not simply one-off edits by an individual employee, but a coordinated effort. Raymond Arritt 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some more input from some more admins? Maybe the wikipedia community can find out more information. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a rule that prohibits editing by Firestone employees? Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh... sure. #1 of WP:COI. —bbatsell ¿? 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that anyone is being paid to edit Wikipedia here. Morton Devonshire^Yo 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that rule suggests not editing articles where a possible COI exists, but does not prohibit it. While I agree that the deletions these editors or single editor made were aggressive in there ANTI-ANTI FIRESTONE nature, they do not break any rules. While I may have edited similar sections of the page, you will see from edit history that I did not just delete sections but tried to bring them to what I believe are a NPOV section. I am sure that lots of corporate articles are started by the employees of those companies and then edited by others later on. I do not see anything wrong with an employee editing an article about it's company if those edits help to improve the article. As explained on my talk page, I have a history with tyre manufacture dating back 36 years and my efforts on this page have been to improve the article and return it to NPOV. Currently been forced into an edit war protection over the article by Travb who is the initiator of this discussion here. regardless of what these two or one editors and possible sock LucaZ edited on the article, it has nothing to do with me and is being used as support for this users persecution of me. See Travb/m and the sock puppet accusation he has placed on my name page User:Mobile 01. Thanks for allowing me to have a say in this and I wish you good and happy 2007 from The Land Down-Under. Mobile 01^Talk 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Big thing, Cisco employers are in iPhone lobbing to move the article to another place and leaving Cisco product there :-P -- ReyBrujo 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish related cfds

• WP:CFD/Log/#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_regions
• WP:CFD/Log/#Category:Jews_and_Judaism_in_Kurdistan
• WP:CFD/Log/#Category:Religion_in_Kurdistan

I think there is a serious amount of civility/npa issues on all three of those deletion discussions. Some of the rationales have nothing to do with our deletion policy and some even conflict it. --Cat out 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus opinion amongst the voters over at CfD seems to be diametrically opposed to yuor point of view; I'd say that there really isn't anything here for an administrator to correct. --Scimitar 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  The "consensus" (consensus will be determied at the end of CfD) of the CfD is beyond the scope of this complaint, that is soemthing completely different. All CfD discussions are expected to be preformed in a civil tone not violating WP:NPA and other similar complimentary policies. My complaint is a lack of that. --Cat out 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  I said "seems to be" because consensus was not yet determined, although, personally, I doubt the outcome is in much doubt. As for the lack of civility, I really don't see that an administrator can do much more about it than any other editor can.--Scimitar 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  I've taken another look and made some comments; some of those editors disagreeing with you are being less than civil, but, that said, I really don't see anything here to get worked up about.--Scimitar 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  It would be fine for me if they were given a strong warning. I did warn one of them twice but it had no effect on behaviour. Incivility should be discouraged on every opportunity. --Cat out 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  So it should. [35] [36]] Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Do you have a point? I see nothing problematic there. Why is it that whenever I complain here people just attack me left right. --Cat out 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Some people might think "Why must you be so dense" was commenting on the contributor rather than the content. Whether you see anything problematic or not, I'm fairly sure that there's a policy page somewhere that says not to do that. I'm not here to give free advice, but if I were going to come shopping for warnings, I'd want to make very sure I had followed the relevant policy down to the last jot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • These [37], [38] are probably the worst violations of civility in the discussion. Unfortunate, but hardly anything to get worked up about, in my opinion, anyways. --Scimitar 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring over {{lowercase}}

There's a problem over at Talk:IPhone, regarding the appropriateness of {{lowercase}} on talk pages. There is nothing in that template's documentation or anywhere else that prohibits its use on talk pages (it is actually transcluded on some user pages), but all attempts to introduce the template (which is also used on Talk:eBay, among other talk pages) get reverted as "pointless": [39] and [40]. This might require some form of intervention in order to sort out how this template should be used. --Coredesat 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone also removed it from eBay as well. Hbdragon88 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one who edited the {{lowercase}} in Talk:eBay, but all I did was fix it not to say Talk:Talk:eBay. Once I fixed it, the title just automagically corrected itself to Talk:eBay NipokNek 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Basically, as I explained to 1ne, it is common sense. Just check some of the articles using the template: 50 talk pages out of 2700. And you can see that most of those are the ones with many, many fanboys (Apple, digg, etc). I don't see people trying to add the template to Talk:E (mathematical constant), in example. I guess this should be sorted at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, not here. -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I can see both sides of this. Personally, I think anybody who revert wars over this is acting a bit infantile -- what ever happened to discussion? Why is this a big deal, either way? And past all that, I'm not really sure if this passes my threshold for an "incident;" might be better handled somewhere else. Luna Santin 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ack. This just might be WP:LAME material. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —xyzzy_n 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin:Friday's alleged conflict of interest

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report conflicts of interest in Admin actions. If not, please move this section and include a link here so we can find the new location. Friday is a member of a group I will call "Ref Desks deletionists", who favor unilateral, or at least nonconsensus, deletions of questions, responses, or entire threads, from the Reference Desk, if they don't personally approve of them. Unfortunately, he also engages in blocks against "Ref Desk inclusionists", those who believe a consensus must first be reached on the Ref Desk talk page before taking such actions. This alone is a conflict of interest. However, he follows a much stricter standard and applies the maximum penalty to inclusionists while imposing no penalty at all, and a warning at best, to fellow deletionists who engage in similar, or even far worse, behavior. I have mentioned this on his talk page several times, but he has not responded favorably. His recent block of Ref Desk inclusionist User:light current for calling someone a "Freshman" is a good example. He does not block Ref Desk deletionists for far worse behavior, such as these comments by an anon with a dynamic I/P:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [41].

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [42].

The only response from Friday for these severe insults was a rather mild comment on the talk page of the anon in question, without even the threat of a block for repeated future insults: [43].

The perception, among many Ref Desk inclusionists, is that Friday abuses his Admin status in an attempt to "crush" inclusionists. Does everybody agree that there is a conflict of interest here ? If so, what can be done about it ? StuRat 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You invent an artificial division of editors (ref desk "deletionists" and "inclusionists"), assign Friday to one of them, and then declare some conflict of interest? Exactly what is the "interest" being conflicted? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon has a very relevant point. Anyone categorizing users like that is a divisive and negative influence on Wikipedia, and should be cautioned or coached to avoid such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, that exact issue is the central point of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2. Friday (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the incident at hand, but I will point out that the usual grid of warnings encourages us to avoid mentioning blocks until about the third warning or so. Usually better to calm someone down, if at all possible, and yelling at them rarely accomplishes that. On the other hand, I remember the recall petition, so I'm sure a few users will have something more to say about this. Luna Santin 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Light has continually been extremely disruptive, and never seems to learn from previous blocks, and uses his page as a soapbox. Worse, I often get the impressions that he purposefully pushes the envelope in order to get blocked, so that he can play martyr - see WP:POINT, WP:DFTTish effect. Had multiple administrators not supported his previous block for the same offense, I could understand it. Please, stop this nonsense; we all want to see him be a good contributor, but this is not the way. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually shut down the misc reference (at the very least) - it's generally full of crap and is a honeypot for trolls. keep up the good work Admin Friday. (and I agree with the comments made by PS above in regards to Light) --Larry laptop 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

how was that a personal attack? A bit testy, but not a personal attack. I'm seriously thinking of writing an essay Wikipedia:Do not accuse of Personal Attacks every time you have a conflict, or something like that (or was it sarcastic?). Patstuart^talk|edits 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? What are you talking about? Please don't strike other user's comments unless there is very good reason to (i.e., not here). —bbatsell ¿? 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seemed more like a criticism of a page than a personal attack to me, and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a rule against saying, "This page is Teh Suck!" -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

just to conclude this subtopic, Yuser31415 and I failed to kick off in a manner that required admin intervention or resulted in a feud that crossed multiple pages and ended with one of us swearing to raise a tribe of children who would hound the other forever. --Larry laptop 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll point the readers of this thread to the relevant one further up this same page, where this block is already being discussed. See #Civility block for review. I blocked Light current a couple of days ago for persistent incivility; he returned to the same behaviour immediately after that block expired, prompting Friday to block him again. Light current has been spinning his wheels on his talk page ever since (just shy of one hundred talk page edits since the block began), and I'm very concerned he's going to self-destruct completely if he doesn't calm down.

Note that several admins and respected editors have both reviewed the recent blocks and attempted to advise Light current where his behaviour has fallen short of accepted standards. His response to that advice has ranged from disingenuous to flatly rude.

As to StuRat's point that there are other editors related to Ref Desk discussions who have been grossly and determinedly incivil...well, I have to absolutely agree. I have personally issued repeated requests to StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be civil in his discussions with other editors; I have not, however, threatened to block him for it because it might represent a conflict of interest. He is the subject of two recent user conduct RfCs (one, two) the second of which I started because of his ongoing insistence on namecalling. In addition:

• I have also warned Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated incivility. If another editor would like to have a word with him, that would be dandy.
• THB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently taken to calling anyone who agrees with a Wikipedia administrator (and who disagrees with him) a 'sycophant', among other attacks. If an uninvolved third party would have a word with him about that, I think it would help to improve the tone of discussion.
• Finally, the anonymous remarks that StuRat is complaining about were made nearly a month ago, and ceased after a short period of time. I agree that they were extremely rude and entirely deserving of a block. However, the editor in question was obviously on a non-static IP somewhere in 87.102.0.0/16, and I wasn't going to block sixty-five thousand addresses to whack one mole that made only a few comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ten, you failed to mention that both of those RFCs filed against me had the majority supporting my position, not the positions of those who filed them. Thus, if you are using RFCs, filed by Ref Desk deletionists, as evidence that I am disruptive, they prove quite the opposite, that the Ref Desk deletionists are the ones being disruptive, by filing nuisance RFCs. StuRat 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you think the majority on those RfCs agree with you is evidence that you have a problem, in my view. There is some trenchant and strongly supported criticism of you in especially the second, including your use of labels to avoid engaging in reasoned debate. I encourage others to look at the header of User talk:StuRat/redundant. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ten: incivility has made useful discussion about the ref desks more difficult. Friday (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here might be that there is a group of regular Ref Desk editors involved here. What you guys probably need is for one or two uninvolved admins or respected editors who have never been anywhere near the Ref Desks to come along and mediate. Let all the regulars go back to editing and answering questions, and when a dispute blows up, the uninvolved editors will step in and handle things objectively. Try this for a month or so, and then retreat and see if the Ref Desk disputes start up again (hopefully not). I'm not saying that things haven't been handled objectively so far, but at least having someone totally uninvolved handling things might make both sides realise how things look to an outsider, and then adjust their own behaviour accordingly. Carcharoth 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this good idea: First is that several of the ref desk regulars (maybe not 'several', but one or two at least) have expressed derision towards the contributions and attempts at intervention of those without a history on the desks (and use the 'intrusion' of such editors as evidence of cabalism and cronyism); and Second, it's been tried already, and several (maybe not 'several', but one or two at least) of the editors who are posting to this and the other thread about Light current were, at one time, uninvolved editors who'd had nothing to do with the ref desks. Anchoress 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress hit the nail on the head. Every time someone gets sucked into this debate (e.g., myself, who's never touched reference desk), it becomes obvious that incivility on the part of several pro-ref desk people is awful; thus we are labeled "involved" (keep in mind, I'm pro-RD, at least at the moment; I think it's a great idea). This has happened many times over, and we just get more and more admins sucked into the problem. To be blunt (I know this will get LC furious with me, but it must be said): this is not at all a reference desk issue. This is an issue of Light Current's (and sometimes StuRat)'s deep incivility issues. A perusal of the block log and the talk pages of LC (which I encourage any uninvolved admins to do) will show that this is extremely obvious. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, because they edit heavily there, it becomes the Ref Desk's problem. I still think the best thing to do is to try one more time with another set of uninvolved editors, and see if that helps. Can anyone give precise details of how many times this has "happened many times over"? Carcharoth 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree with your suggestion that Ref Desk deletionists should recuse themselves from blocking Ref Desk inclusionists (and vice-versa, incidentally). New Admins are absolutely welcomed to come in and give their opinions on blocks, etc., so long as they don't pick sides and start promoting one side of the debate over the other, they need to remain neutral. When new Admins come in, decide they believe in the deletionist POV, then start blocking inclusionists, then absolutely they are no longer viewed as neutral outsiders, does this surprise anyone ? StuRat 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's right. If someone doesn't agree with your veiwpoint Stu, they are picking sides. Please. pschemp | talk 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If an Admin came in, joined the inclusionist side of the debate, then started blocking deletionists for the slightest offense, while ignoring all transgressions from the inclusionist side, don't you think that would be a problem ? On the other hand, maybe that's the only hope of getting any balance in actions from Admins (hoping we get an equal number which are highly biased towards each side), since it seems it may be impossible to get any truly unbiased Admins involved. StuRat 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's use an unrelated topic for clarity. Say one group of editors, including Admins, says that there were blue tribbles in Star Trek, and the other disagrees. They get into vicious battles over this issue. Then, the side that says there were blue tribbles starts blocking only those on the anti-blue-tribble side, completely ignoring the same, or much worse, behavior on their side of the battle. Would these be proper Admin actions, in your opinion ? StuRat 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the absolute crux of the issue. I am only a sometime RD contributor with no interest (or stated opinion) in the "deletionist/inclusionist" issue. Noting the disruptive tendency of labeling - against their stated will - other editors into arbitrary groups, I independently warned LC, StuRat and THB et al as an outside administrator. Over a week later I and I have been accused of being among a "lump of administrators" working against the "inclusionists", a "freshmen admin lacking judgment" and a "shrill deletionist". To paraphrase a great statesman, THB, StuRat and Light current appear to share the belief you are either with them or against them. Since I can imagine no administrator will endorse their recent rash of incivility, I don't see how any outside admin will remain neutral in the eyes of these editors for long. Nevertheless, I fully endorse this attempt by Durova and brenneman to step in. I guess it will either work, or the we should make more room for a few more admins pressganged onto the good ship deletionism. Rockpocket 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't focus this whole debate on Light current or StuRat. There is actually a triad of editors on ref desk that seem to be causing all the antagonism that includes THB (talk · contribs) (see User:StuRat RfC, StuRat talk 1 and StuRat talk 2 for examples). While there are other users sympathetic to their "deletionist" opinions (refers to those that disagree with them) the others do not disrupt discussions in the same manner. A theme appears to be 1) a lot of editing to make a point, 2) a lot of incivility both of which are apparently to dare admins to block. The response to this tendentious editing is then used as a foil for them to cry persecution. The real shame in this dispute is that all these editors make excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. However, there a problems on ref desk that include extensive debates, off topic chat, jokes bordering on offensive and responding to trolls. It is these latter things that they refuse to acknowlledge as a problem. David D. (Talk) 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I havent been replying to Qs on RD pages for about 2 weeks now. Neither have I been doing much on the RD talk pages. So why are you referrring to me in your post? Am i not allowed to comment on the RfCs now? You really must define how you are implicationg me in the 'trouble making'--Light current 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The vote on the RfC is relevent since above StuRat claims that most editors agree with his position. But only yourself and THB actually endorsed his opinion. While others on the RfC are sympathetic none endorsed the opinion that you three favor. i am not trying to imply there is a conspiracy, you are all quite open about your relationship. I did define how you are "trouble making" above. Are you saying you want difs? David D. (Talk) 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While the majority did not support my statements directly, they did support statements sympathetic to my POV, in both RFCs. In the first RFC, my statement was added quite late in the process, so that would explain fewer votes there. Also note that very few people supported the actual complaints. StuRat 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I confirmed that some " did support statements sympathetic to [your] POV" above, but it was notable who endorsed your own opinion. So what is the tally you have for those supportive of StuRat vs not supportive? David D. (Talk) 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah give me some examples of :

A theme appears to be 1) a lot of editing to make a point, 2) a lot of incivility both of which are apparently to dare admins to block.

--Light current 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No one said that. What we are saying here is to try to reach an amicable compromise on both sides without throwing clichéd and condescending labels with wild abandon. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But you have been asking questions that appear to be testing the limits. I will add that Light current has been a valuable editor in trying to define a set of guidelines for the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which Qs? On the RD talk pages? Pls illustrate.--Light current 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

THB

I've blocked THB for 72 hours. I tried coming in as "uninvolved" [44] but that went poorly, thus I had his name on my watchlist when he's calling Friday a "ball-buster" and an "asshole." (Noting that the second one was phrased as "If a guy acted like that he would be an asshole" which cuts no water with me.) The block is uncontroversial, and I tried again [45] to initiate dialog. As I did not personally issue any warnings, I'm happy if someone officious wants to lift the block without chatting to me. We all do things differently, etc.
brenneman 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems your second attempt went the way of the phonograph and the dodo. Either way, this thread is more than enough for me to endorse the block. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a major regular at the Ref desks, but I toddle by now and then when I'm in the mood for Wikipedia Lite. What's happened to you guys? The place is supposed to be fun - a nice little grab bag of questions to answer. I haven't been in conflict with anybody there but I'm concerned about the foot-in-mouth disease. That makes it un-fun which is why I'm there less often - if I'm going to put myself through the mill I'd rather cry aha! and block a small launderette of sockpuppets at the end. You've got multiple RFCs, multiple threads at this board, repeated blocks...you're on the road to arbitration or community topic banning. Users with your kind of edit counts shouldn't need to be reminded where this leads. Disengage. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

the place was fun until Friday (who is on record as saying that he believes the RD should be deleted) came in and started issuing orders, unilaterally deleting answers, and making blocks. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not aware enough of the issues there to comment on it. It may very well be that Firday is harassing these users in a willful attempt to drive them from the encyclopedia, or that she desires for some reason to be the Lord and Master of the reference desk. But any chance to sort this out has to come after some cooling of the fires here. I love Friday like a brother from another mother, but I'll chase up any complaint on her with my usual terrier-like tenacity iff people can chill out.
  brenneman 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Im chilled ! %-)--Light current 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Light Current

I've also issued a "warning" tantamount to a threat to Light Current. [46] I'm not at all used to playing the hard man, but I'm put in mind of Mistress SK. In the end even if she did not understand what the problem was, it makes no difference if it's "trolling" (a word I am on record objecting to) or "unable to adpet": it's a huge drain on time and energy and it must stop. - brenneman 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adpet? Did you mean 'adapt'?--Light current 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

We could go to ArbCom, or we could go for a community ban for a specified (does not need to be long) period. If we were to ban the worst one or two offenders from the ref desk for, say, a fortnight, to cool off and regain perspective, while allowing (encouraging) them to keep editing elsewhere, would that help at all? I don't think we can let this ride. At present StuRat aggressively asserts that he will not even admit the possibility that those he disagrees with have a right to dispute his position. Shades of WP:OWN apart, this does not augur well for any kind of resolution of the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I absolutely accept consensus rule. If those who disagree with me are in the clear majority, then I would accept what they want. It's only when a minority asserts the right to perform deletions without consensus, change the rules, block users who disagree with them and ignore abusive users who agree with them, etc., that I disagree. StuRat 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a temporary ban will do anything but give the boards a temporary respite after which those users will return and continue to behave in the same fashion as before. I'm not being overly cynical here, because that's exactly what has happened with the blocks of LC and StuRat and THB. (Though to give LC credit, he has shown ability to reform when StuRat isn't around.) What is needed here is a long term solution to what has been a long term issue. So far the fact that every admin or other editor who has attempted to mediate with these three has ended up blocking them or being added to their enemy list doesn't bode well for solutions other than 1. An arbcom case or 2. A standard of behaviour written by the greater community. pschemp | talk 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, please don't misrepresent my record. I have never been blocked because I've never done anything even remotely "blockable". StuRat 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like #2 8-)--Light current 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I. Makes no diff 8-))--Light current 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current's (once in a wikilifetime) offer

Are we just talking about the RD pages themselves here or the RD talk as well. I have mainly recused myself( painful) of answering Q s on the RD owing to extremely negative reactions to my light hearted replies. I have also reduced my input on Talk:RD as well due to misinterpretation of my messages leading to blocks. I have mainly finished my work on the RD guidelines.

A ban for me from those pages would be hard to bear, but I do edit elsewhere when allowed.

Im not sure about Sturat and THB. Why not just ban me to start and see if things improve (or not).

As an act of self sacrifice and as atonement for my previous sins (call me a sacrificial lamb or scapegoat if you like), I offer myself up to be banned from editing RD pages (and RD talk if you really insist) for say 2 weeks, to see if the situation in your opinion improves. How about it?--Light current 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be brilliant beyond belief. Really really thank you. I say again: The optimal solution os one where everyone can go back to having a good time editing, be validated for their contributions, and serve the long-term goals of the project. *pfft* adpet *snort*
brenneman 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edcon)

I really enjoyed contributing to the RDs and the talk pages over the last few months and thought I was contributing positvely to most things (OK maybe with a silly joke/pun or two). I thought I was helping in trying to lighten up peoples lives. I never tried to upset any one intentionally and Im sorry if I did. Obviously I was wrong in my judgement. 8-((.

I also felt I was doing something useful in helping create the RD guidelines so that people like me would know what was expected of their contributions.

However, with the repeated attacks on me from all quarters, I no longer feel welcome, safe or comfortable here anymore. Anyway... if most people would rather I wasnt here, I understand and I will go.

I shall be really sad to leave this place... it has been great fun for me. But all good things must come to an end, I suppose. And this is The end for me.--Light current 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I await the execution of my sentence. (BTW please tell me what you have decided to do to me) 8-(--Light current 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Highways problem

I'm currently running into a problem with a user involving possible socks. This looks suspicious as taken in the context of my talk page. The other user informed about this (besides Vishwin60) is TwinsMetsFan who is on wikibreak. About a few months ago I was informed of a user Albertoneo10 (sp?) who kept making copyvio images and not adhering to the MOS. I and others left many notices on his talk page which he ignored. He received a few MOS blocks before he decided to leave. However, the user resurfaced as User:512theking. And kept editing the same articles and doing copyvio images. I talked to TMF about this. Finally, I get messages on my userpage that he has decided to give up and leave... however, another user posted the message, and he has reappeared as a sock again, and is promising to do more copyvios. Would a request for checkuser, blocks, etc. be appropriate on my part? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recall the incident that involved an editor at Gribble Nation, where many of the copyrighted images were stolen from. I'll inform him of the incident. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

He is also conducting inapproperiate redirects, as seen here. For instance, U.S. Route 422 (Ohio) was redirected to U.S. Route 422 (west) which redirects to U.S. Route 422. The state should be used within the brackets as an identifier. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See his talk page for future updates. I found one image, taken from state-ends.com, that "he created". I'll parse through other sites to see if they are taken, but my hunch is that all are copyright violations. And, what should I do to the aerials? I took his USGS aerials and applied the USGS template, but he most certainly did not "create it" either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Every image thus far has been tagged with copyright violations. Instead of going through his entire history (who knows how far that goes), can one sweeping edit delete the images? Tagged every image for copyright violations. If you notice any socks, let me know. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was an appropriate redirect, since he had split US 422 into (west) and (east), a reasonable good-faith action (which we decided to revert after talking over). --NE2 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

512theking10 claims to be this person, but could just be faking it. Either way this new one should be blocked. --NE2 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I received a message, which he spammed to numerous other users --

"Game over you suck

Game over bitches, you've caught me i am User:albertotineo10, user:kingofpitching10, and user:512theking. But leave user:prisonbreak91 out of this because he had nothing to tdo with this. You all are very stupid assholes. I win this game because in the end you've never blocked me but i left first. You can stop your worthless investigation because i'll leave you guys alone. I mean common i didn't even know that it was illegal to steal those pictures. You guys suck, this place sucks, and goodbye onless you want to continue your stupid investigation because is a waste of your time. I am a sockpuppet like the ones you put on your hands mother fuckers. Ha ha ha ha!! -- 512theking10 hates wikipedia
Note:Leave Prisonbreak91 out of this he didnt do anythin

User talk:512theking has all the copyright vio messages posted, and all images should be speedy deleted. user:512theking10 is another sock, along with user:Kingofpitching10, and the original copyright violator, user:Albertotineo10. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if any suspicious images crops up on any highway web-site from a new user, please run it by me on my talk page. I can easily double check it with the operators of Gribblenation, State-Ends, AARoads (and its other domains), and Steve Alpert's Roads. Much thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Effective immediately, I am blocking the following users and IPs for abusive sockpuppetry, trolling, image copyright violations, MOS problems, etc. With the exception of Prisonbreak10 and the IPs, all will be blocked indefinitely. The ones not blocked indefinitely will be blocked for 48 hours. However, with any further violations, the aforementioned accounts and any socks will be blocked indefinitely on sight. Let this serve as a final warning to the person behind all of these accounts:

• User:Prisonbreak91
• User:512theking
• User:512theking10
• 209.244.30.249
• 172.146.169.214
• User:Kingofpitching10
• user:Albertotineo10

If anyone has concerns regarding these blocks, please contact me on my talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

indefblocked user PN.P. p (talk · contribs) vandalizing his own talk page

This indefinitely blocked sock of Art Dominique (talk · contribs) is vandalising his own talk page with his ongoing fraudulent claims. [47] How can an indef blocked user edit pages? Can someone protect the talk page? TheQuandry 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected the talk page. Quandry, a blocked user normally can edit his/her talk page, so he can request unblock, explain his behavior, etc. He can even participate in editing of the articles by providing references and suggestion to whoever reads his talk. If this feature is abused the talk page is to be protected Alex Bakharev 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining Alex. That makes sense. TheQuandry 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Severe off-wiki personal attack by User:Nmaster64

He has called me "Hitler" "below mental retardation" here in responce to my comments on AfD. At the discussion, he labels my comments as bullshit and told me to stop stop being a wiki elethist. It's kind of getting out of hand, so I need assistance. Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The rules of wikipedia apply only to wikipedia as long it dosn't cross over into wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, check out the relevant section of WP:NPA. —bbatsell ¿? 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, if I remember correctly, Everyking was desysopped for an off-wiki incident, so rules don't only apply to Wikipedia. JorcogaYell! 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Slightly different situation, and that "emergency" desysop was pretty controversial. You can see the official policy for this particular situation at the link I provided above. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a completely different situation, if I may say so. -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: Everyking isn't a precedent for this. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a second, two of the three linked comments were on-wiki.[48][49], and off-wiki canvassing is by nature designed to have on-wiki effects. --tjstrf talk 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An off wiki personal attack is not a blockable violation in itself, but it can be used to demonstrate bad faith, which I believe it has. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I linked it here. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In one notorious case, ArbCom indefinitely banned a user based primarily on his creation of a series of articles containing personal attacks on Wikipedia administrators and editors, including solicitation and disclosure of personal information. Thus, it's not 100% accurate to say that off-wiki conduct can never result in on-Wiki sanctions, although that would certainly be reserved for extreme circumstances. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's mostly limited to cases where the off-wiki activity ends up disrupting on-wiki activity. *shurg* anyway, some person whining about getting blocked to his buddies on a forum dosn't realy mean much. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's edits are getting progressivly more reasonable, if still high-drama. I've placed a conciliatory note on their talk page, so I'd suggest that we wait-and-see^TM on this. It's hard yakka when your first exposure to the "real" wikipedia is via a deletion discussion. - brenneman 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He won't stop [50]. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fooqiman

• User:Fooqiman has removed the AfD tag from article Fooqiman and created mutliple redirect pages to avoid deletion. I've left a message on his userpage. MegX 07:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I've re-userfied it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why? It's a vanity bio and should be sent straight to the bit bucket. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison

I have bumped into this user on some 9/11 articles today. I found them adding a cartoon to a 9/11 conspiracy template, arguing that it is directly relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy theory page since the cartoon was joking on 9/11. [51] They then went and removed the same template from the September 11th attacks page, which one would think is more relevant then a cartoon episode. [52] I do not wish to get into an edit war, especially since they are an admin, but this editing pattern makes little sense. How can a cartoon be more relevant to 9/11 conspiracy then the 9/11 page itself. I am asking an admin to please ask Tom to cease this disruptive editing. The additions to the template devalue it, as much as adding South Park hitler episodes to WW2 template. In the same hand the removal of the template from the 9/11 article makes little sense, as it contains the 9/11 conspiracy theories and is the main article all the others are based around. --NuclearZer0 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• See Template talk:911ct Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I see an anon, myself and Bov, opposing you Fiddle and Morton. Doesn't seem to be a concensus to include. Please stop reverting and attempt to reach a concensus. It is very much in direct conflict with your role as an admin to not seek concensus for additions. --NuclearZer0 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• The overall issue is a content dispute which covers Template:911ct whose design criteria are illustrated on its talk page. As the creator of this template after a consensus elsewhere I am simply concerned that major changes to it (ie structural changes) are made after a consensus is built, and that it is deployed in accordance with a consensus on its purpose. I think raising it here under an editor's name is somewhat premature when the template's own talk page is being used to build the various consensus needed. However, the fact that it is raised here invites many more editors to visit the talk page and to participate, should they desire, in consensus building. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. Who wouldn't want to spend time working with NuclearUmpf to build a consensus about our coverage of conspiracy theories. If you'll excuse me now, I have a dentist appointment and I hope he can see me early. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing anything disruptive here, NuclearZer0. 9/11 conspiracy theories don't get a ton of credibility in most circles; therefore, that template's inclusion on the 9/11 page is somewhat problematic. What coverage they do get is in less reputable venues, and I really don't see what the problem is in adding pop culture references to the template. That said, this seems to be a debate better suited to the relevant talk pg.s than here, since nobody seems to be violating policy.--Scimitar 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing content disputes here? — Nearly Headless Nick 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tom is a known face around the 9/11 articles. This is not a noticeboard job. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

There's a devoted spammer who has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox at least since the year 2005. He always registers a disposable account and uses it to post horrible, all-caps, poorly formatted preaching/crackpottery page.

So far, I have discovered and blocked the following accounts (by searching for strings such as "COME, LORD JESUS", "MY DEAR AMERICAN PEOPLE", or "ROBIN DONALD"):

• ROBINDONALD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD44@YAHOO.COM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KING DAVID JESSE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NODES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SUPERSONIC NODES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EDGES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SUPERSONIC EDGES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROBINDONALD20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and these addresses:

• 60.48.171.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.94.77.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.208.4.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.93.174.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - already blocked, open proxy
• 202.188.133.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and deleted the user and/or user talk pages created by him; see their deleted history. What other action should be taken? Checkuser? - Mike Rosoft 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if any of them are current a checkuser might be able to turn up sleeper accounts.--Isotope23 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely checkuser material. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send the IPs to WP:OP; Checkuser will handle the accounts. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP 159.250.29.81

Could someone please block User:159.250.29.81 - this address has been blocked three times already; and as the last block just expired the vandal is back. --- Hillel 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I gave him one warning; I don't like blocking immediately, even with a persistent vandal. If he does something similar again, I will block him. --Scimitar 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos

User:AnonMoos has removed an AfD header of the closed Wipipedia AfD discussion multiply times over the past month. The header was originaly added as a result of public messeges about the discussion in Wipipedia, which had been only been targeted to certain users. He had been told many times that it isn't an an accusation against him or the participants of the discussion, but he kept removing it ignoring the messeges and continuing with his accusations of my bad-faith.

Removal of AfD header: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].

Removal of good-faith talk page messeges: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66].

Removal of 3RR warning: [67], [68].

Personal attacks: [69], [70]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all... Shame on you edit waring to keep warnings on his talk page. That's inappropriate. And has escalated the dispute further, leading into the personal attacks. When someone simply removes a warning, simply take note as evidence that the person has read the warning.

Now, I'm not trying to defend his actions... making personal attacks, messing with archived AFDs, and edit waring are all unacceptable behaviors. AnonMoos needs to be severely reprimanded. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki attack

I am undecided what to do about this: [71]. I suspect that at the very least a strong warning is in order. Whether this level of bigotry is genuinely representative of what User:TruthCrusader believes ,I would not like to speculate. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page. —Mets501 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we know for certain that "TruthCrusader" in that forum is the same person as User:TruthCrusader on WP? And, can anyone provide a working link to the debate he cites? Newyorkbrad 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). Was what he was referring too. It did get a couple poor contributions, that did not affect the close, but I don't know if they were new users, sock puppets of a banned user, or what. I closed the AFD, and it is currently for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17#rec.sport.pro-wrestling where I see troubling behaviour by two new users that I (as the closing admin of the AFD under review) should not be the one to sort out. GRBerry 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Campeonato Brasileiro Série A Revert War

I don't know what to do and I ask for help. I provided sourced information that justify my editions (Flamengo is 5th times champion) but User:21JuL74 seems to ignore it ridicularizing the Wikipedia:Verifiability ruling their own sources and verifiability criteria. I'm currently engaged with him in revert war, already made my statement at Talk page and just received personal attacks. I ask for for admin intervention to help resolve this. --Ragnarok Addict 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:169.139.119.16 Vandalism

User:169.139.119.16 is currently vandalizing the List of Internet slang phrases.

• Erichwtl 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. --Scimitar 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:63.96.196.195 is back from 48 hour block

Grr, 3 articles vandalised in 11 minutes. [72] — MrDolomite | Talk 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked, for 48 hours. --Scimitar 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jrapidfire

This user has been doing vandalism, adding original research, vandalizing article talk pages (see Talk:Broly: Second Coming's history for an example of how far he would go) and personal attacks in a regular basis for about half a month, a long list of users have warned him about this conduct (User:SUIT, User:DesireCampbell, User:Heat P and myself among others) I have disscused this with other users and we all have aggreed he needs to get banned, thanks for your time --Dark Dragon Flame 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe his IP adress Special:contributions/214.13.248.180 should also be banned he does use it more than his account --Dark Dragon Flame 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How you doing today? I am in total agreeance with my fellow Dragon Ball editor. This Jrapidfire has not only personally attack people trying to make him understand and warn him about his way but he has went on many articles involving the Dragon Ball character Broly and has put much Original Research into Broly's article and has go to sites like www.Answers.com, a Site that gets it references to there article for this site, and has copied and paste the old info answer.com has from the article before changes were made with official facts back onto the article Broly: Second Coming. His apparent obsession with Broly is clouding his or her judgment and is disregard for the truth told to him or her has lead him to attack editors personally as well as vandalize many talk page subject to help him or her understand. Yes as my fellow user Dark Dragon Flame as suggested this user needs to be banned. Thank you. Heat P 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above, but banning seems a bit much. Maybe an indefinate block or some other block so he/she can see the errors of his/her ways, or something like that.--SUIT⁴² 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

War of the Bots

A new interwiki bot, A4bot (talk · contribs), operated by A4 (talk · contribs), has recently started adding interwiki links to the highly controversial "Siberian" Wikipedia (ru-sib.wiki), which is about to be closed down (see meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia). In most cases, these additions were reverted by users. In at least one case, the addition was even reverted as vandalism by VoABot II (talk · contribs) ([73]). In a second case, a link manually reverted by a user was a little later reinstated by yet another interwiki bot, DHN-bot (talk · contribs) ([74]).

Questions from an admin rather unfamiliar with the mechanisms of bot operation:

• Where A4bot and DHN-bot approved for adding links to this controversial wiki?
• Were the operators of these bots and those responsible for bot approval aware of its controversial status?
• What is the criterion for VoABot to reject links to ru-sib?
• Independent of bots, is there a policy on whether or not to wikilink to controversial projects like the "Siberian" one? Have we got a consensus to exlude links to ru-sib? (I'd recommend we should.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I now notice that Alex Bakharev actually blocked A4bot on 13 January, but it was unblocked again as being authorized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The VOA bot revert was probably a misidentification, however, the bot could be set to revert these additions. Prodego ^talk 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see it now... Bot Fights! Hosted by Bill Ny the Science guy! Anyway... can we get A4 to just wait for the outcome of the meta-debate to finish? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tired to explain that interwiki is a common thing for wikipedia projects. You could find a lot interwiki links in the page Ingria. And you could find a lot of interwiki links to siberian wikipedia in another english articles. Note that interwiki link is not the external link, but it is an internal links to approved wikipedia projects.

All discussion about interwiki to the article Ingria you could find here [[75]]. Also you could find that the dessision about ru-sib wiki was permitted quiet long ago, so ru-sib wiki is legitimate in Wikipedia projects. So there is no any reason for deleting the interwiki link. --A4 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A4bot was approved by me following the normal bot approvals procedure. I recommend that A4bot, as well as all interwiki bots, stop adding or removing links to the Siberian Wikipedia until the meta debate is completed. —Mets501 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow - that "siberian" wikipedia deserves the serious attention of people - I strongly urge all wikipedians to check out the debate and make their voice heard. --Larry laptop 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For a unknown reason my js extensions (based on VoA's tools) does not show A4bot's edits as bot's. According to the logs A4bot received its bot flag fair and square so this is just a software glitch on my side. I am apologizing to A4 for the block. On the other hand I am strongly support Mets in his urging for the A4 not to insert or delete ru-sib links by bot until the closing of the vote on Meta. Ru-sib links should be added only manually on case by case basis only if the have any encyclopedic value. Alex Bakharev 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy to delete interwikies to wikipedia which is on closure discussion, and never was. --62.68.146.96 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

...But this is a wiki, and even policy is made and changed at a regular rate. I would strongly recommend not placing ru-sib interwiki links until the discussion is over, and, after looking at it and voting on it, it looks like it's on its way to a hard death. Grandmasterka 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly second Grandmasterka, obviously. This "wikipedia" is nothing more than a hate site with a sole purpose of pushing a nationalist political agenda. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with repeated recreation and removal of speedy deletion tags on article Medi-Kill

Help! I noticed the re-creation of a deleted article (deleted as speedy following unanimous AfD today) by user:KiddyFlidders and tagged it for speedy deletion. A little later, the speedy tag was removed by user:172.142.133.127. The speedy tag was re-added by user:I Love Baldurs Gate, but subsequently removed once again by 172.142.133.127. He also added a section stating the film as fictional. I've considered simply re-adding the tag once again, but it will probably be removed, it's been subject to one AfD discussion already, so I'm not sure an AfD would do much especially in light of the user's apparent resistance to allowing wikipedia process to work. Any help or guidance would be appreciated, as this is my first time requesting/nominating anything for deletion. Wintermut3

I'll be dealing with Medi-Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and protecting it from recreation. Sandstein 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have been best to let the AFD run its course, rather than jumping to speedy-deleting the article. But, you know, I don't feel so strongly about it that I'm going to go to WP:DRV or anything. FreplySpang 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked sock of MascotGuy; review

I've indef blocked Mr. Worldster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AIV request) as a likely sock puppet of MascotGuy. I'm not familiar with this vandal, so this is an opportunity for more knowledgeable admins to review (and if necessary revert) this action. Sandstein 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly him. If you want to really confirm, go ask Tregoweth—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

URGENT:User:WORLDJKD

User:WorldJKD is making legal threats on the talk page of the Jeet Kune Do article, and removing comments. User:Bruceleeman and User:Jeetman may be sockpuppets. He left the e-mail address info@leejkd.com, and asked that the editor User:FrankWilliams contact him. He left the following on his talk page:

MR. WILLIAMS. YOU CANNOT IGNORE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. WE WANT TO SPEAK WITH YOU. YOU DELEATED YOUR WIKIPEDIA EMAIL SO WE CAN NO LONGER ATTEMPT CONTACT OFFLINE LIKE MR. PATRICK REQUESTED OF YOU. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT INFO@LEEJKD.COM OR OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE PATTON LAW OFFICE JON@JONPATTON.COM. --WORLDJKD 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the talk page for the Jeet Kune Do article back to its original form. User:Brad Patrick wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation has been contacted about the legal threats, but User:WorldJKD doesn't seem to be stopping their vandalism and repeated legal demands the talk page. There has also been quite an edit war on the article itself, if you look at the history. I also posted this on the complex vandalism notice board as well. Please intervene. Asarelah 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(re-factored comments to make them readable)I have blocked this user for 24 hours. Editing wikipedia is not a right and there is no acceptable reason to disrupt the project. I'll take a look at the other accounts too. I hard-blocked the user with autoblock enabled, so it should catch any other accounts as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review (image misuse)

After this exchange followed by this, I've blocked Deucalionite (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for "persistent image copright offenses, repeat upload of unsourced images, repeated inclusion of alleged fair use images in userspace". The user has a tradition of bad image uploads and other copyright/plagiarism issues. As I have a history of rather strained relations with this user, he apparently has not been in the mood for entering into a rational discussion with me. Thus, block open to review here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance of Michael Jackson

There is a picture on the article Physical appearance of Michael Jackson detailing what Michael Jackson would look like if he had never had plastic surgery. I created this image myself using age progression software. The image is repeatedly moved by crazed Michael Jackson fans, and no explanation is given. I have warned these users on the history page several times, but it continues to be removed. I added the image back, but something needs to be done about this. That picture is extremely useful for that article, because it truly details the severity of his physical appearance. Rhythmnation2004 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your image is that it is original research, which is against policy. If a reliable source had assessed Michael Jackson and come up with an image like that, it could be included, but this isn't. The users who removed it are acting well within policy. Trebor 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is original research. Had he drawn his own conception of what MJ would look like today, you would be right. But, if he is using a commercial product, then his contribution is limited to moving the output of the program into Wikipedia. This should be thought of as similar to using a computer to change the format of a picture; that's isn't "original research", either, just a type of processing applied to an existing photo. StuRat 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; if you look here there is a section on original images. The sentence "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader" I think it analogous to this. The user is theorising what Michael Jackson would look like without plastic surgery and creating an image from it (the fact that it's a commercial product is immaterial, in my eyes). Particularly given Jackson's attribution of his change in appearance to a skin condition, any theories at what he might look like need to have been made by someone outside of Wikipedia. The image with the caption "What Michael Jackson would look like today without surgery" is far too assertive and must be removed, but I think including the image at all is a violation of WP:NOR. Trebor 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Trebor analysis. With WP:OR and the above explanations we can assume that a synthesis was made from the photo. A (original photo) + B (software enhancement or personal artist addition) = C (What Micheal would look like today). --CyclePat 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur, clear case of OR by synthesis. Pete.Hurd 05:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a more pressing concern. What licence does the original image fall under (the image used as the starting point - the basis for the aged photo), if we're calling it a derivative work, the original needs to have a free licence, if it's not derivative, it constitutes original research, and is unsuitable. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read WP:NOR carefully, you'll notice the area where it states that images are largely exempted from NOR so long as they are backed up with verifiable information and don't propose new theories. (Otherwise, you would never be able to use diagrams, etc). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And back on to licensing...what was the original photo licensed under? If it's not GFDL/PD/CC, this new image is a copyright violation. If it is one of those three, someone who knows derivatives better than I do will need to work out a licensing. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm it could be fair-use perhapse? Its realy hard to know untill we find out more about the origional. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I'm asking clarification about: the original. Daniel.Bryant 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(response to J. smith) I would say this does propose a new theory: that if Jackson had not had surgery he would end up looking like he did in that photo. Has anyone outside of Wikipedia hypothesised what he might look like? Trebor 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Unless anyone has violated WP:3RR then there is no need for administrative action. Discussion over whether the image is OR or not should take place on the talk page of the article it's being added to. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil post-block admin comment

Agnes Nitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by User:Adam Bishop for disruption, imediately followed by this comment: [76] "Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she pisses me off." She seems to have been on rather a good rant at Talk:Crusades but received no warnings and as far as I can see with easy scans didn't attack anyone, just argue article content issues (though there's enough there that I may have missed something; I am going to keep reading the back and forth some more). Review attention requested... Georgewilliamherbert 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Whether or not the block was warranted, that uncivil comment wasn't the most diplomatic way of ending a conflict. I'll ask Adam Bishop to explain himself. Yuser31415 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather poorly-handled block. Agreed that the stuff seems to be pretty weak tea from the personal attacks standpoint. That said, I think the utility to Wikipedia of unblocking an energetic, screedy POV warrior is pretty close to epsilon. Choess 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I now see that her last comment compares Adam to a Holocaust denier. That takes things rather a bit further, I think. Choess 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she was talking specifically to me, was she? Oh well. I assume someone will unblock her, but I got the impression she was just trolling us. Adam Bishop 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:218.188.3.113

Many last warnings of obvious vandalism.+mwtoews 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What a splendid history. --CyclePat 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Imjohn

This user has uploaded several automotive promotional photos and passed them off as GFDL. Prior to that, he took images from eBay Motors ad passed them off as his own. The last two he uploaded were done after I had notified him of the copryvio on his other images. He has also uploded two Oldsmobile logos as GFDL. I believe them to be ripped off, but there is no evidence to prove it outside of his general lack of respect for copyright. --Sable232 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I diagnose lack of knowledge of image licensing. I have explained things to him. If he continues to upload images without proper license tags after this explanation, then we will have to block him. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation by User:Hamsacharya duh

Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is impersonating Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs). See their respective user pages. Also, the impersonator is likely the latest reincarnation of Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is probably a sock of NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See the as yet unprocessed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NoToFrauds for the unpleasant details. A Ramachandran 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wuggsy (talk · contribs)

The user has been using article talk pages as a soapbox to express his opinons. In the process of doing so he has made personal attacks, see the following diff:

Is Wikipedia biased, giving special favor to Atheists? I guess so, since any comment made about Landover Baptist Church which isn't flattering is deleted.

Communists are Atheists, they both use the same tactics. They squelch all opposing viewpoints, while simultaneously spewing lies and deceitfulness (aka Propaganda) about their political opponents. The Landover Baptist Church in conjunction with the efforts of Wikipedia is a perfect example. All reviews are positive, all disgussions are positive, and all negative feedback is deleted. You biased lunatics have no credibility.

You are no better then Landover Baptist Church itself. If anyone attempts to enter their website and post that Landover Baptist Church exists simply to mock Christians, and is run by a lying bastard of an Atheist, then your post is immediately deleted. So I come to Wikipedia, and guess what, another lying bastard of an Atheist deletes my post here. You manipulative lying bastards. [77]

Thank you.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block; obvious attack account. Yuser31415 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried giving him a warning on his talk page. I've also removed the personal attacks from his post on the above talk page. I'll block if he does it again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Maile Flanagan's page has been vandalized.

It's been fixed. Feel free to revert vandalism yourself! Cheers! Yuser31415 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support a ban of 209.188.200.126

The user is an IP address registered to an educational facility, where, apparently, the students are vandalizing entries.

Entries for "Cyanide," Atomic Weapons, a local school, and others have been modified. (In the case of "Cyanide," the description "extremely toxic" was changed to "extremely tasty." In another, "michael" (all lower-case) was listed as the school principal, and "hi there" was added to one of the links area of the bomb entry.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MZmuda (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I've seen what people at my school do and i'd say any subnet belonging to an educational facility should be auto blocked. If anyone seriously wants to edit Wiki pages, they can make an account and login. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gab.popp (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

User:Mcjewzy

Namely, playing around with my userpage (moved it around User:Samuel Curtis and Sigh...why am i doing this?) just because (I am) really mean to (him) personally and rude and id like to do something petty to get back at him (See Special:Contributions/Mcjewzy). By personally he referred to my removal of his vanity additions of T-Unit into random pages. I think this user is previously known as User:24.151.76.114, User:24.151.106.196, User:24.151.81.152 and has vandalled on my userpage once in December for the same reason-- removal of T-Unit vandalism.

I don't know what do you think about this. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for a day, as the edit summaries show malice. If this account repeats the behaviour once the block expires, a permanent block may be warranted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good choice to give him one chance. If he promise not to play with user pages. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the username fails under the WP:UN criteria (sounds suspiciously like "Mc - Jews - y") and so I would indef immediately. Yuser31415 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking suspiciously like something isn't enough for me to block. If the account resumes bad behaviour (and, say, vandalised Jewish or Nazi articles), I'd indef block immediately, but it's not such a clearcut username issue in my opinion. Someone else might disagree with me, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Proraceskier1232

has made repeated edits of an abusive nature to User Talk:Lpgeffen. One of those comments points to an edit to Atlantic City International Airport at 21:30, 18 January 2007 by 68.192.27.4 that is vandalism. See also edit to Continental Airlines by this user at 22:22, 18 January 2007, now reverted.

Yes, But I noticed that his ID was not blocked indefinitely as abuse, and pure-vandalism. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Something going on

Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be an edit war fueled by Pizzaman6233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has sunken into personal attacks and off color comments) and 68.117.38.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as well as Shac1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has violated 3RR more than likely. Anyone want to have a look?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that IP Address 68.117.38.94 may belong to Capella University - which has been previously warned for vandalism (User_talk:68.117.38.94). Furthermore, attempting to take the discussion to the talk page have been futile due to the ongoing personal attacks. Reviewers will note that previous matters, between other users, have been handled appropriately. Shac1 05:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I did a lot of early work on the Capella article (among many for-profit college articles which I've started) and I've noticed that they sometimes (on rare but noticeable occasions) get re-written by anons with IPs matching the school itself. Capella has had some incidents like this, previously, once every few months and by an anonymous IP that would track on a WHOIS to the Capella Education Corporation (owner company). Thinks have become far, far more active in the past few months since the for-profit university went public on the US stock market. Please keep these facts in mind. I have a suspicion that some of the new user accounts are Capella anon IPs that have registered, but that's purely speculation. --Bobak 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Football article again

VNistelrooy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is committing repeated and clear acts of POV blanking/vandalism against Football (see article history). He or she has received a final warning from an admin and has ignored it. This is all too common in relation to the Football article. I have moved this from WP:AIV at an admin's request. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal info issue

This diff looks like it's problematic; I wasn't sure if I should take it to oversight or just ask for the revision to be deleted, so thought I'd drop a note here and ask if someone could handle it here. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• As a non admin I suggest oversight and blocking the IP for 24h (I believe it is shared). Yuser31415 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jinglebellsjingle

This guys is a sockpuppet of someone whose name I can't remember, but I remember he always goes around and nominates wrestling articles for deletion. As per how we've been instructed, could someone delete those afds (yes, I said that correctly), and ban him? Patstuart^talk|edits 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196. Block away.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update – Incivility, argumentative editing and COI – Some positive improvements though

Hello all. Further to the previous notifications on the NLP article[78][79][80]: The most constructive effort now seems to me to be the encouragement of a civil atmosphere that allows editors of different viewpoints to get along [81] and to present an article that includes all relevant views “presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[82]. There are some problems remaining:

• Despite being reminded of the importance of civility for constructive editing - some editors (possibly the same one) are continuing to be uncivil by demanding blocks in edit summaries ([83] (under “serious examples”))[84] [85][86][87][88]

• Editors ignoring suggestions to civilly discuss edits (diffs as above)

• Some editors (possibly the same one) persistently restoring argumentative phrasing [89][90][91]

• Editor trying to marginalize (ignore) critical discussion by using spacing [92][93][94]

• Continued obscuring of relevant science views eg [95][96][97]

On the positive side:

• Editors have stopped actually removing critical discussion from the talkpage:

• Concerning evidence for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: Some editors are editing using predominantly single use accounts [98][99][100][101]: The recent COI issues on the article are perhaps more important [102] considering the cultic issues inherent in the subject. Apart from this I see no evidence of any sockpuppeting actually going on in the article.

• There has been some compliance with Cleanuptaskforce suggestions. Also - though they do tend to try to marginalize critical suggestions critical influence shows some effect and there is a delayed positive response towards some of those suggestions afterwards.

Overall things are slowly moving forward. Civility is clearly very important on Wikipedia (as I see it in a nutshell - to “Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally) and especially for articles such as the NLP article. None of the other articles I edit on have editors who persistently restore argumentative phrasing (WP words to avoid) into the text. It seems to me that as long as civility is properly adopted and reasonably maintained though - then all relevant views can be fairly presented and constructive article proceedings can be maintained long term. Again - if I inadvertently make any suggestion or action that is not constructive then I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thank you AlanBarnet 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been trimmed down considerably, which is major progress. When I was a mentor on that article, it was ridiculously large. Good work! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Woohookitty. Yes there's definitely room to make the whole article more concise in criticisms and in the general presentation of the subject. Redundancy can be reduced and the style can be made more encyclopedic. Moving forward. AlanBarnet 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement in Periyar

I had raised this issue earlier [103] but nothing came of it so I shall repeat:

I noticed that the article Periyar is protected. I am concerned that large sections of the text in the article are copy-pasted from this article on countercurrents.org, which is a copyright violation. Specially the sections Periyar#A_Freedom_Fighter_as_a_Congress_Party_Leader,Periyar#A Committed Rationalist and Rebel, Periyar#Leader of Justice Party: 1939-1944 and all the sections below up to the Periyar#Criticism. Since copyvio is a very serious thing and supercedes protection, I ask that the text be removed by an admin. Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

User:Mobile 01 just made statment:

====The Bridgestone company has been anonymously editing the Firestone page====

Carefull Travb, that statement could almost be libellous. [104]

Does this qualify as a legal threat, if so, where would I file this at? Travb (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. He's not threatening action or saying he'd act. You're really reaching if that's the worst you can find from him. And frankly, I think you should back off on the whole sockpuppet hunt. What good would it do you to show that a guy who says he works for bridgestone/firestone on his userpage has edited from an IP connected to bridgestone/firestone? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else take a look at this? Travb left an NPA warning on mobile 01 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, with links to diffs that aren't attacks at all, and he seems set on proving that Mobile 01's really a sock puppet with some flimsy evidence. It seems like the wrong party is getting warned here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit concerned about this - I think we got into WP:STALK territory a while back - isn't this the 3rd "outing" of Mobile 01 that Travb has performed in the last 3 or 4 days. If he's a sock or there is a COI that's one thing but the frankly obsessive manner in which he's been hounded by a single editor is not helpful. --Larry laptop 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my concern, I apologize if you may have missed these edits:

1. "removed biased rubbish"[105]
2. "Both you and the other two admins are being hoodwinked by user Travb into thinking he is a good editor."[106]
3. The page has once again been vandalised and user TravB has gotten his edits into place and then had you protect the page. Please unprotect this page and if possible restrict user TravB from further vandalism.[107]
4. "Interesting to note that in the above section, you complained heavily about other people reverting your work. Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias."[108]
5. You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not. " "Comprimises I can do, Respecting the global Wiki users POV I can do, Dictatorship; I have a problem with."[109]
6. "Given the difference in our usual edit topics I think the general Wiki user can quickly draw conclusions as to who it is that is biased in there revisions." [110]
7. "Please unprotect this page and if possible restrict user TravB from further vandalism."[111]
8. "It seems this user has a passion for Conspiracy, Government Control, Corporate Abuse and Coverups which would explain his zeal in promoting his Anti Firestone Propoganda." [112]

Is there any concern from either of you that Bridgestone has been actively editing the both Firestone (which was bought by Bridgestone) and Bridgestone? Travb (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are focused on the edit rather than the person. The others accuse you of bias, vandalism, and edit warring, which aren't really personal attacks, they're comments on behavior. You may not like the accusations, but looking at the level of contentiousness between you two, it seems hardly worth taking action over.

As for editing by company employees, judge them on their work. Are the edits biased? The congressional edits were a problem because they were whitewashing records by removing well-sourced negative information; if he does that then we have an issue. If all you have is accusations of something he freely admits to (that he is connected to the company), then you have a potential WP:COI, but COI isn't an absolute ban on editing, and you shouldn't take it as such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am confused, calling another editors edits "biased rubbish, hypocricy, vandalism, and dictatorship" is acceptable under WP:NPA? That under WP:NPA I can state other editors are being hoodwinked into thinking you are a good editor, and that you have no respect for wikipedia? This is exactly what has been said to myself by this user, in the edits above.

This user has created content forks to avoid a page protection, creating a revert war on several other pages. Four admins had to get involved and protect those pages.

I requested a WP:Third opinion and the editor who was assigned the case stated that LucaZ and Mobile 01 where maybe socks. She also felt that the user should be banned from editing.

Mobile 01 deleted all referenced criticism to Bridgestone, in similar edits as Bridgestone employees, she has refused to abide by the page protection, in her own words making it a "a redundant orphan now" [113] and launched into a huge character assualt on me with the admins who protected the pages. I am actively compiling the checkuser evidence, and thus far I have found a lot. Travb (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you're trying to have him run out of town, I think he's maintained a reasonable level of civility. I get the impression you're just wikilawyering around for an excuse to have him blocked. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you want out of this, a block, or a better article? If your goal is to stop the editing problems, accusations of NPA are not going to cool things down. You've given your evidence, and changes have been made. If there is a blockworthy problem, these comments aren't it. Don't keep pushing this case unless you have something much stronger, because it's just reflecting badly on you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think my edit history on the article, adding almost all of the 17 references (including the first one), and this users behavior speaks for itself.Travb (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As does your edit history on this board. Proto::► 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, its over, I have more than enough evidence to already show that User:Mobile 01 has been using sockpuppets and has been lying about it. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01
I won't hold my breath for an apology. When wikiusers justify comments like "biased rubbish, hypocricy, vandalism, and dictatorship" as being acceptable under WP:NPA, I don't expect much. Travb (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, oft minority POV attemps to own Martin Luther article, usually without productive discussion at talk page

Please note the following edits by User:Justas Jonas:

• Predominantly edits one article: [114]
• Labels welcoming messages on their user-talk page as clutter, spam and unnecessary material: [115] & [116].
• Makes unfounded personal attacks against another user [117] and criticizes other user's edits with an air of superiority. Please see various edit summaries at [118] and Talk:Martin Luther.
• May post under an IP address to emphasize User:Justas Jonas' point: [119].
• Resembles a previously banned user, per another editor of Talk:Martin Luther: [120].
• One recent edit war is over the size of and content of the article's opening image infobox. Please see [121].
• Claims that another user's edits cause formatting and/or layout problems, when no-one else experiences such problems. Please see [122] again.
• Appears to ignore input and request for correspondence from much more senior editors. Please see [123] and [124].

I'm sincerely looking forward to hearing options on how this can be resolved. Most if not all other editors of the article are working together to gain FA status for this article. If I am indeed the only one in error here, or if you have some constructive feedback for me, please kindly advise. Keesiewonder 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Keesiewonder's analysis of the situation. This new user account is acting disruptively, and is obviously not a new user account. I agree with this new user that the article requires across-the-board condensation, and also that in the past things have gotten talked to death. However, simply coming in and slashing and burning is not the answer. --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another user to add to the set: [125].

So, one question I have is do the following four accounts all stem from one person:

• Special:Contributions/Justas Jonas
  
• Special:Contributions/75.37.215.34
  
• Special:Contributions/Johann Friedrich
  
• Special:Contributions/Ptmccain
  

I do not have any personal experience with the last; I do with the first three. Keesiewonder 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple more: Special:Contributions/24.107.121.195 ; Special:Contributions/Bailan Keesiewonder 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser anybody? Circeus 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser request --Keesiewonder 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser outcome is declined with the statement "Unfortunately, we don't have records for Ptmccain, so there is no way to check if this is him." Can someone explain to me how this is possible, if 1) WP intended to indefinitely ban a user, and if 2)subsequent usernames were determined to be sockpuppets of Ptmccain? Thanks for your insight ... Keesiewonder 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this AN/I receiving so little attention? Even if it is reasonable for records to no longer exist for Ptmccain, why was checkuser not run for the other 3 current usernames, checking to see whether they are all one and the same? Where else can I take this issue where it may receive some attention other than my own? Keesiewonder 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Keesiewonder. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox categories

See here. What was the general opinion again regarding attaching categories to userboxes? >Radiant< 10:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is by editing interest, abilities or geography (...from Alabama...interested in politics) then there's no problem. If it is by POV, political stance, religious affiliation, pro or anti- anying, then certainly not.--Doc^g 10:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy should be deleted, since they're pro- or anti- a certain POV. >Radiant< 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so. But since I became a figure of hate in the userbox fiascos, I'm not deleting anything connected with userboxes.--Doc^g 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

user:82.22.187.20

This user has left aggressive edit comments on various pages connected with the BBC television license. The account history shows that this user only uses the account to add an external link to a forum website. Special:Contributions/82.22.187.20 This morning there have been several personal attacks to User:Nick Cooper's user page. Can an admin help with the appropriate block process please?. Thanks. - X201 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for POV-pushing spam and incivility. A stronger warning than the one already there would have been nice, but the user's been doing this for month with no useful edits and I doubt we're missing anything while he's gone. If he returns I'll block for a longer period to reflect the length of time he's been doing this. My blocking him without a stronger warning first was arguably an oversight, but not one I will be 'correcting'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this one. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. - X201 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:FasterPussycatWooHoo again

A few days ago, a community ban was proposed for User:FasterPussycatWooHoo from Talk:Tokusatsu and all related articles and talk pages. There was unanimous consensus for the ban, though no one officially closed the discussion. Since then, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has continued to disrupt Wikipedia, harrassing User:Floria L on her(?) talk page while falsely claiming that the discussion of his ban was done in secret [126], personally attacking and attempting to defame me [127], accusing User:Naconkantari of malice [128], and making a rather dubious edit to Tokusatsu [129] (I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think it's a bit WP:POINT-ish). Not only does this community ban need to be formally closed, but I'm starting to think his ban needs to be extended to the User talk: namespace as well. jgp ^T_C 12:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only so many namespaces, if you catch my drift. Although it may be extreme now, it's verging on the point that a full community ban may become needed. Generally, users need user talk pages to communicate effectively; I wouldn't object to a community-endorsed (concensus) setup where any user talk page this user disrupts he/she is banned from for two weeks, at a concensus of three administrators. A blanket-ban on a whole namepsace seems extreme, and a setup where this user is banned without much fuss (three admins) from the problem pages, in my opinion, would work better. Discuss :) Daniel.Bryant 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be terribly opposed to that. jgpTC 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but the incivility does not appear extreme. I'm not sure that an indefinite block is warranted at this stage. El_C 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been a constant disrputive presence on Talk:Tokusatsu, has personally attacked multiple people many times, and impersonated the founder of a WikiProject. The thread in the archives shows a unanimous consensus that he's exhausted the community's patience. jgpTC 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more efforts at dispute resolution on the user's talk page. I'll give it a try. El_C 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Review of Admin Actions

I'm in a bit of a rush, I was curious if someone could review my actions here. Thanks, Yanksox 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're fine, however there are kinder ways to reply to such things. I just replied to the user on that talk page re: copyright issue. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Spambot?

Over the past few days, 71.248.42.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 69.137.60.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been adding spam to Template talk:Inheritance/, ranging from coupons to fashion to virus warnings. The random text in the article makes it seem as though they are operating some kind of spambot or random text generator. An IP check, a reverse DNS and a proxy check didn't give further information as to who is behind the IPs. Is further action required? Aecis^Bravado 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well 71.248 at least has been blocked 24 h by Xaosflux. CBL is down so I couldn't check the comprhensive block list, but SORBS says that it had a spam trojan back in mid november 2006...so I'd be willing to block for 6mo as a suspected open proxy. I won't override Xaosflux's block though. Syrthiss 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Erronous checkuser outcome against Olivierd / Benio76 / Zelig33

Today (09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)), following a checkuser complaint by ST47, mediator in the ongoing foie gras controversy, administrator Essjay has declared that I (Olivierd) am the same person as Benio76, and probably the same as Zelig33.

I happen to be neither Zelig33 nor Benio76, and I also know for a fact that they too are two different real-life people. We are three different and independent contributors, and I have neither dictated to them their contributions nor have they dictated mine.

If Essjay had chosen to do his work correctly, it would have been easy for him to determine those facts up to a high degree of certainty. He could have done it even without contacting any of the parties; and even more clearly by contacting them, which he has not done.

I am writing to Essjay to give him the relevant facts. I am expecting a reversal of his decision and an apology.

David Olivier 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The three of you all use the same internet connection, right? And have the same opinion on Foie Gras? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you do not have checkuser status, and whatever you may say about that is anyone's guess. What you do have is access to our contributions, and that should be enough to demonstrate what I have said. David Olivier 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What Hipocrite meant was that if you all use the same connection, and edit the same articles, the checkuser will turn up true. Try to stay civil, please. yandman 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandal bordering on harassment

72.145.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has targeted User talk:Sherurcij and (to a lesser degree) User talk:Kralizec! for specious {{cv}}, {{3RR}}, and {{tpv2}} warnings. Examples include [130], [131], [132], [133], and [134]. The anonymous vandal in question appears to be using multiple IP addresses:

• 68.211.142.180 (talk · contribs) - [135]
• 68.211.170.88 (talk · contribs) - [136]
• 68.219.3.210 (talk · contribs) - [137], [138]
• 208.61.15.64 (talk · contribs) - [139]
• 74.224.173.102 (talk · contribs) - [140]

I have stepped User talk:72.145.94.136 up through {{tpv}} warnings #2, #3, and #4 since this IP is the one most commonly used to vandalize. As that IP's most recent vandalism [141] was just four hours after receiving a {{tpv4}} warning [142], can someone give this address a nice, long block? To date, this IP vandal has given 23 warnings to User:Sherurcij (using multiple IP addresses), which to me makes this issue sound more like a case of WP:HARASS. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• As much as I don't like doing this for talk pages, but with the permission of User:Sherurcij we might consider semi-protecting his/her talk and user page. This will stop the immediate problem. Hopefully within a short period, our IP-harasser will get bored and we can unprotect it. Bucketsofg 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good for that, I've had to do that before with anon AOLholes harassing a user. Syrthiss 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 72.145.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for twenty-four hours (I think a "nice long block" would be inappropriate for the first one, though I'm sure it will be increased i9n the future, judging by the contributions history so far).

Quick question

What's the procedure when a user upset about an AFD I submitted (even though it got kept) emails me a link to his blog, where he describes me (and another admin) as, amongst other things, 'members of the Downs Syndrome brigade'? As it's off Wiki, should I just ignore it? If I respond on the blog, am I liable here for what I am sorely tempted to write? Proto::► 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you were on IRC, I would have asked you to use the /ignore tool. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 15:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not on IRC. Proto::► 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. I'd just ignore such puerile behavior. -- Merope 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who gives any credence to his offensive and childish rant is surely someone whose opinion you wouldn't care about anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

odd behaviour

Not sure what this falls under but some very shady behaviour here. The first move is to copy an admin user page wholesale (from here) including conversations and then altering them to suggest the conversations and barnstars are all long-standing. His current userpage is em.. mine. --Larry laptop 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)