Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Request for ban

Continued vandalism from a school. [[1]] There have been repeated incidents, apparently.

Request block for Phasemc and User talk:68.72.123.53 believed to be same user.

This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags [2] [3] [4] on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

User:Nadia Kittel

This user is completely uncommunicative for month and never really reacts to criticism of his edits which are often POV or redundant to existent content. He is uploading copyright violating images since at least December 2006 (the last one I found was Image:MMBLA3.jpg). I tried to reach him in German language (his native language) but my message was deleted just minutes after sending. I'm sorry to say that his ignoring is not caused by language problems but just foully. Maybe someone can solve but I really have no more idea... Geo-Loge 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a situation recently where Nadia Kittel created a user page for User:Kay. Nadia Kittel claimed that Kay was a new username but did not respond when asked to log in as Kay and confirm. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he ignored the ask for verification in this question. This is due this user is completely incurioused to basics of intellectual property law and problems. Geo-Loge 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If this person deleted a message, it shows acknowledgement - perhaps it is time to start warning this user for uploading copyrighted images or something? By the way, it's more likely to be a her, than a he, but that's just me. x42bn6 Talk 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nadia used the image of Kay for a long time and replaced that image with the current image of.. I do not know exactly: Madonna? I think he/she lost the access data to the Kay account. But this is speculation which only can be verified by this user. I do not know how to warn him/her? His/her talk page archive is full of warnings. Geo-Loge 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe, I think, but the name is a female name. Either way, see WP:TUSER. x42bn6 Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for some background, I blocked this user in December 2006 for being uncommunicative, blanking his/her talk page and also all of these erroneous uploads. The idea was not to punish Nadia but to get his/her attention, i.e. to be instructive. Apparently it didn't work. There is nothing worse than a user who refuses to communicate with others. Honestly, I don't know what to do next. I could block the user, but I see no evidence of change. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are normal and justified edits among his contributions, I know. But his understanding of copyrights is unportable. Some of his upload license information are lied and he knows that this uploads are illegal. I tried to communicate in German language.. I warned him that I will argue for an unlimited block of his account, if he just blanks this message.. he blanked and so I only see one way: Block this user for an unlimited period. Geo-Loge 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the image on User:Nadia Kittel supposedly of her (!?) is a copyvio too: magnumphotos.com vs Image:Kay33.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice of magnumphotos: Image:MMBLA3.jpg is also a copyright violation to this agency. Geo-Loge 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few hours after Image:Kay33.jpg was deleted as copyvio, the user uploaded a different photo of Marilyn Monroe with the same filename and a "PD-self" claim. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to send this to IfD. This is knowing and decpetive circumnvention of copyright laws and should be deleted on sight. I'd say a last warning to the user and potentially escalating blocks are in order. I haven't looked at the positive contributions of this user, but behavior like this is uncondonable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Afwiw, I'm convinced this is a dude. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock/reblock of confirmed sockpuppeteer

Early today, admin User:Yamla unblocked Lee Nysted (talk · contribs), a recently confirmed sockpuppeteer, stating that the user promised to stop socking, spamming, etc. I've reblocked the user, because the unblock was not discussed with either the blocking admin or on the RFCU. I'm not entirely sure if this promise was made on wiki or via email, but in any case, there should be more discussion about the issue before we unblock the user. Shadow1 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I approached Yamla about the unblock and raised the issue that this was done without communication, which is not a good move, in my opinion. Checkuser has information that normal admins do not, and these blocks should only be repealed after communication with the checkuser.

It should also be noted that since his unblock his only contributions have been removing sock tags from his sockpuppets and harassing users that he sees as his opponents on their talk pages. When the sock tags were removed, administrator JzG restored them and protected the article. I think that his lease on good faith has expired and should remain blocked. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I left Yamla a note on their talk page and invited them to join the discussion here. A Train ^{take the} 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. As she is the one that unblocked Lee in the first place, I would value hearing what promises were so compelling to repeal a block without any discussion at all. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this user is willing to commit to using one and only one account, not asking other people to create meatpuppet accounts, and being civil, there's no harm in an unblock ... but I don't see any evidence of such a commitment. --BigDT 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, all this user did since he was unblocked was harass his detractors and attack the checkuser process. Oh, and remove sock tags from his socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No reason, as far as I can see, to unblock. This guy has done sweet FA in his time here bar spam us with self-promotional articles, all of which have been deleted as being about as notable as my left sock. AGF only goes so far. And then sockpuppet. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Can I take it that "FA" in this context does not stand for featured article? Newyorkbrad 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the case that I unblocked this user earlier today. The user was unblocked more than three weeks ago after discussion on unblock-en-l. The user did at the time commit to having read WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and some other policies, and agreed not to violate them again. I unblocked the user because blocks are preventative, not punitive, and iirc (which I may not), notified JzG about my actions. I was rightly criticised by JzG for unblocking without first discussing with him, and apologised for doing so. --Yamla 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• The user was unblocked on the 6th, to be precise. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see it now. My mistake; it was three weeks ago. Shadow1 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So, having cleared this up, what is it now: has he done enough disruptive things within those last three weeks to deserve a new block, or not? In particular, is there evidence for renewed sockpuppetry? He's currently on Category:Requests for unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if there is evidence of renewed puppetry, but at the same time I can't really say he has had a lot of high quality edits since the block was lifted. His claim of wanting to be unblocked because he in involved in 2 AfDs rings a bit hollow. One he apparently became suddenly interested in after JzG showed up and opined delete. WP:AGF, but it is kind of hard not to see this as a WP:STALK. The other is apparently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 2, which is closed. That said, I'd be willing to extend him a bit of AGF and see if he actually wants to contribute positively here, but any more socking should result in a ban discussion.--Isotope23 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Just a couple of bits on the issue: I haven't seen his checkuser, but he claims to be connecting from several different places, each of which could be shared by random and disparate users. He has read and agreed to several policies (including WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Yes he violated the policies, but he didn't really know them? He wanted to participate in the AfDs, but they're both closed, so those are moot issues now. People have been making a big deal about him becoming an enemy of JzG and just joining the opposite bandwagon. People have been throwing words around like "proof" but I've yet to see anything besides circumstantial evidence. Maybe there's some evidence that I'm missing, but I think we should AGF, and allow an unblock, watching what he does for a while to see if he'll contribute to wikipedia. McKay 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, as not much fresh material has come to light here that would necessitate an ongoing block (we're talking indef here!), and since the previous block was based at least in part on a factual misunderstanding, I'm unblocking now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it rather depends. I'm the original blocking admin, and not known for long periods of absence, but this is largely news to me despite the thread I started at WP:AN. Nysted's contributions thus far are of approximately zero worth, as noted above, and the text below implies a legal threat, which hardly helps his case. Discussed on unblock-l? For what value of discussed? I posted a strong request not to unblock when he first asked, and although I subscribe to unblock-l it looks like I missed that debate as well. So once again Nysted is loose and !voting "keep" for syntheses of original research and other "helpful" input. No doubt one day he will be a really productive self-publicising vanity spammer... Guy (Help!) 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Plus, he is lobbying to have the article on Matt Walker mention him. (See this diff and I won't even bother linking to the pettifogging on your talk page.) This is exactly the kind of garbage that got him banned in the first place. I was surprised to see him at AfD again and that he got unblocked. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, Mr. Jzg,

Let it go. I threaten no one here. I mean no harm. My thank you, is just that, a thank you. I am trying to learn. I voted on an issue today and you suddenly showed up? I would like to be allowed the opportunity to learn here, and eventually add value.

That is all.

Lee Nysted 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, then learn. Please, learn. First up, when voting on a deletion, remember it's not a vote, and remember too that if someone has researched the issue and concluded that the article is a novel synthesis, that means you need to check for that argument, not whether you personally think the topic has merit. If it can't be verified from authoritative sources then we must delete it even if we are personally convinced that one day it will become important so we will one day have to have an article. Right now there are no reliable sources for that article, the sources cited do not support the actual content. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks by User:Raul654

Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Could someone please review the recent blocks (last half dozen, say - I haven't checked the older ones myself yet) made by User:Raul654 ([5]). He has repeatedly blocked IP addresses for prolonged periods following very small amounts of vandalism with very few if any warnings. Raul654 is one of our most experienced administrators, which makes this all the more concerning. WP:BLOCK says: "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." That description definitely applies to at least some of Raul's recent blocks. I have discussed this with him on his talk page and, while acknowledging he may have overreacted is trying to come up with various excuses, none of which are particularly persuasive, and he still hasn't unblocked any of them. Am I overreacting, or are others equally concerned by this apparent "policy does not apply to me" attitude? --Tango 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd characterise the brief discussion on his talk as a "policy does not apply to me" attitude, though your own attitude seems to be a bit off (IMO). I haven't looked closely into the blocks, but as a general note the block stuff is often a guideline and a judgement call needs to be made, looking at individual blocks in isolation can miss patterns of vandalism the blocker may note (though Raul654 hasn't suggested this to be the case). --pgk 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Raul is fine here; a lot of that vandalism was made to the main page, and he was just making sure they wouldn't do it again. The last thing we want is to give a person three chances to blank a main page FA - one of our key publicity points. I applaud Raul for having the correct mindset when it comes to TFA vandalism. — Deckiller 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That justification works fine for a 24 hour block, it doesn't work for a 1 week block, and certainly not for a 1 month block as some of Raul's blocks have been. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do look closely into the blocks. Take the block of User:129.67.128.222, for example. One edit, blanking the day's featured article, is the only thing in the IP's contribs, and Raul blocked it for a week with no warnings. As I said on his talk page, it being the featured article may justify not issuing a warning first, but it doesn't justify a longer block than 24 hours (the article is only featured for that long, for a start). It's not the discussion on his talk page that suggests his attitude, it's his logs - policy says one thing, he's done the other and apparently has no intention of changing his ways. I can't see any reason for him doing that unless he feels above policy. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP given looks static to me, it's an Oxford Uni IP blanking a featured article about an Oxford Uni College. Policy doesn't give absolutes, but even if I agree it seems a long block one on it's own doesn't seem to indicate a huge problem. I'd have to look through mutiple, filter out ones where similar vandalism is going on and so maybe connected, filter out any where there is suspected "sockpuppetry" (I'll assume Raul marks those resulting from his checkuser privileges as such). I'm not sure how you can divine an attitude from looking at a block log. What I can see from the dicussion is Raul admit an overreaction, you following up with some rather patronising comments a bit more discussion where Raul doesn't appear to be being obstructive and again your comments seem far from constructive in trying to reach a reasonable conclusion. --pgk 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse blocks • This post seems a bit vexatious. And the "I suggest you explain yourself there" line was not very nice. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your endorsement, please? If you are endorsing blocks which go against policy you must have a specific reason. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated badgering of Raul, and now it seems anyone who disagrees with your position, kind of justifies why I say this post is vexatious, methinks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to explain that, I asked you to explain your endorsement. --Tango 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust Raul's judgment; and your badgering just reconfirms this for me. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  To quote the oft-repeated phrase: "comment on the content, not the contributor." Tango is looking out for adherence to policy on blocking, not attacking Raul. Your comments, meanwhile, aren't doing anything but turning this into an argument - do we really need more of those around here? Picaroon 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also trust Raul's judgement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  And that's why admins get accused of being a cabal. All you have to do is click on the link I gave, check out of couple of the blocks and see what you think. Saying you trust his judgement doesn't help anybody. --Tango 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust his judgment too, but it wouldn't be a horrible idea to have a reasonbale explanation. Without prejudice, I went back over his recent blocks and made the list below. This list contains all of his blocks over the last two or so weeks. The bolded ones look, on the surface, like they could use additional explanation. I flagged those blocks that were either of a likely dynamic IP (in which case the block is useless) or where there was only one edit and no obvious reason to block. --BigDT 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 129.67.128.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only contribution was blanking Oriel College, IP part of a large block from Oxford University, so probably static
  • 71.31.47.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - only contribution was replacing Free speech zone with "Star Trek rocks, IP allocated to Alltel, so it might be a hotspot
  • 67.173.128.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - I don't see any non-vandalism edits from this IP, most are November and before, maps to Comcast, so almost certainly static
  • 217.41.28.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor) - IP requested unblock immediately after another user was blocked, almost certainly a static IP
  • 68.220.23.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Spamming) - three edits, all spam - IP is Bell South, though, which is probably dynamic
  • 72.254.8.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only edit was to blank Avatar: The Last Airbender
  • 75.21.241.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - I don't see any vandalism here at all ... it looks like this user was simply involved in a dispute and was discussing it on a talk page.
    • Deleting large chunks of cited material from an article is vandalism (or, in the most optimistic light, very POV editing). Raul654 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Um... Raul, he gave a reasonable explanation of his action in his edit summary and expanded upon it on the talk page. That wasn't anything remotely approaching vandalism. Four days later you came along, reverted it, and blocked him for a week. That was wrong on several levels... blocking without warning, calling a good faith content dispute vandalism, blocking someone you reverted, making a punitive block (four days after the fact it can't be described as preventative), and blocking for a week on a first 'infraction' (which actually wasn't). --CBD 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just looked at the segment that was removed. It was sourced by denverspiritualcommunity.org, therazor.org, and newshounds.us. Two of those are editorials that Some Guy On The Internet (tm) wrote and none of them are what I would call reliable. Jimbo himself has said that instead of slapping a "citation needed" tag on unsourced facts, we ought to remove it. One of the passages started off with, "It is unknown whether the number of supportive or critical letters is indicative ...". Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - our job isn't to guess what Bill O'Reilly's letter selection process might be. Unless I'm missing something, not only was this a good faith edit, but there's little question that it was the right edit. I have removed most of the passage that the IP removed. I apologize for my "vandalism". --BigDT 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • While that might be true of the first paragraph, you have conveniently ignored the fact that he removed *three* paragraphs, not one, and that the latter two were sourced to reliable sources (Media watchdog Mediamatters, and the documentary they produced, Outfoxed), and that those paragraphs should not have been removed. Raul654 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
            • He explained his removal in the edit summary. He had removed three paragraphs - I only removed two of them. I left in place the one about "Outfoxed" as it is the most meaningful and sourced of the three ... but even that is barely worth having in the article. That's an editorial decision that I don't see how anyone could be faulted for removing it. There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. If you have to argue about which paragraphs should have been removed, it's a content dispute, not vandalism. --BigDT 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
              • You removed one of the above paragraphs, not two.
              • There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. - Had you read the article before removing that information, you would have noticed that it says "O'Reilly disagrees with a common claim that he is a conservative, preferring to call himself a traditionalist and a populist." That cited information about his conservative leanings is there specifically because it refutes his laughably-hollow claim that he's an independent. And, in fact, that's subsantially the onus for the "Allegations of Bias" section, which this anon basically shredded. Raul654 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 60.241.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 24 hours (Harassment)
  • Nate1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite (Nothing but vandalism)
  • 72.10.105.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 6 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, probably a school. Maybe {{schoolblock}}?
  • 71.192.43.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 3 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, static IP
  • 68.88.7.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit was a partial section blanking of DNA - given where the text is cut off, it may have even been accidental, IP is SBC and possibly dynamic
  • 74.36.76.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit is blanking DNA, IP is Frontier Communications, so probably static
  • 217.42.228.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, but IP is dial up and likely dynamic
  • 70.117.205.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Page blanking - from Road Runner, which is static, I think
  • 65.95.167.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, ISP is Bell Canada, so I have no idea if that's static
  • 142.167.172.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, static IP
  • 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - blocked on February 27, after this whole mess started - this IP has exactly two edits [6] and [7]. One was to remove a statement about Israel's casualties in proportion to the US's experience in Vietnam and another was to say that the statement was misleading. There's no good reason for the statement to be there - this isn't Americacyclopedia so we don't need to compare things to America. The second edit wasn't a spectacular edit, but it certainly wasn't vandalism - it was a newbie making a newbie mistake.
    • This summary is wrong on both counts. The block was for 48 hours, and the second edit wasn't POV, it was flatly, factually incorrect (it removed a citation and changed the sentence to say the exact opposite of what it had previously said). This is subtle vandalism by definition. Raul654 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• You have to realize that Raul is a checkuser, and in many cases, you get a user vandalizing TFA from a ton of sleeper socks. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine and that's a reasonable explanation ... but if that's the case, it should be noted as a {{checkuserblock}} so that if the vandal later comes along and claims that their IP is dynamic, an admin won't unblock, not realizing that there was a checkuser reason for the block. --BigDT 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The blocks I'm questioning have block reasons like "vandalism" despite the blocks clearly being for something more than that (assuming they are justifiable blocks). If Raul has a good reason for the blocks, he should be including it in his block reason - that's what the box is there for. --Tango 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I block someone based on checkuser results, I note that either explicitly or implicitly (if I state it's a sockpuppet of a certain user, that can be taken as implicit checkuser). One of these blocks was based on checkuser ("Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor"), the rest were not. Nor, for that matter, has there been any evidence presented here that any of them were in error. I stand by every one of them, and nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that these users were engaged in anything but the misdeeds I noted in the block summary. Raul654 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief, even after this whole mess started, he blocked another IP - 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs) who made exactly two edits, both in good faith (albeit maybe not good edits, but definitely in good faith), with no warning. --BigDT 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked as vandalism in the block summary, too. I checked the diffs, and though I don't agree with the edits, it's not like he put a penis picture in the middle of the article. just a typical POV edit that should have been reverted and the user welcomed to Wiki and given the generic letter referring to policies. ~I notice it was a FA, and wonder if Raul is just very protective of those articles. Jeffpw 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that seems over the top. They looked like good faith edits to me, and certainly deserving of a note/warning first. Trebor 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing a cited sentence to say the exact opposite of what it previously said is vandalism. And it's not just ordinary vandalism, it's vandalism that's particularly difficult to spot - aka, subtle vandalism, and that's the kind that needs to be dealt with most harshly. That sentence is not POV, it's flatly, factually wrong. So while BigDT is free to continue looking over my blocks with a fine tooth comb, in the future he should avoid jumping to the defense of subtle vandals. Raul654 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Raul654 should cut this out. We already have a good-sized group of vandal fighters who do the job well. We don't need someone else entirely doling out week-long blocks for single incidents. Ashibaka (tock) 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this all disturbing. Almost more disturbing is the fact that some people seem to think that Raul's long standing here would somehow exempt him from following established procedures for warning, blocking and block length. Raul's comment on his talk page in response to Tango "I really don't like people vandalizing my artilces" indicates a conflict of interest in applying his admin actions in at least some of these cases. I don't think this is something to just give a pass on and I commend Tango for persuing this despite the potential backlash. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest page you cite indicates 4 possible avenues:

• avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
• avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
• avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality,
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)

My reverts to free speech zone (and, for that matter, the many other edits I've made to that article, given that I wrote most of it) falls into none of these categories. It's not even conceivable, unless I have some real life connection to them, which I do not. Raul654 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a wikilawyering response if I've ever heard one. Fine, the COI page is about editing, not admin actions. You failed to address the conflict of interest in using you admin functions to block accounts against the blocking policy. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(A) It's not a wiki-lawyering response - it's me refuting a flatly incorrect accusation against my editing that should not have been made in the first place.

(B) I will respond to allegations when someone makes one that's actually valid. Consider the latest one - an anon vandalizes an article to remove a cited statement, I revert, he comes back and changes it to say the exact opposite (aka, subtle vandalism), I revert and block him. Then I have to come here to argue with people who apparently (a) cannot tell the difference between a biased edit and one that is objectively wrong, and (b) are more concerned with the letter of the blocking policy than making sure our articles stay factually correct. Raul654 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where you see subtle vandalism, I see a newbie making a newbie making a newbie mistake. He made exactly two edits. With no message on his/her talk page before or after the fact, you blocked him/her for a week. Even if we were to presuppose that the edit was not in good faith, a message to his/her talk page could have opened the door to a possible discussion on the subject. Any time you encounter someone with a redlinked talk page, it's important to engage that user. If they are making good faith edits, {{welcome}} them. If you speedy an article they created in good faith, give them {{firstarticle}}. If you revert them and it isn't obvious vandalism, use an appropriate template like {{test}}, {{Uw-delete1}}, etc. The whole idea of WP:AGF is that we give people the benefit of the doubt, at least temporarilly. --BigDT 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now one of the top ten largest sites in the world. Disruptive trolls know exactly what they are doing, and they play it like a game because we allow them to. It flat out disgusts me when I see an administrator, someone who should be setting an example for others, tell someone off for reporting an occurence of blatant vandalism to WP:AIV because the vandal hasn't been "warned enough" for adding what is generally libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material to one of our articles. Raul654 did the right thing here, and troublemakers who intentionally vandalize the wiki in such a manner need to be shown the door immediately. RFerreira 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? I don't think I've editing AIV in a month. At any rate, we're not talking about "libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material". There are two distinct issues that I raised, both of which are unrelated to your point. (1) Blocking of dynamic IP addresses for a week is unhelpful. (2) Blocking anyone when the edits might not have been vandalism is unhelpful. If someone adds "libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material" to an article, don't expect me to shed tears when they are blocked without warning. But that's a red herring here - the blocks in question involve nothing of the sort. --BigDT 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had a dollar every time another admin gave the third degree to someone who filed a completely valid report to WP:AIV for the reasons cited above, well, lets just say I would have a lot of dollars. As to the dynamic IP address issue, I also disagree. There is a difference, a huge difference, between a dynamic address assigned to a DSL subscriber versus a dial-up modem user. Anyone who possesses and makes use of the block function should know this, but based on my own observations this is clearly not the case. RFerreira 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Serafin

To my astonishment, Checkuser has confirmed that User:Deszcz is not a sock of User:Serafin. I have thus unblocked this account. As I am no longer certain that Serafin evaded his block (some IPs have been brought into question, but no confirmation was ever received), I have reset the block to the original expiry time. I must also acknowledge having clearly been much too rash my assumptions of sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that checkuser cannot confirm two accounts are not owned by the same person; all it can confirm is the absence of evidence of sockery. 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Trigger-happy blocking by Betacommand

The issue of unwarranted blocks in connection with this admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been brought up several times, including lately. We now have a new incident. The users Hillock65 and Chuprynka being blocked for no reason by Betacommand yesterday. I commented on that earlier here and here but chose not pursue this further since the user blocked by Betacommand said earlier that he has left. So, ultimately, it did not matter except as another example of eager blocking by Betacommand. Today, however, the user in question posted an "unblock" template. I honestly, have nothing to do with this. Moreover, my interaction with said user haven't been pleasant but purely due to some content disputes.

Anyway, to summarize the issue briefly, Hillock65 was among several users who stood up to trolling by the confirmed puppeteer Yarillastremenog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see list of confirmed puppets of that user. In retaliation for the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yarillastremenog the puppeteer submitted the frivolous report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65 where he alleged that Hillock and Chuprynka are socks. I have edited the article in question and observed the behavior of all users involved. There was no similarity between these two accounts and report was clearly submitted in bad faith. It stood idle and unaddressed by checkusers for a while, and yesteday, when it was already too late for checkuser to give any result, Betacommand, who is neither a checkuser nor has any familiarity with the problem, decided to "close" the puppetry case himself, blocked them both as socks for no reason and placed the sockpuppet templates at both user's pages. Only after I raised the issue, he posted his "report" on the very same page where he merely says that he concludes towards sockpuppetry based on the fact that among the articles edited by the users, there was one common one (!).

My analysis is presented at User talk:Akhilleus#Proper tagging of blocked users and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65#Response to report. As I said, I had my problems with Hillock65 due to the content conflicts but before he decided to leave, he wrote several articles himself. Most notably the comprehensive Battle of Konotop article was written by Hillock single handily. At the same time, user:Chuprynka's entries at the talk pages were clearly civil and measured, while Hillock's was more combative (but this is not incivility we are discussing and incivility was not a major problem anyway).

To conclude, whatever issues one might have with these editors, the sockpuppetry accusations were brought in bad faith (by Yarillastremenog) and decided on sloppily (by Betacommand). The users needs to be unblocked and the unblocking edit summary should include the apology for the inconvenience and false accusations. On a side note, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be reminded one more time that block buttons should be used responsibly. --Irpen 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked both. They do not look like sockpuppets just two editors having some vague pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. (Chuprinka in more moderate form) Alex Bakharev 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I generally concur, especially with Betacommand going commando again. One person asked, "Why else would someone want to be an admin" except to block. I was aghast at that, because people who do want to be admins so that they can block can end up acting like Betacommand and causing the whole project grief. One mantra: discuss, confer, and act multilaterally. That's all a person needs. Discuss, confer, and act multilaterally, and especially in public and not on IRC with whoever happens to be in channel at the time. Geogre 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I had to smile at the quote above. I've been an admin for over three months, and including the two blocks I issued today, I have only blocked someone in 16 instances. I guess I'm just not a good admin. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• At this point I suspect many people question Betacommand's ability to be reasonable in his use of blocks. Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand 2 should be opened on this issue? Friday (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I say, ArbCom. Has there been not enough times Betacommand's unwarranted blocks have been discussed to demonstrate the other methods to address this recurring problem? --Irpen 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom seems willing to let the community make its own remedies. Do we need to take their time with this issue? Friday (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we do. Do not forget that unfair blocks do hurt people. Only ArbCom can either restrict Beta's right to continue with blocks and/or desysop him. --Irpen 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we know this, until we try. Why not RFC and see what happens? Friday (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you guys asked him about this incident? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked him yesterday, yes. Please read the original thread. --Irpen 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this after someone mentioned Beta being dragged in front of the Arbcom, Irpen, please relax, you seem very aggressive in tone here and there's no assumption of good faith by you on the part of anybody else here at all, it really seems your intent on dragging this to Arbcom, which to my mind is, at this time, unnecessary. We're dealing with usernames here, something that some people see as fine and others see as being excessive, it has been suggested on IRC that Beta stop blocking users for a little while (a couple of weeks) and instead, should watch others performing username blocks and looking through the RFC/N page to see what usernames are being thought of as unacceptable there too. ArbCom is really not the place to discuss the good faith functions of an admin, rather, it should be a last resort if the admin or any editor refuses to change their behavior, is seriously damaging the project, is doing nothing to help the project at all, and all other avenues to rectify the situation have been exhausted. We're not their yet and I think if you try a less confrontational approach, we might be able to make some really significant headway here. -- Heligoland 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

After briefly looking over this issue, I think betacommand's blocks have been made in good faith in this particular instance, there has been evidence to suggest that the 2 users are sockpuppets. However there have been a number of users blocked (once again) for username violations; User:Asdf555, User:Sally catastrophe;, User:B;uedog, User:Ihatechillums which are questionable to say the least RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd wonder whether "B;uedog" was a simple miskeying of "Bluedog", the semicolon key being next to the L key. "Sally catastrophe;", with or without semicolon, is surely no more offensive than Calamity Jane. -- Ben 07:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Asdf555: I see nothing wrong with the username. --Carnildo 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't WP:RFCN but semi colons aren't banned by WP:U and with regards to Ihatechillums well, chillum has its own article, I really doubt it will offend anyone RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for ArbCom, when I looked at the sock case I saw two users who have a very simiar editing pattern and a similar pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. From the evidence they appeared to be the same user. In regard to those listed username blocks ; can cause some problems with templates like I know = breaks the {{user}} template, I blocked User:Asdf555 as being a nonsense username. Might I note even CheckUsers have misread data, it appears I did the same here given further opinion and input. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom is definately not needed, these are all good faith blocks although there is a concern of newbie biting RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely no similarity in their editing patterns and only one of the two has a "pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV". To see this would have taken spending more time on investigating the report. Admittedly, this is harder than just block. And this is exactly the problem. --Irpen 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out Alex Bakharev agreed with me, and like I said given the further data I misread the facts, Please AGF as I said I made an honest mistake in this SSPA case, there have been cases where our CheckUsers made the same mistake there is no need to assume bad faith. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nonsense usernames are not disallowed. Otherwise a lot of Wikipedians would be in deep trouble. Usernames with a misleading or confusing use of characters, usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers, and usernames that consist of extended repetition of a particular character are disallowed. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my slip in proper policy phrasing that is what I meant apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers is what I should have quoted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the standard US English keyboard, "asdf" is the first four letters of the home row. It's similar to qwerty or zxcvbnm. --Carnildo 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the user of a semi colon violates WP:U at present, if this is a problem, it should be written into policy before blocking RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The good faith issue is a strawman here I think. Nobody's questioned Betacommand's intentions, as far as I know. The questions involve his judgment. Friday (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

if its just my judgment then why was ArbCom the first thing that was suggested? I always try to AGF. if you are concerned please talk to me. regarding the username blocks I have tried to limit them to just the extreme obvious. But in light of this issue I guess I will stop blocking for a while. Like I said AGF and try and discuss it first before threating ArbCom. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you- of course people are assuming good faith, but this is not remotely incompatible with suggesting that Arbcom take a look at this. Arbcom is almost never required for bad-faith editors- what to do with them is generally easy to sort out. Stopping with the disputed behavior while it's being discussed is a good thing, perhaps you should have done this previously. Friday (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for a few links to illustrate why people are questioning Betacommand's judgement in his use of blocks. His block of Irpen in December was outrageous, a quite undeserved smear on Irpen's block log, widely criticized by the community — not just criticized but repeatedly described as "odd".[8] [9], And here is a discussion of Betacommand's (also much-critized) role in Chairboy's "NPA block" of Giano, a block overturned by Jimbo Wales.[10]. These are the two Betacommand blocks I happen to know about. I only hope they're the worst he's done. I advise WP:RFAR rather than one of those RFC timesinks, since desysopping isn't something the community does anyway. Hey, btw, should this be here? Isn't it an issue for the community noticeboard? It doesn't specifically affect admins. But Betacommand's admin actions are affecting the community, not in a good way. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Like I have said before I did not want that block placed or even know about it till later, All that I asked was for a uninvolved user to remind Giano about NPA. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, no desire to go over old ground, but watch the spin. The "block overturned by Jimbo Wales" was explicitly endorsed by Jimbo, prior to his unblocking as a gesture of reconciliation.--Doc^g 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could I just point out Doc, if people bother to read [11] they will see that that block came about following Beattacommand's lying about me on IRC - a blatent fact which those "editors" who advise Jimbo chose not to make him aware. Giano 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for Giano; so how many people have "lied" about you on Wikipedia exactly? LuciferMorgan 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch the spin ? I fucking linked to Jimbo's endorsement in the log, and now I'm trying to hide it? Bishonen | talk 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Your characterization of it is inaccurate. You present it as though Jimbo specifically disapproved of the block and overturned it because the blocking admin was in error--and I don't see how Betacommand is related to that block anyway. Your characterization of the Irpen block also seems to be inaccurate; I don't see how the block was "outrageous", though it does explain why Irpen initiated this complaint. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on my links, Centrx, and I believe these issues will become much clearer to you. I posted for the purpose of bringing these links to people's attention, not for any "characterizations" of my own. The links are part—the most important part—of how I "present" (as you say) past events. They show Jimbo's endorsement of the Giano block, and they show how severely the community criticized the block of Irpen. The community reaction was the point I wanted to make—not that the Irpen block is criticized by me. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Heligoland that bringing this to ArbCom would be over the top. About a week ago, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand was closed early and delisted "to allow time for discussion elsewhere. If that discussion is not successful, the RfC can be reopened." Perhaps, and I need to emphasize that this is a neutral suggestion, the RFC may be reopened, in order to continue this discussion there. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but for concerns in life I have to log off for now I will be back on later. (will be several hours) I am sorry for having to leave before this issue could be handled. There is no need to escalate this matter yet I hope that we can settle this issue peacefully without the need for ArbCom or RFC. See you later and best wishes to all including those who dont like me. I hope you all have a good day. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but blocks really do affect people, a lot. I don't think we should let this go (and go on and on) just because we're sorry. Betacommand, how about a strictly voluntary undertaking from you to not use the block button for say six months? Just pretend you don't have it. It seems to me that would save you a lot of stress, and all of us time. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Like I said above I am stopping blocking users until there is an agreement on this issue, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a year. Also I think you misunderstood my last post I said that I was sorry for not being able to respond to further questions for several hours I had personal matters to attend to. I think this issue needs to be settled too. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand is open. Friday (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Friday. Given that we're seeing the very same list of names appearing in support of Betacommand's blocks this time as last, and some of the same names upset at unilateral blocking (without warning, of course) plus quite a few more, it is time for an RFC, as I don't think that the one important remedy has been accepted: confer. Confer on AN/I. Find an uninvolved person. If your last block got overturned, think twice before the next one. It's no vendetta: it's an attempt to ensure that we don't keep going over the same ground and losing people and escalating into wars. Geogre 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

**In light of recent goigns on, and probably this covnerstaion, Betacommand has dumped about 30 names to be blocked at WP:AIV. Some of them are blatantly obvious but i feel that he is doing this to Make a point and i feel it is innapropriate. Does anybody else have feelings on this? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Never mind, i talked to him. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I did too. I am concerned that many of the names he did submit on this list were clearly block-worthy, a bunch of them were nowhere near blockable. They've since been removed. Proto ► 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I might ask if you would respond which names you thought were not blockable, Please respond on my talk page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • about a 3rd of the names seemed appropriate for WP:AIV, penis, poop, vandal in the name is generally ok. I am fairly sure Beta knew what he was doing when he flooded the page with the rest of the questionable names. He knows that is not where they go and i very strongly believe he was doing it to make a point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a point I would have block those. If you dont think they should be blocked then we have a difference of opinion that started this issue, and that I am trying to solve. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact you would have blocked accounts such as User:Asdfgrewq purely on their user names is precisely why you cannot be trusted with username blocks at this moment in time. I note now that you have reverted to adding them to WP:RFCN. Perhaps you could stop having anything to do with usernames until this is resolved? Proto ► 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proto, Asdfgrewq is a collection of apparently random characters, this is an understandable block. "Productionpaul" is the one I don't understand. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If i remeber corrently, we closed a recent WP:RFCN as allow with the username qmwnebrvtcyxuz. asdfrewq is much less random than that in my opinion. But, for that reason alone, the controversial state of such usernames, a WP:RFCN would have been very appropriate in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a bureacracy, nor do I remember WP:RFCN being granted any power to create policy and certainly not make binding decisions. I'm not sure it should be making any decisions regarding blocking or not people based on usernames, RFC is Requests for Comment no other RFC can instigate a block or ban on anyone. The normally expected outcome from RFC is for *all* involved (not necessarily just the person being complained about) to consider the views expressed and as a matter of self make suitable adjustments. The whole thing of making votes of "allow" and "deny" seems rather bizarre to me. --pgk 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunted by A.K.G. and Ivebenndead5000years

Two new users have joined Wikipedia today, Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Let's start with Hunted by A.K.G. His/her second edit, ten minutes after registering, was a support vote in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Hybrid (2), including a correct signature. Edits 5, 6 and 7 were to Tree63. Edits 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 were talk page messages, again with correct signatures. Edit 14 was a comment in WP:RFC/NAME claiming some level of knowledge of our username policy including using the correct shortcut. Later edits were an unblock request for Can'trest,myshoewillgetlostinthewasher (talk · contribs), amongst many other suspicious edits. Cut to Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs). One of the first edits by this user was creating a proper redirect to... Tree63, followed by some vandalism and a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. With only a few edits, this user managed to find this section of Wikipedia. Something is fishy here. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like socks, is there a need for a checkuser? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, since I have no idea yet what the main account is and CheckUser is not for fishing. This discussion btw is related to the above discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious behavior by a new user. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They really do seam like they know policy whilst being on wikipedia for less than a day. Same editting pattern could be a good reason for a CheckUser - both to WP:RFCN and Tree63, with the vandalism from the latter account I think it would make an ideal candidate for CheckUser RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sockpuppetry has been established for 99%. Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has been blocked for vandalism. The autoblock on the underlying (static) IP, 70.104.103.206 (talk · contribs), caused an autoblock on Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs). The accounts posted unblock requests two minutes apart, seemingly editing from that very IP. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Think this establishes 99.9% certainty and and an indef block for both RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As per the earlier post on this page, I think they're probably a reincarnation of someone else. If both have been indefed, though, the identity probably doesn't matter. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Netsnipe, Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has "previously been spotted operating from 70.104.121.185 as User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme." Hunted by A.K.G. has been blocked as a Zbl sock. User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme, User:Ivebenndead5000years and User:Hunted by A.K.G. have been added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zbl. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting IP Block for Colonial HK page

Please block these IPs. I have already put a lock on the History of Colonial Hong Kong (1800s - 1930s) page. These 2 IPs are doing too much damage. Benjwong 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

67.86.25.241

68.198.112.126

Putting a semi-protected tag on a page does not protect it. Only admins can protect a page. If you are asking other people to block IP addresses, then you are not an admin, and have no authority to protect pages. Corvus cornix 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the sprotect tag, since it was incorrect. Corvus cornix 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Template on Main Page not protected

Portal:Current events/Headlines isn't protected, even though it's on the main page. Am I missing something, or is does this say, "PLEASE VANDALIZE ME!"? · AO ^Talk 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not on the main page. – Steel 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. It's the almost-identical Template:In the news which is on the Main page, the other is just in Portal:Current events. · AO ^Talk 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! · AO ^Talk 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, vandalism of the main page cannot be done through templates thanks to cascading protection, which automatically prevents any editing of any template on the main page. Ral315 » 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Days-long edit war just under 3RR threshold

There's an edit war underway in the article Toll-like receptor between two users Utriv and Jkagan.

• Neither user writes an edit summary to explain the reversion.
• Neither user has discussed their disagreement on the article's talk page. Neither of them have responded to comments about their behavior on the talk page.
• Neither user has discussed their disagreement on their own talk pages.
• Both users have been warned about WP:3RR, although the reversions are kept under the 3RR threshold.

I think a temporary block on both is in order to get their attention. Just looking at the edits (without any edit summaries), it's impossible to determine the basis of their disagreement. -Amatulic 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction - they are now arguing about it on the article's talk page, but still reverting each other in the article and failing to use edit summaries. -Amatulic 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not reverting often enough for a 3RR block, so I protected the page for a week. If they can't work it out they can ask for help; next time they'll get blocked. Looks like a turf war of some kind and if so, they need to be cluebatted about COI as well. Thatcher131 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The version you protected happens to be from the editor who seems less willing to engage in discussion, though. Ah well, I know it's a grand tradition to protect the wrong version! Hopefully they'll work things out anyway. Thanks for the quick response. -Amatulic 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List it at Wikiproject:Biology. If somone there can sort it out the article can be unprotected. Thatcher131 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall we give Thatcher131 the reward appropriate for such a dastardly deed? >:D Justin Eiler 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Why not? Unless Thatcher131 objects, of course. I think 'twould be an honor to be "rouge" though. -Amatulic 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm more of an autumn. Thatcher131 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Awarded here. :D Justin Eiler 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The three-revert rule comprehends blocks in this circumstance. The language used there to express the principle is "Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." Clearly these people are edit-warring and clearly it is disruptive; they show no intention of stopping. The page should be unprotected and the users blocked if they perform similar edits to the page; other users shouldn't be prevented from making valuable contributions because of these editors' misbehaviour. --bainer (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For now there are no other editors, and a 24 hour block for a 1st offense will help for 25 hours, if we're lucky. I'd rather find someone who is knowledgable about TLRs and who does not have an axe to grind, like WIkiproject:Biology? I'd be happy to unprotect early if someone else will take an interest, and then block the two edit warriors if they can't get along with the new editors. If you feel strongly, you may reverse my protection and block the editors instead. Thatcher131 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed another factor to take into account, and I wouldn't block them straight away, but only if they persisted in their edit warring (which I would make clear to them if I unprotected the page). The main point I was trying to convey is that people can still be blocked for edit warring even when they don't make more than three reverts in any 24 hour period. --bainer (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've done that on occasion, too. Just thought prot was a more useful response here. I may make some talk page suggestions when I wake up in 4 hours. Thatcher131 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I noticed that there seemed to be some sort of slow-motion revert war going on there, but it hadn't really clicked that it had been going on as long as it had. I had been meaning to take a closer look at the competing versions, but I've been busy putting together figures and last-minute data for a grant application. If they come out edit warring again after the protection comes off, then blocks would be in order to get their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard

This user continues to flout established consensus on naming and indexing issues, and persistently reverts despite being told beforehand. This is particularly notable in his persistent attempts to forcibly categorise Muslims and Sikhs by their last name [12], despite media referring to them by first name. He has partaken in previous discussions regarding this [13] (see link to archived discussion, but persists in reverting them again and again - Yuvraj Singh is a particular favourite [14]. I feel that he is violating WP:POINT and is persistently disrupting the encyclopedia. A quick look at his contributions show that a large proportion of his edits are engaged in this sort of activity, and I think he needs to be blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, especially as he uses malicious edit summaries accusing others and stuff like this [15]. Rama's arrow 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen his edits and insistence on last name indexing, I endorse this block. --Ragib 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as well. Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time - please attempt to engage Gene in the AN/I discussion prior to blocking. He's a long time and highly productive editor. --Duk 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?. He has been engaged long enough. Endorse block. I think it's time for an RfArb. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it's enough for some admins to say "lay off the Pakistani cricketers for now" rather than just handing out a block. Gene is a valuable and highly competent editor. And while he gets prickly sometimes, he is usually willing to discuss the topic at hand, rather than making asinine and non-productive statements like "O RLY". --Duk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Yuvraj Singh includes a link to a previous discussion at WT:CRIC about this issue where Gene was the sole voice arguing for mandatory classification for last name, whereas everybody else felt that it was correct to use whatever the main usage of the term was. That archive also shows that the examples of Indian Sikhs and Muslims who are indexed by first name are noted. When the switch was made to the Yuvraj entry, there was a reminder on the talk page. After another user came and fixed up typos and grammar in late 2006, they weren't aware of the way Yuvraj is categorised, so when I switched it back to Y, I left an invisible comment [16] in late December. Since then, Gene has reverted the article four times, despite the article having a note and the talk page having a note, for a total of six reverts, whereas other articles such as Harbhajan Singh and Maninder Singh, which do not have a reminder notice, have been less frequently targeted. As for Gene's comments that my failure to revert all his edits shows that I have a rationale problem; this is is incorrect - I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly, per the previous discussions. Robin Singh and VRV Singh are not Sikhs and are common referred to as Singh, while the others are referred to by first name. As for Shah Nylchand and any others, the same applies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene has made a statement on his user page. --Duk 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to see a big problem here. On the surface there are two serious editors with a content/policy disagreement. Both revert each other and both are sure they are right. One is an admin and complains at an/i; he doesn't take responsibility for his own reverting, he doesn't pursue the dispute resolution process - he asks that the other editor be blocked. The other editor is not a admin and gets blocked before being able to participate in the discussion. Also, there seems to be some article "ownership" issues on the part of the admin. Maybe it is time for an RfArb. --Duk 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not owning any article. I am the principal author of the Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh article but there is little activity on the main body that is ever contested. It's only the indexing which is contested, and I'm not the lone ranger by any means. The DR occurred last year. It is up to Gene to try and change the consensus established last year in a discussion in which he partook. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a spurious block, in my opinion. This a content dispute, and the block levied against Gene Nygaard is punitive, not preventative. I propose unblocking Gene Nygaard with the conditions that he behave civilly and that neither he nor Blnguyen make any potentially contentious edits until an RfC is opened. It's entirely unnecessary to bring in ArbCom over an editing dispute. A Train ^{take the} 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The block was imposed not punitively, but for prevention. The problem was that Gene was repeatedly undoing other people's edits without discussion, violating consensus on the topic. Additionally, he was incivil - accusing others of intentionally screwing up a version he didn't like - and behaving rudely to those to criticized him. All this is clearly disruptive. Gene has been dealt with fairly - the block is not lengthy either, more a slap on the wrist. If he is the productive editor Duk believes he is, he will understand his error and do something to address these complaints. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by User:Antaeus Feldspar

This incident is being brought before this board by Justanother 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue: User:Antaeus Feldspar continues his long-runnning attacks of me and attempts to get me in trouble with admins that I am very used to dealing with on Scientology Series talk pages (and in his edit summaries) but now he has brought his venom to the noticeboards and it needs to stop now. Recently he has disrupted the BLP noticeboard, and this board, in addition to his usual talk page performances. He also recently violated 3RR on the BLP noticeboard in addition to making an unjustified allegation of WP:PA against me there. See Incidents section below

History (brief): Since I arrived in August 2006, User:Antaeus Feldspar has carried out a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing against me specifically and by name for what I can only assume is my being an open Scientologist and editing in the articles to bring some of my understanding to them and to clear out a bit of lurid attack and WP policy violations. While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens; we are not! User:Antaeus Feldspar's belittlement and marginalization started in some of his first interactions with me[17] and has continued unabated and with only increasing fervor.

Remove rhetoric. Sorry. This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request: I, of course, cannot require it but would appreciate it if the highly POV and involved editors/admins on both sides of the Scientology issue abstain from commenting here. That means the three or more known admins with heavy off-site activity in attacking Scientology and those editors that are involved in the perpetual arguing and edit-warring that goes on in those articles. I mean both "sides". Why? Because all that will do is carry the same poisonous invective over here and this AN/I report is, if anything ,about that invective. Let's let the neutral uninvolved parties have their say, for a change. I promise that I will try my hardest to not say a lot more than I am saying now and, of course, Antaeus will have his say but if we could limits the POV "helpers" for either of us then that would great.

Heads-up: User:Antaeus Feldspar will likely bring up any and all incidents of my being less that respectful to him as a perceived "defense". I am not going to respond to those; if User:Antaeus Feldspar feels that he has a case then he should bring it; but not in this incident report. If I have been short or sarcastic with him, my only defense is that I tired quickly of the attacks and I think it will be clear that my comments are not nearly in the same league as User:Antaeus Feldspar's calcuated disruptions. But this is not about me despite any upcoming attemps to make it so.

Incidents: I am just bringing up the most recent incidents and concentrating on those that are disruptive of the noticeboards as they are off-topic and are, IMO, intended to get an admin to sanction me without due process. Note that no admin has done that to me so it has been in vain.

• Attacks me on AN/I: See the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Not too terrible but illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic (BabyDweezil) and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard.
• Attacks me on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard: This diff (adding sig) shows a pretty "typical" attempt at marginalization and belittlement of me. I would not bother with it except to show his pattern. See the previous paragraph from him also for more of the same. I brought my questions to BLP noticeboard here and found that there was merit in my ideas (not "fantastical, bizarre" as User:Antaeus Feldspar characterized them after all).
• Disruption and attacking me on BLP: In this posting, allegedly on Tilman Hausherr, User:Antaeus Feldspar starts out with an accusation against me and goes on to imply that I am a liar and it doesn't get any better from there. If he has a real question for the board then he should just ask it without all the disruptive accusations. That is abusive.
• 3RR on BLP: User:Antaeus Feldspar has made the same deletion (4) (5) times in a period sufficiently close to 24-hours to clearly violate WP:3RR despite a non-involved admin doing the first reversal of his deletion. Deleting the same material (4) (5) times is 3RR violation; it is NOT a case of one edit and (3) (4) reversions, it is (4) (5) reversions.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111227099&oldid=111166503
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111236141&oldid=111227765
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111256924&oldid=111254870
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111487495&oldid=111394273
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=111514306&oldid=111513033 And now 5RR

• Disruptive and attacking me on BLP: As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA and made sure to leave my sig next to his "[personal attacks removed]" notation. This would lead someone to think I had actually made a PA. In the first removal he accused me by name in the edit summary: "remove personal attacks by Fossa, Steve Dufour and Justanother".

Desired outcome: I want the attacks to stop. I want User:Antaeus Feldspar to understand, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards in his apparent desire to "get me". --Justanother 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you specifically cite these attacks for me? I'm looking at the diffs and I see an editor who clearly disagrees with you, but I fail to see any evidence of attacks on your personally. I'm looking into the 3RR violation now too for you Glen 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) PS; Who's the third admin? :)

Actually, on second thought anything I do or say will be claimed as a COI so I'll step aside. Glen 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make this plain and simple. Justanother seems to believe that Wikipedia:Assume good faith simply does not apply to him. He believes that he can make as many personal attacks as he wants, and make them as vicious as he wants, as long as they are in the form of attacks upon the integrity of other editors. To start with just the accusations directed at me: Accusations that I am a religious bigot: "I can only assume [his motivation] is my being an open Scientologist". "While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens..." (emphasis added) Accusations that I aid and abet trolls to further this alleged religious bigotry: "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions"[18] (The post where I supposedly would have made my loyalties clear by using "your" is here, BTW.) Accusations that I have targeted him for "a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing". Accusations that I engage in "calculated disruptions" and "[bring my] venom to the noticeboards" and "run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards" to "get him". What is deeply ironic is that Justanother seems absolutely horrified at the idea that his behavior could ever be questioned ("As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA") but at the same time seems to take it as his right to not just question other editors' behavior but declare the question settled and label the other editors on the basis of his assumptions. Note his behavior at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#Blocked_for_a_week where he labels the editors on one side of an issue as "the POV-pushers" and to other editors as "the NPOV editors". I know I am not the only target of this treatment by Justanother but I confess I am getting really damn sick of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In order: 1) Noticeboards are for reporting situations that need attention. Just because you do not notice or do not agree that your actions create a situation that needs attention does not mean they are being used for "attacking" you. 2) As anyone can easily verify for themselves, there was no 3RR violation, let alone a "5RR". 3) It was not a false accusation of personal attacks, it was a true report of personal attacks. 4) As regards your "other specific incidents", you ask the admins to look at AN/I and "... see the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar ... illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic ... and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard." I would ask anyone who looks at that thread to see that in less than half an hour you made three posts, each with no content more pertinent than "All due respect but cannot respond", "Sorry, can't respond", or even just "mmmpphhh" -- all because an admin asked you not to edit disruptively. If someone's efforts made that thread "all about [you] in front of the admins" I believe I know whose efforts they were, and they weren't mine. "Abusive of the noticeboard," indeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - I would suggest for the patience of the Admins that you both try to keep your posts a little shorter on this board... I do think that the comments about Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) by other Admins on Previous Administrator's Noticeboard are quite telling. Also, his continued re-insertion of his own obvious violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard also seems highly disruptive and non-constructive towards any sort of meaningful dialogue/discussion... Smee 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Can someone else comment on this? It appears that Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) is inappropriately canvassing, in order to solicit/manipulate this process? Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4. I had also thought that this is (generally) a place for administrators to comment? Smee 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

This is not about me® Please note inappropriate attack by highly POV "helper". --Justanother 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, DO NOT use my username and make baseless accusations in the edit summary. That is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm feeling strongly inclined to prove that this, after all, is about you® Duja► 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are some people who hate Scientology and make that the main interest of their lives. But at least insulting you on Wikipedia is better than burning you at the stake. :-) Steve Dufour 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See, this is a very good example of the sort of things we're dealing with here. Steve has just basically said to one or more editors here 'You hate Scientology and make that the main interest of your life.' How can that comment be anything but a personal attack? Is it supposed to not be a personal attack because Steve did not spell out which of the editors in the current discussion caused him to start talking about how "some people" are hate-filled religious bigots? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that your edits tend to violate WP:NPOV and WP:RS and that you edits produce entirely unscientific articles with a clear anti-cult bias. Since there are many like-minded people here and since Scientology has a bad reputation and there are only very few people who actually are interested in Scientology outside of anti-cultists and Scientologists, there is absolutely no chance to get a neutral article here. That's why I at least debunk your proceeding. Call it a "personal attack" if you wish, you do your personal attacks in the article space, which is much worse, I believe. Fossa_?! 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Antaeus Feldspar has violated 3RR, falsely accused User Justanother of WP:PA and continuously violates the integrity of Wikipedia by deleting content from a notice board/talk page. Both parties might appear a bit overreacting but this should not be used to cover up or divert from violations of Wikipedia Policy. "Feelings" should have no weight on this notice board, also Admins please stick to the rules here . Misou 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, just about everything that Justanother is accusing others of, he himself is in fact the person who has done. It is particularly problematic that he has, while in the middle of making heated accusations against others, has labeled others' better-grounded concerns about his own conduct as personal attacks and disruption.

As Antaeus notes above, it is as if Justanother feels he has the right to criticize others' work (and quite forcefully), but others do not have the same right in return. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; it is not acceptable to proclaim (as Justanother seems to be with his "this is not about me") that oneself must be held above criticism.

I agree, by the way, that the problem here is probably largely one of WP:AGF. Justanother behaves as if anyone who disagrees with him on certain issues -- particularly the relevance of certain information pertaining to Scientology, some of which the Scientology operation itself has long tried to suppress -- is thereby demonstrated to be malicious, or at least deficient in good judgment. This is not acceptable conduct for a Wikipedia editor. --FOo 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® simply means that, while feelings get hot on both sides on the Scientology Series talk pages, Feldspar has decided that it is appropriate to continue his venom on more general noticeboards and has violated 3RR to pursue an attack against me and others with a false charge of WP:NPA. Making it about me here instead of about the incidents that I raise just opens the door to more of the same and I, for one, will not play that game. I will not argue my actions with you here; if you feel that you have a case then bring it and stop the allegations. Please. The incidents I raised speak for themselves. --Justanother 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Why do you keep putting '®' after everything you bold? John Reaves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply to call attention to the fact that, rather than address the incidents I bring up directly, the poster is trying to flip this to be about me. Very common tactic. Knew it was coming. That is my way of keeping it to a minumum on this discussion. --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to control the discussion and forbid others from bringing your conduct into question. That's evident from your labeling of Antaeus's concerns about your behavior as "personal attacks". However, you are not afforded the privilege of controlling the discussion here on Wikipedia.

When you accuse others, you should expect that your own conduct will be examined. It is not particularly uncommon, after all, that the one who accuses others of misconduct is actually doing those things himself. (See, for instance, Matthew 7:1-5 for Jesus's word on the subject, and "The Criminal Mind" for L. Ron Hubbard's.) --FOo 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother: you appear to have posted a request for comment to the admin noticeboard by mistake. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not when it involves misuse of noticeboards, 5RR, and a false charge of WP:PA. Then it belongs here. Had it stayed on the talk pages and not involved the 5RR and false accusation then I would have dealt with it otherwise. --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks that Justanother doth protest too much. Really, the diff links are harmless, and no personal attacks. As Glenn said, these are just people disagreeing. "Complaints" like these just waste time of the involved editors, and admins who had to read this. --Tilman 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So I should just shut up and allow it to continue? Business-as-usual? --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A material disagreement isn't a personal attack. --Tilman 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Loop_101_Dead%21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another User:Sklocke puppet?

Loop_101_Dead%21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(*note the need for a "space" character at the end of the name - User:Loop_101_Dead vs. User:Loop_101_Dead!)

• This user appears to be another iteration of the blocked Sklocke and his/her series of sockpuppets. The editor is following a similar pattern of page moves, strange edits, and "requests" for user name changes for people other than him/herself. There was also an edit here referencing BiancaOfHell, a reputable editor whom Sklocke was harassing in January. Is there any way for an administrator to track down the IP this guy is working from and put a stop to this rubbish? Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I indef-blocked him preventively; I'm not aware of the Sklocke case, but it definitely quacks. Can anyone more familiar with the case check please? Duja► 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support the indef block. Harassment of User:BiancaOfHell and page moves are both part of User:Sklocke and his socks' vandalism patterns. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the swift response... although I suspect I've now blown my chances of getting more "Jelly Belly" awards from Sklocke! --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Isaiah13066

User:Isaiah13066 (talk) (contributions) should probably be blocked temporarily. He received a set of WP:NPA reminders/warnings for personal attacks such as [19] and [20]. In response to the {{uw-npa4}} warning, the user did this. It seems that the NPA warnings are not having an effect. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:210.4.102.168‎ and massive edits to articles that contains Kapampangans

210.4.102.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made massive edits to different Philippine-related entertainment and sports articles that I don't think are unhelpful. What this anon user does is this: if a noted personality hails from the Philippine province of Pampanga, this anon user will wikify these names and have them link to the article Kapampangan people instead of, say, adding a category on each of these person's biographies. I've reverted a few articles and added a couple of warnings until I noticed that this anon was (to put it mildly) diligent in doing this to a good number of articles, so for the time being I posted a single warning that refers to these articles as a whole. --- Tito Pao 12:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer still at it?

Planetary Chaos was blocked after sock puppetry using IP's on binary prefixes, and appears to still be at it. (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Planetary Chaos, and this edit, as well as a new IP up to the same behavior. The IP ranges are very closely equivalent to the ones used in the previous puppetry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.165.64.249

The user on this fixed IP is engaging in what I can only call 'slow-vandalism'. Nothing serious, but increasingly annoying. It started when he added a link to Whippet that was reverted more then once by several editors. He then started arguing that all external links should be removed, citing WP:EL in all the wrong ways. He comes in every couple of days and removes the links and then arguing the same WP:EL rethoric on the talk page. Comments from me or other editors fall on deaf ears.

Seeing his contributions, the only articles he ever edited are Whippet and FidoNews. His user page states this he is a confirmed sockpuppet of WackerWhippet and therefor blocked indefinitely, but his block log only shows a 48-hour block for 3RR. He also recently adopted the username 'Dude' without actually registering it. What would be the best course of action here? I know IPs are never indef blocked, but it is clear that this user is not intent to make any positive contributions to Wikipedia. --Edokter (Talk) 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but we can ban them for 6 months, as they appear entirely static. Which is what I've done. Proto ► 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Proto! --Edokter (Talk) 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Matrix scheme

I'm partly involved in this situation so I'll bring this issue here - there has been quite a long revert war going on in Matrix scheme, and the parties involved in the edit warring appear to be using the three revert rule to allow them to make a maximum of 3 edits within 24 edits, which is gaming the system, and much throwing about of the word 'vandalism' to other users. There are only 2 or 3 users involved in this edit warring, so protection does not look like the most feasible option, but instead blocking may be necessary if things escalate. It needs to be made clear that any edit warring of any sort is unacceptable, so I'm seeing what other sysops have to say. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked (24 hours) the IP address who's been reverting it three times daily last night. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

revert war at Template:Crash series

I issued 3rrs to both, but they've blown right past them. Check out the history of Template:Crash series--they're both on a dozen or so recent reverts! Could somebody with admin tools step in and force them to cool off? -- Scientizzle 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked them both... They both said they would stop in the edit history, but I'm not sure if they can or not. So if they promise not to continue the edit war, please unblock them without a need to consult me. Grandmasterka 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Skoppensboer

User:Skoppensboer has a chronic history of BLP violations, personal attacks, using edit summaries to tendiciously taunt other editors, general incivility, and "soapboxery", particularly revolving around the article and talk page of Matt Drudge. He appears to have no respect at all for WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:SOAPBOX, and has ignored multiple warnings over time from multiple editors to stop adding material about Drudge's alleged homosexuality, information about his mother's mental illness, (and anything else he can come up with to smear the subject), to stop adding unsourced statements, to stop reinserting previously removed unsourced statements without even attempting to source them, and to stop attacking numerous editors. (And also to stop referring to me as Crackpot). He removed a valid and well sourced NPA warning from his talk page today as well. I have tried to be civil with this editor for months, but last night, he accused me of "obsessively editing" the article in question, when the edit history shows that I had not edited the article since December 7, 2006, so I pretty much lost it and regrettably became uncivil myself. I have calmed down and am attempting to continue to be civil, but this editor just keeps on behaving badly.

Here are a few of the most recent examples of his incivility and attacks. A scan of Talk:Matt Drudge and examination of his edit history will no doubt reveal many more violations. I'm pretty much fed up with being nice and diplomatic with this guy. I have never asked for sanctions against him in the past, but now I am asking for a block. He may try to claim that I have violated 3RR there today, but I maintain that I am protected by WP:BLP from a 3RR sanction.

• Recent example 1.
• Recent example 2.
• Recent example 3.
• Recent example 4. (Even bots doing their maint. duty are not immune.)

- Crockspot 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has finally written a neutral and sourced version of the statement in dispute, which I have accepted, yet he continues to attack me, and charactarizes my user page in a completely inaccurate way, violating WP:AGF as well. He gave me what I asked for, and I was about to back off and come here and retract this complaint, but he continues to lie about me, and attack me and other editors. Unbelievable. - Crockspot 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's ok! Remain COOL, im looking into it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hvae given this editor a warning. It is generally appropriate to try and confront the editor about their actions before requesting administrative assistance. Should this continue, let me know! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe I have (as have others) confronted him several times about his behavior. I very rarely request admin assistance, and only when I feel I have no other option. I'll cool my jets. - Crockspot 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Sweet, thanks! cooling down always helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ROOB323

User:ROOB323 has again resorted to reverting pages, in this case the article on Erivan_khanate. After I've edited it, in accordance with all the accumulated discussions on its own and other Talks pages in which I regularly participate, user ROOB323 reverted it without making a single factual objection or reason [21]. User ROOB323 rarely participates in any factual discussions, instead, spending most of the time reverting pages -- his record is easy to check.

I have re-iterated why my edits should stay, as he has removed the following important facts from the article: 1) stub about this page being part of Azerbaijan related pages; 2) that Erivan khanate was an Azerbaijani state (like other khanates, such as Karabakh, Naxcivan, Baku, Shirvan, Kuba, Sheki, etc) and was nominally independent at times, and at other times fully independent; that 3) khanate is not a principality (like melikdoms), but a state or kingdom (which is reflected in the military historians' John F. Baddeley presented quotes); and 4) that along with all Armenians, all Jews and all Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Kurds and Persians) were deported by Shah Abbas (discussed at length at the Nakhichevan page). All this has been discussed on other relevant pages, sometimes at length, plus several quotes were provided.

After I pointed out that I am tired of these constant reverts by these users, user ROOB323 made the following insulting and uncivil comment: [22]. This is the type of pressure, insults and attacks I have to constantly endure from a group of several ideologically motivated editors here. --AdilBaguirov 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor is subject to an ongoing arbitration. You have already presented evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence#Evidence presented by AdilBaguirov. Unless something becomes urgent, please let the arbitration committee examine the evidence and make their determinations. Chick Bowen 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Emackinnon

This user is continually adding spam links to both Kingston, Ontario and Kingston Student Ghetto. The links are either to his personal site, which offers services, or to a site that names an individual as a slum lord. When I have reverted the editUser:Emackinnon personally attacked me, see User talk:72.38.139.247 (please note I do not use my IP address as a Sockpuppet. It shows up due to a software glitch that for some reason doesn't always seem to allow my computer to remember logins). I posted a warning on User:Emackinnon talk page and he has removed them several times, having been warned about it by another editor plus myself. Could someone please explain to this user, or deal with them, in regards to Wiki etiquette. Jsp3970 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since adding the above statement the user in question has once more blanked his talk page of the warnings. I will not get into a revert war with the person in question, but I hope someone explains things to him soon so that this ugliness can be left behind. 72.38.139.247 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The links were to recognized websites run by Queen's University or it's affiliates, namely the Alma Mater Society. I posted the link to the Golden Cockroach awards as they are relevant to the substandard housing that can exist in the ghetto. The "winner" of this award was named in local media and this can hardly be considered a slight in any way. If this user bothered to check rather than to remove the link he would have noticed this.

I have tried to let this issue drop but this user seems keen on harassing me and continues to keep posting things to my talk page, even after I indicated that I would like the issue to drop.

My chat with an editor was on a completely unrelated image I submitted relating to copyright and I welcomed his input. I really couldn't care less about the links but would appreciate it if this user would leave me alone. Could some please ask this user to find something better to do than to mark up my talk page on an hourly basis? Thanks. Emackinnon 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow, sneaky vandalism from 12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs)

12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs) has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, but has continued since (just some random examples: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], most recently: [29], [30]). This kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have). The contributions suggest the IP is not shared, consistently editing hip-hop musicians, and he has been warned multiple times, with no response; but he edits so slowly that reporting to AIV is probably not the correct course. Is a block in order here? Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan

I've blocked Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent trolling and edit-warring on Indigenous Aryans, plus a 3RRvio in reaction to a warning. I am also uncertain of his sock status (we get many trolls of that kind that may or may not be identical). Since I am involved in the article being trolled, I am posting this block here for review, and I will not consider any adjustment "wheel warring" but will accept it as uninvolved advice. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

unblocked upon his promise not to edit the article in question for 48h. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as having bee a very poorly judged block. You were one of the ones engaged in edit warring with Sbhushan at Indigenous Aryan Theory and Indo-Aryan_migration, and using the administrative rollback button when in a content dispute is not appropriate. Reverting an editor you are in disagreement with, and then blocking them is an explicit violation of the blocking policy. "Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Rather than blocking and then reporting here, you should have come here first to request help from uninvolved administrators. I would ask you both to pursue dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I used the rollback button since I do not consider this a "content dispute" but straightforward disruption and/or patent nonsense, see talkpages. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is of course true that it would have been better style for dab not to do the block himself but ask others to do it, I note: (1) that this was a absolutely clear-cut case of a 3RR violation; (2) I cannot but admire dab's patience in defending this and related articles from an endless succession of obsessive POV-pushers; (3) Looking at the talkpage, dab's assessment that this particular POV-pusher had crossed the line into a state of irrational lawyering where he was beyond reach of normal rational dispute resolution is not unreasonable. It wouldn't be the first such case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a public service for anyone looking into this:

• Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grouped edits by by Sbhushman (series of edits in a row without other users intervening), most recent first:
  • [31] ("rv: All additions had proper citation, edit summary expalined reason for each edit. If you have problem with an edit talk on Talk page.")
  • [32] (four edits)
  • [33] (three edits)
  • [34] (three edits)
  • [35] (three edits)

The above is added as a public service. As Dmcdevit said, it's a very bad idea to block someone you are in a dispute with. It may have been POV pushing and probably was 3RR (there are at least four partial reverts in that mess somewhere), but it was not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption. --BigDT 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

reading the instruction above, it seems I can post this here. He also threatened me on the page. He has been very uncivil also. The issue is WP:OR policy. Dab should be enforcing WP:OR policy, but he is adding orignal research and removing relevent, properly citied material. I have tried to involve third party, mediation cabal, and other editors on the AMT page to help resolve this issue. Every time he is asked to provide citaion, he talks OR without any verifiable content. As an admin he should be held to higher standards.Sbhushan 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My unblock request was to an independent admin. Dab is already biased. I had requested that the independent admin should define how long I should not edit. Could someone look at the issue in detail and decide who should be blocked. All my edits have removed OR and only added verifiable content relevent to topic from acceptable sources. Dab on other hand has removed properly cited material and added OR without citation. One place he did cite, he misrepresented the cited material (2 of my 4 were to fix that).Sbhushan 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sbhushan. Dab is deleting ref. points ( which goes against this theory or which gives more wider understanding of this topic ). His behaviour in this subject is of dictator. He is ignoring ref. request for his words and deletes others ref. sentences as POV pushing. I want to report him for WP:OWN as suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo.plrd. WIN 05:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Clancy2000

User:Clancy2000 is a fresh new editor with all vandalism in all edits. Don't have time to follow this guy around and undo his damage. Left a blatantvandal warning on his talk, he's still at it. Can somebody nip this guy in the bud? Thank you. - Crockspot 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not fresh or new... has the hallmarks of a sockpuppeting vandal I dealt with a while back. Blocked indefinitely.--Isotope23 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sockpuppet of banned user Zarbon

Just by looking at 149.68.98.18's contributions and comparing it to Zarbon's contributions you can easily tell that it's coming from the same person. The IP user has clearly broken 3RR[36], used the same uncivil and repulsive comments as User:Zarbon once did here, and shows some obsession with the Zarbon article, just as the banned User:Zarbon had WP:OWN problems with. I already explained to the anon. IP user (which seems to be a shared IP) that a consensus had been reached at WP:DBZ about Zarbon's and Dodoria's articles being merged with the lists' and that others will be merged soon. The user refused to assume good faith and acknowledge my explanation that was reached out to him[37]. I suggest a block for every single IP in this block that shares the ISP because I had the exact same problems yesterday with 149.68.168.154, another User:Zarbon wannabe. Please see the user's list of suspected puppets for more evidence. Also, one little thing I forgot to mention, can an administrator temporarily fully protect the following articles: Dodoria and Zarbon to before they were vandalized by the IP's? This is so the main articles which aren't supposed to be made doesn't happen again, as consensus was already reached about their merger. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: An IP isn't a sockpuppet, it just means that Zarbon is using a computer that's not signed in (not surprising, since his login is blocked). And I'd recommend against blocking the entire IP range, since it belongs to a university, and there's a good chance that he's not the only person at that university that wants to use/update Wikipedia. The best situation here seems to be simply partial-protecting the two articles in question, so that IPs can no longer edit them. --Maelwys 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the redirects. If there's a consensus at the "governing" WikiProject that the merge was to occur, then I'll help them keep that consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad unblock?

Per an earlier thread on AN/I, I blocked Jayzel68 indefinitely for making this legal threat against another user. Jayzel refused to admit that he made a legal threat (claiming that "libel" has a meaning outside of jurisprudence, which, while true, is positively Clintonian in its word-parsing) and refused to retract; attacked me by claiming the block was "fraudulent" and "politically motivated;" and finally issued this profane rant, where he once again claimed he didn't make a legal threat. Doug Bell unblocked him with no discussion with me or, as far as I can tell, any other admin. As I see it, the legal threat is still open, Jayzel68 was rewarded for forum-shopping, and he still won't admit that he violated a pretty firm policy. I'm posting here for other admins to review. I'm pretty ticked off at how Doug Bell handled this, and I believe Jayzel68 should be re-blocked until he retracts the legal threat in explicit terms, but I'm going to recuse myself from further actions in this matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to Mr. Darcy's characterization of my unblock being a result of "forum-shopping". After initially being approached, I completely supported his block. I'd appreciate if he would assume good faith. I will also recuse myself from any further action in this matter. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the unblocking since it does not appear to be an overt threat of litigation by any means...certainly not enough to warrant an indefinite block. Make sure in the future, if possible, to reach consensus for any unblocks here and or discuss the reasons for the block with the blocking admin before doing any unblockings.--MONGO 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, unblock seems arguably reasonable. The followup rant however is so far off of civiltiy and personal attacks, that I'm tempted to reblock just for that. JoshuaZ 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding one point - Jayzel68 indicated to me that he had emailed multiple admins, and he used both helpme and unblock templates to get attention as well. I don't believe Doug Bell necessarily knew that Jayzel was forum-shopping and didn't mean to imply that he did. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ec I don't think that I would have blocked for this, although it is out of line, but, seriously, what is it going to take for people to stop undoing other admin actions without discussion? Jkelly 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I apologized and explained to Mr. Darcy regarding not discussing it as soon as he made his objection known. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying htat you have been libeled is not a legal threat. Saying you are going to sue for libel, is the threat. Libel is simply a legal word for lying maliciously about someone. It is not a threat but rather a description of facts as that person sees them. For example, saying that "Othello murdered Desdemona" is not a legal threat. Nor is saying "Othello libeled Desdemona". Simply changing it to second person (i.e. "You libeled me") does not change that to a threat. --Tbeatty 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, people here are neither stupid nor slow. Jayzel did not simply say "you libeled me". The threat part was "libel is not taken lightly" (in bold) ... "you better have a strong case". Many reasonable would, and have, taken that as a very thinly veiled legal threat. It was certainly a threat of some kind, and the choice of legal words makes a legal threat a reasonable inference. Derex 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

students abusing editing of local town

Hi there, I'm a teacher at a high school in Richmond Ontario. I edited content for the town of Richmond in August of 2006. I noticed as I glanced at the page today that there is a Reeve listed for the town (there are no longer Reeves in our area) by the name of Rodney Fillman. He's a student at our high school. Looking back through the history of the page. All entries between Sept 2006 and Jan 2007 are fallacious entries by a character or two at the school I suspect. They play euchre and I suspect that coning was the act they did rather than a sport in the town :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond%2C_Ontario&action=history

Cheers

Jnmoriginpoint 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Block of Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs)

Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) and Paulcicero (talk · contribs) have been at odds over a few articles recently. In particular, I recently protected Slavica Ecclestone due to their edit warring there. Similarly, Paulcicero has frequently reverted edits on Daniel Majstorovic and List of Serbs. Just a couple hours ago I blocked Paulcicero for thirty-six hours due to the revert-warring, the sockpuppetry (that he has made no attempt to deny), and the fact that it's the second block in the past couple days. But this is not about his block; that's just background.

Paulcicero claims 58.165.122.36 (talk · contribs) and 58.165.90.202 (talk · contribs) are both Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) trying to avoid the appearance of violating the three-revert rule. I felt compelled to agree due to similarities in edit and revert patterns, even though Tar-Elenion has strongly denied the claims. I blocked Tar for twenty-seven hours, and simultaneously filed a request for checkuser to confirm (or de-firm) the sockpuppetry allegations. Unfortunately, checkuser can take awhile, so I'm curious for some feedback on whether this was the right move. Note the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tar-Elenion as well as the contributions of the users in question. Note also this edit reverting Paulcicero (in line with the revert war at Slavica Ecclestone) and the activity at List of Serbs. And lastly, note also Tar-Elenion's unblock request on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tar-Elenion has been involved in edit-warring on the Republic of Ragusa article as well, though I don't think it's actually risen to the level of a 3RR violation yet, and so far, Tar-Elenion is not the worst offender. That whole article is a swamp, being edited primarily by Croat nationalists edit-warring with an Italian nationalist or two. Αργυριου (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block: User: 67.87.69.5

According to the anon user's edit history, this one has been consistently adding false info, and after I reverted the Tattoo Assassins article, I've gave him a final warning. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking by anon user 82.3.227.83

After I had a disagreement with this anon user on Goy, he/she has started wikistalking me. Today, the anon editior followed me to 4 different articles I have edited recently Daniel Pipes, Fadwa Toukan, Palestinian Exodus and Palestinian refugee, systematically reverting my edits on those pages: [38] [39][40] [41] Isarig 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Not wikistalking in any way. Isarig has far too inflated an opinion of his own importance on this one. Making good faith edits in an area which would seem to be of common interest. I note that this was NOT raised on the talk page before bringing it to this forum. Should we not "Assume good faith" 82.3.227.83 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your appearance here, less than 10 minutes after this report speaks volumes. Isarig 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for a month, for wikistalking, mostly as a warning. The editor has multiple IPs, so this shouldn't inconvenience him/her too much, but I would have no qualms about blocking all of them, and sprotecting the pages, if this continues. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SilvaStorm changing article to redirect

SilvaStorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SilvaStorm has repeatedly "moved" Expos (Lost) to Exposé (Lost) by blanking the article page and changing it to a redirect instead of just moving the page, which screws up the page history. I have asked him not to do this and explained the correct way to do page moves, but he continues to do this (he has done this in the past with other pages, and basically ignores the whole Move process and move wars by copying article/redirect code back and forth.

This isn't a content issue, just a process/policy one - I'm not opposed to an actual move if there's consensus for it, but it should happen in a way that preserves page history.

Could an admin look into this and get him to stop? Protecting the redirects would probably take care of it, I've made a request for page protection but no response yet. The sooner someone could look into this the better, since any edits in the meantime screw up the history more and make this mess harder to fix. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given them a link to the correct method of moving pages. I'll keep an eye on them and take further action if it becomes necessary. Shadow1 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mykungfu resurfacing?

Just a heads-up, I just speedily deleted an article that was apparently created by another sock of Mykungfu, which had been in an AfD process as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Nu (3rd nomination)). My understanding is that the fact that it was created by a banned user supersedes the AfD process, but I'm posting here for review as usual. Alpha Kappa Nu was a pet article of MKF's, almost a POV fork of Alpha Phi Alpha, and the first actions of the user in question (FrozenApe) were to request a review of the last deletion of this article. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you run a checkuser? I noticed that FrozenApe was a SPA, but I don't see any evidence for Mykungfu's abusiveness or the vandalizing of related articles. ~ trialsanderrors 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny Klein

This article has just been deleted for the third time(!) on the grounds of failing WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Interestingly enough it has almost immediately been recreated without adressing those issues. I placed a {{db-repost}} tag on the page. Also I would like to refer to this discussion and this one. Could somebody look into this and advise how to proceed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. If there exists concerns about the deletion, the proper procedure is to use WP:DRV, not to recreate it. -- Avi 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user circumventing block

User:82.10.83.155 seems to be the same as User:Isit love100; comparing diffs:

• IP edit
• older edit by Isit love100

Just so you know. ^_^ V-Man737 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Racist edits from Paruta (talk · contribs)

Could someone check out the contributions from Paruta (talk · contribs)? This edit asserts that society is going to collapse because people of different races intermarry. The user also created Coalburner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a derogatory slang term for white women who marry black men (or black women who marry white men?) It was deleted as an attack page. (I was thinking that it could actually be a legitimate slang term, but after reading the user's other contributions, it was clearly just another attack page.) The edits to Marvin Heemeyer and related pages don't seem as problematic, but still seem like a POV agenda to me. The user has already been warned about creating inappropriate pages, but I'm not really sure if other warnings are necessary, or what the policies are like when someone introduces racist opinions into articles. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Giza D

Repeated addition of POV and OR to United Nations and other political pages. Unwilling to listen to other editors or to learn Wikipedia policy. Activity is largely restricted to edit warring, which continues despite multiple warnings. Claims to be removing POV, while in reality changing NPOV material to his POV. He is apparently intent on enforcing a personal political agenda (focused on criticizing the UN and removing criticism of the Israeli government). Michaelbusch 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated non-free image use on user page

Master Cheif 001 (talk · contribs) has been warned [42] [43] [44] [45] four times to not put images on his/her user page, has reverted removal [46] [47] [48] three times. The last warning (by me) warned that these actions, as violation of fair use policy, can be blockable. --Iamunknown 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too lenient by not blocking right now, but I hope my quick little message will get the point through. Ask me or another admin to block if he misuses fair use images again. Picaroon 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Might want to note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_request/Intervention: User:Master Cheif 001 too. x42bn6 Talk 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him 24 hours and protected the page after he reverted Picaroon. Chick Bowen 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Phantasy Star IV naming

The page List of Phantasy Star IV characters is in a bit of an upheaval at the moment. A single user is forcing his will upon the page, constantly reverting all names to their original Japanese names, even though this game was officially translated and released in English shortly after the Japanese release. The consensus in the discussion page is clear: English names, but the user Stormwatch is continuously fighting everyone else, as he is the only one who has ever shown any interest in preserving the Japanese names on the English language version of Wikipedia. --Visual77 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I happen to agree with you (I noticed your comment on the talk page), I don't think we need the admins just yet. Give talk page discussion a little more time; this is shooting a cannon to swat a fly. SnowFire 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen his type before, unless he gets an official backhand, he'll persist. Once he gets the backhand that neither you nor I have the power to administer, he'll sulk, but at least the policies and conventions of Wikipedia will be allowed to reign free on that page. --Visual77 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Block not functioning

Ok, I keep trying to block User:Commodore Sloat for 24 hours, but I keep getting an error saying he is blocked already. There is no block in the block log. JoshuaZ 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Odd. But you have blocked him, though: [49] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look again ... it looks like Glen S made the block ... after Joshua's post here. --BigDT 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... even tho there wasnt a block showing an unblock worked - so his block log shows two consecutive unblocks. Regardless, he's blocked now Glen 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. JoshuaZ 04:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him for calling a public figure -- in the talk page of an article not about him -- a drunk? Better, perhaps, if he'd called him a "drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay" like MP George Galloway [50], if he'd just quoted the subject of the article, or even the guy's own article. --Calton | Talk 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of what csloat said, a warning would have sufficed. I have unblocked and asked Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) to be more careful with his choice of words in future. A 24 hour block on a user in good standing over semantics on a talk page is way over the line. That block was ludicrous. Proto ► 11:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) community ban proposal

I proposed a community or topic ban for Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) at this CN thread. I'm crossposting here since the user in question has been discussed here four times already. --Coredesat 05:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GordonWatts (talk · contribs) blocked

I have reblocked GordonWatts (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as the Arbitration Committee has rejected the appeal of his community ban here. A new discussion on whether to change this to an all-out ban may be needed, though I originally reverted back to the ban tag because I interpreted the ArbCom's decline votes as "we endorse the ban" ("no need to alter the community ban"). --Coredesat 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait ... I thought the CN decision wasn't to ban him outright, but to restrict his editing on Terri Schiavo-related topics. Newyorkbrad 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, I misinterpreted, but got edit conflicted before I could fix it. --Coredesat 05:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, trying this again: I have blocked GordonWatts (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as the Arbitration Committee has rejected the appeal of his editing sanctions here. He has been nothing but disruptive since the appeal was denied. --Coredesat 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear he's rapidly spiraling toward indefinite anyway, having failed to absorb any portion of the message sent his way to date. So not to prejudge, but you may just have been a few days early. Newyorkbrad 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... wikilawyering on the arb request... disruptive on his talk page... trolling at WP:CN... unacceptable behaviour, overall. Especially wrt that Arb request. Having watched from far, and approaching him about it today (at WP:CN - the first time I had interacted with him) and getting met with a hostile response (along the lines of "stop harassing me or I'll get you sanctioned"), I can't imagine why he hasn't already been indef'd. – Chacor 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In previous encounters, I've been of the opinion that Gordon has been simply ignorant of his nature of pissing people off, but his recent comments have made me believe that he's legitimately trolling at this point. I support this block, and would be interested in discussing a further block. Ral315 » 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the indefinite block. Ral315 » 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good for you. He was showing no evidence that he intended on doing anything but continuing a tirade against anyone who criticized his actions in the slightest. And the admins in general, for some reason. I would treat it as literally indefinite at this point (i.e. it will get lifted if he promises to stop), but I doubt that's going to happen. People rarely stop trolling like this because someone blocks them. -Amarkov moo! 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Diffs, in case they are wanted: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] --Coredesat 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• For those of you who thought my initial indefinite-ban request at WP:CNB was premature, I can only say -- HA. --Calton | Talk 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do we really need the gloating? Proto ► 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, coming from me, this may be odd, but I'd be in favor of letting him edit if he promises to drop the ArbCom matter and stop bringing it up. Otherwise in favor. JoshuaZ 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse strongly. It is quite clear this person has no interest in collaborating cooperatively, which is what a wiki is all about. RFerreira 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree with JoshuaZ, even the worst trolls here get a second chance - having said that I don't expect him to be able to conform and expect him to be blocked again with days if not hours but I still think we have to run the process. --Fredrick day 07:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't smart. WP:IAR would come into play. No use unblocking someone who would only go on to disrupt even more and we know we'll end up having to block again within days. Furthermore, it's not like this block was against Wikiprocess™. GordonWatts is a problem editor, and clearly he's gone one step too far. – Chacor 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His behavior on the arbitration request was breathtaking (in a bad way). Thatcher131 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. It was pretty much inevitable that he'd end up blocked, since the whole problem in the first place was that he refuses to accept what he doesn't want to hear, it's just unfortunate that what I see as genuine good-faith efforts to help him avoid this have been killed off by his own behaviour. Even his friends seem to have stopped supporting him. It's hard to dispute that Gordon has a serious problem accepting that people have heard what he has to say and rejected it and also that he really really does not believe us when we say that there is a consensus for restricting his disruption, but I'd still say we could consider unblocking him if he shows that he has put down the stick and backed away from the horse - but not before. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• He hasn't. My guess is that'll happen about the time Satan straps on ice-skates for a spin about the old homestead. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After that little display, I've changed my mind - he's clearly just never going to get it - any unblock will be taken as encouragement to keep pushing his free-hosted non-newspapers. Enough, he's never going to get it. --Fredrick day 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that his first Talk page post in the wake of his rejected RfArb request was to continue lobbying for his links. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept a block, although I'm not sure about indefinite. A month might have sufficed (to show that patience is now exhausted and give him one final chance). But I'm probably in the minority. Gordon was a good editor at times, however it was very apparent that once certain hardline editors had set their mind to it that, we would see the guy banned by hook or by crook. Proto ► 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support that if I saw one iota of agreement that his links are not suitable for wikipedia - I haven't seen his position move since day one - that his links are suitable and if just talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks we will all get it. Rightly or wrong - he has a black hole effect on any page he appears on - it's just too disruptive as it stands. --Fredrick day 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You think the problem is "certain hardline editors" and not Gordon? You cannot be serious. Gordon is a self-winding watch, and the "by hook or by crook" part is not so much bad faith as it is outright ludicrous--Calton | Talk 11:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

it appears that his next tactic is to watch pages like this in order to draw editors into futher debate via goading comments. Can I suggest people don't get drawn into lengthy replies to him on his page over the matter as, again, he seems to take it as some form of affirmation. Of course the next question is - are we going to let him soapbox from his userpage, if so - for how long? --Fredrick day 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless he starts making personal attacks, abusing the {{unblock}} template, or go on and on about issues not even remotely linked to his ban, he can say what he likes on his talk page, forever if needs be. Proto ► 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Qwert uyi (talk · contribs) make bad faith speedy nominations

After an article he creates was removed [59] it seems he went out and tagged several articles for speedy deletion. I've reverted them and left him a note, but I've gotta take off so someone might want to keep an eye for any odd speedy tags.--Crossmr 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Back log at CSD

I've been at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for more than an hour and have only gotten through the M's. Anyone bored? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)