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

User:CPS deleting other people's comments

CPS is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from VfD and Talk pages. I have warned him in the past that he should refrain, but instead, he deleted my comments from his Talk page, and returned to his old behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he continues with this behavior, he will be blocked for 48 hours the next time, etc. RickK 05:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing this user probably had some sort of reason for wanting to delete other people's comments. On the surface, it sounds terrible, but I would like to know what sort of justification he or she would have. Everyking 05:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there is no way of finding that out if someone deletes warnings on their talk page instead of talking :-( Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theoretically, he or she might be deleting personal attacks, for all I know, or he or she might not be deleting comments at all, but simply moving them around, refactoring, or something of that sort. Anyway, I'm sure if he or she was asked nicely, he or she would stop. Everyking 08:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is RickK's warning [1] it's firm but not rude.

This is what was deleted:[2] it's critism but not a personal attack.

But I'm willing to give dialog a go. I'll go do it now. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was his first Talk page deletion. RickK 10:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is a "semi-policy" which says that it is advisable to delete personal attacks on Talk pages. I don't know what a "semi-policy" is, but clearly it countenances the deletion of comments on Talk pages. As soon as you have a policy that sanctions the deletion of personal attacks, it opens the question as to what is a "personal attack". When is a personal attack just "criticism"? Who decides what is a personal attack and which personal attacks to delete? The person who feels attacked? Some neutral third-party? Also, again I ask: what policy gives RickK the authority to block somebody for this reason? The policies give administrators authority to block people in a limited number of situations. This is not one of them. We have an Arbitration Committee for dealing with behaviour that might require sanction that falls outside those specific situations. --BM 14:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The policy that gives RickK the authority to block somebody is vandalism. CPS is deleting other user's comments on article talk pages (ie, not the user talk page). This can be construed as vandalism, and IMO, is a blockable offense. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well deleting user's comments on article talk pages is not prime facie vandalism since, as I said, there is a "semi-policy" that actually advises people to do this in the case of personal attacks; namely Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. There might be some debate about whether something is a personal attack, but the consequence of getting that wrong should not be that one is summarily found guilty of "vandalism" and blocked forthwith. Moreover, assuming the behaviour in question is vandalism, with respect to vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states: Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. In other words, even if this behaviour is "vandalism", which is debatable, administrators are not authorized to block a logged-in user for vandalism, unless the account is only be used for vandalism. What do these policies mean if administrators can make up the rules as they go along? Do administrators blocking people actually pay any attention to these policies, or are they all doing what they consider to be "the right thing", reckoning that they will be backed up by the consensus? Are administrators actually expected to read and comply with these policies? If the administrators aren't expected to read and comply with them, why should anybody be expected to? --BM 16:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously trying to apply Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and getting it wrong is not a reason to be blocked. But that's not what happened here, so what is your argument? The key thing that you don't understand BM is that administrators are trusted members of the community and are supposed to use thier judgement. RickK warned the user that he'd block if he removed anymore comments.This is not a well meaning but misguided user trying to apply policy. This is someone who deleted comments from a vfd debate because they critisised his behaviour. I for one fully support the 24 hour block. (I wouldn't support a permenant block). Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've occasionally (and probably more than anyone else) employed Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and I can confirm that it's rather tricky and easy to get wrong. If applied widely it might well make a Wiki unusable because it could become infested with trolls determined to take offense at the least negative statement. It can be a very effective tool, however, for keeping a discussion on track where one or two participants get into flame war mode, or where one obnoxious person is trying to bait you with insults. My rule of thumb is that if a sentence or fragment is solely intended to draw a negative inference concerning another editor it can be removed without changing the salient facts conveyed. "There is no evidence to support X's claim--he's clearly lying" can be reduced to "There is no evidence to support X's claim." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This user seems to have taken any comment that was slightly negative as a personal attack. In this case I think Rick was right to block CPS. Mgm|^(talk) 18:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

As do I. CPS aapears to be happy to use personal attacks a plenty himself though: you pathetic wiki-cop keep trying, dimwit look it up yourself dimwit get a life you jackass Republican scumbag remove personal attack: this is the chickenshit hillbilly's idea of an insult Note that last one was a removal of someone elses vote on a vfd debate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether the behaviour is appropriate or not, neither Mgm nor Theresa is addressing the fundamental point. The main question is not whether this behaviour is appropriate or not, it is WHO DECIDES and WHO APPLIES THE SANCTION for misbehaviour. The project has policies. What do those policies mean? In this case, one can argue about whether the behaviour was permitted under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. But even if it was inappropriate behaviour, it is not VANDALISM, and even if it were, administrators cannot block logged-in users for VANDALISM under the blocking policy. Whenever this type of topic comes up, people always dodge the basic question as to administrator powers and conformity with policy, and try to focus on the behaviour that prompted the admin action. The presumption seems to be that if the behaviour was inappropriate (even if there is no policy against it), then any administrator has power to deal with it. It is like trying to excuse a cop for roughting someone up by arguing: "Well anyway he was guilty, and look, besides that, he isn't a very nice guy". My point is that in general ADMINISTRATORS HAVE NO POWERS to discipline logged-in regular members for misbehaviour, except in certain specific situations defined by policy. This isn't one of those situations. The only people with power to deal with it are JIMBO and the ARBITRATION COMMITTEE (as a group). That is the issue here. If you want to tell me I'm wrong and that admins have greater powers than I think, please point me to where it says that. --BM 21:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could someone block this guy for excessive lawyering? ;-) This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. --Carnildo 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't me who is excessively legalistic. The whole ethos of the Wikipedia is legalistic -- what with its extensive "policies" and "semi-policies" (good grief!), and a quasi-judicial "arbitration committee", with "petitioners", "respondents", "evidence", etc. However, it is all a bit of a sham, in my opinion, because there seems to be a group of administrators who basically discipline other members as they see fit, and the fact that there is no policy which authorizes their actions doesn't seem to slow them down much. I really don't even object to this, since I'm the God-King on my own web-site, and on my own site if the Terms of Use stop me from keeping things running smoothly, I just change the Terms of Use. If Jimbo wanted to designate "super-administrators" with greater discretion than others to block other users, etc, regardless of policy, I wouldn't object. The only thing I object to, really, is the intellectual dishonesty of the current situation -- the fact that administrators are described as "janitors", etc, subject to the same policies and consensus as everyone else, but that it is not really so. I think the actual system should be made clear. It would be kind of nice to know who those super-administrators are, too, and how and why they were chosen. Either that, or maybe people should be doing what the policies say they are supposed to be doing (and not doing what the policies say they shouldn't be doing.) --BM 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly blocking someone for 24 hours from editing a website is nothing like a cop roughing someone up. Please let's keep things in perspective. Really BM you need to pick your fights mate. Yeah you're right administrators are more than janitors. They are trusted members of the community. trusted that is not to abuse their powers. RickK did not abuse his powers in this case. We are all here for the same reason. Namely to build an encylopedia. Our policies are here to help us do that, and to prevent admins from abusing their power. Policies are not laws, and they are not straight jackets. This is a clear case of someone who was being disruptive, they were warned not do do something, and that warning was reasonable, yet they persisted. Note that we have no policy that states admins should use a measure of common sense. The power that RickK, and other admins have comes from the community. If you think he shouldn't have blocked CPS you are going to have to go to the community on it. Start a rfc. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a problem in that admins tend to make reference to their powers too often. When asking someone to stop doing something, one need only ask; there isn't necessarily any need to threaten: most people will stop even if they have no idea you're an admin. But an arrogant pretense of authority is enough to goad some people into continuing whatever behavior they shouldn't have been doing. A person should really have to be causing some problems to warrant a block. Page move vandalism, uploading vandalistic images, repeatedly blanking pages, etc. Blocking people is serious business: if a revert is a slap in the face, then a block breaks a nose and knocks out some teeth. It's not something one should do without a very clear and indisputable reason. A block does two very serious things: it prevents a person from contributing, when they could be doing a lot of good work, and it marginalizes the person and fills the person with animosity, and turns them off from the project. So we need to be more careful. If you can reasonably expect some people to dispute the block, don't do it. Everyking 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that blocking should not be undertaken lightly. And I agree that polite warnings should be given not heavy handed ones. But I support RickK's block in this instance. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, I appreciate the advice, but in fact I am picking my fights. If I chose to protest cases where everybody was protesting -- where everybody thought that the admin had been unreasonable and the outcome unjust -- the issue would be buried. Nobody argues that administrators should be able to abuse their powers in order to achieve an unreasonable result. Everybody will be saying the administrator abused his powers in those cases. Those are not the interesting cases. I am saying it is an abuse of powers, EVEN WHEN THE OUTCOME IS REASONABLE. It is only when the result is reasonable that there is an issue about the process. My argument is that Wikipedia cannot have 400+ administrators all exercising their "judgement" about what is reasonable. If the policies are getting in the way of administrators dealing efficiently with problems, then we should fix the policies. The blocking policy SAYS, very clearly, with no latitude for interpretation, that administrators are not supposed to block logged-in users for vandalism unless the account has been, in essence, used exclusively for vandalism. If that is not the consensus of the community, and administrators are not obliged to follow the policy when in their "judgement" it shouldn't be applicable, then why does the policy state that? The policy could easily state what you say is the de-facto consensus: "Administrators can block logged-in members for vandalism after a warning for up to 24 hours. But it doesn't state that. Why not? If you think it should, then why not try to get consensus for a change in the policy. If the de facto consensus is already there, it shouldn't be hard. What is the meaning of these policies if any administrator can substitute his or her own opinion as to what the policies should be? Why bother having written policies that contradict what you claim is the unwritten consensus? --BM 00:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the blocking policy:

"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. (emphasis mine)

Now does removing people's signed comments from a vfd debate disrupt the functioning of vfd? Of course it does! When the admin who has to decide whether to delete a page or not comes to the page they need to be able to read through what everyone has said. If you don't agree that this user should have been blocked you really should start a rfc and see what the community thinks Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you a shifting to another pretext for the action. The disruption policy. Which is it, disruption or vandalism? And you've dodged my basic point and your previous answer, and are now arguing about policy again. So does that mean you have conceded my point that administrators should follow policy? By the way, the sentence you quoted refers to IP addresses. User:CPS isn't an IP address. --BM 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course administrators should follow policy. But no policy can cover all situations. Here is where we have a difference of opinion - I'm saying that administrators have to use thier judgement sometimes, whereas you are arguing that they shouldn't. We can argue this all day but we won't get anywhere. I feel admins are there to serve the community by making descisions and exercising good judgement. They shouldn't abuse thier powers, but they shouldn't be afraid to use them when doing so is the right thing to do. You are not going to change my mind on that. BTW I never claimed he was blocked for vandalism and neither did RickK, and we are not arguing pretexts we are giving reasons.

Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it wasn't RickK that claimed this block was under the rubric of vandalism. He didn't bother to mention which policy sanctioned it, and I dare say he was not detained much by the need to find one, since he was exercising his "judgement" and that, according to you, is sufficient.

Yep, you'll notice how he also posted his actions here for review.

So lets look at "disruption". If you actually look at User:CPS' edit history, you find only two cases where CPS edited Talk pages or VfD and removed comments, going all the way back into February. One of these was on Mar 24, where he twice removed the same Megan1964 comment from a VfD vote that was referenced above. This was not a vote, but a comment critical of CPS' vote on VfD. One can argue about whether it was a personal attack,

It clearly isn't and he was warned not to do it a second time but he went ahead and did it anyway.

but as we discussed above, there is a policy allowing removal of personal attacks,

No there isn't.

and if there is a (semi-)policy allowing for their removal, then it should not be deemed a blockable disruption if someone somewhat oversteps consensus about what constitutes a personal attack.

Yes it should in a clear case like this one

The other case was on Mar 21, where CPS blanked User_talk:198.82.71.55. This was his own Talk page from before he registered as User:CPS, and the comments he removed were all in Nov-Dec, 2004.

Irrelavent. The block was for the above two removals of other people's comments from a vfd page.

So, removing one marginal comment on VfD, and blanking the Talk page he had as an anon before registering. Still think this was sufficient disruption of Wikipedia to warrant being blocked, Theresa? To me it doesn't look disruptive at all. --BM 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what he did, i read through his past contributions before commenting here. I even posted a link further up the page where he removed a vote from a vfd listing. So yes I still think he warrents a block. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, it was vandalism, and my opinion only, no-one else's. BM, I think I mentioned this before, but if every admin did things the way you suggest, they'd be looking up policy 2.3, section A, paragraph 32, subparagraph C "Woops, better check another section", while bad faith editors are hammering away at Wikipedia and laughing at us for being so slow to react. Sometimes, police, customs agents, detectives act on instinct honed from experience. I think admins are trusted members of the community who are experienced enough to spot a bad faith editor when they see it. If they're wrong, there are many other admins who can revert. I've read this board long enough to know that other admins can and will revert when they think the action is wrong. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia:Blocking policy is short. So are the other policies. An admin can be reasonably expected to know these policies. You'd think before an admin blocked somebody, he might concern himself with whether he is allowed to do that. Nobody compelled them to become admins, and since the community is trusting them to follow policy and comply with consensus, they had better know what the policies and consensus are. Besides, the policies are simple. For example Wikipedia:Blocking policy gives admins wide latitude to deal with vandalism by blocking anonymous IP's. That is the "mop and bucket brigade" part of the job. It cautions admins to be very circumspect and conservative when blocking logged-in users. Admin's don't have to carry and thick law books. It is simple: when dealing with other established members of Wikipedia, you have very little weight to throw around, so don't. That is why we have the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of admins who won't accept this. --BM 03:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa so we are down to whether removing one comment on VFD was "disruptive". Note that RickK's justification above is "repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VFD and Talk pages". "Repeated" turns out to be one comment deleted twice. Let us look at the edit histories.

1. At 6:21 21 Mar, he blanked his old User_talk page from when he was an anon.
2. At 6:24 21 Mar, RickK asked him on his Talk page why he had done this. CPS doesn't seem to have replied.
3. At 10:26 21 Mar, Megan1964 made the following comment on VfD/List of dead rappers: Well I guess your plea is better than simply blanking/removing/censoring other people's votes you dont agree with which you have a previous record of doing btw. Thank goodness you don't run a democracy. P.S. I seriously doubt there is a pro-Libertarian bias on Wikipedia. Megan1967 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) This seems like a personal attack to me, although in fairness, it is in response to an ad hominem comment by CPS concerning Megan's vote. Whether it is a personal attack or not, I can see someone reasonably considering it to be one. Incidentally, I'm not sure where Megan1967 found evidence for this accusation; certainly it wasn't recent behaviour.
4. At 10:47 21 Mar, he reverted the comment, with the edit summary was rv immature and irrelevant remarks.
5. At 20:34 21 Mar, RickK restored the deleted comment, with the edit summary restoring Megan's comments improperly deleted by CPS
6. At 20:36 21 Mar, RickK wrote on his Talk page: PLEASE stop removing other people's comments from Talk and VfD pages. This is vandalism, and will result in your being blocked from editing. RickK 20:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
7. Three days later, at 3:15, 24 Mar he reverted the Megan1967 comment in the VfD again, this time with the edit summary, these are personal attacks meant to distract from the actual issue at hand...please Megan1967, grow up. This makes it clear that he considered the comment to be a personal attack, the removal of which is allowed by the "semi-" policy, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.
8. A few minutes later at 3:21, 24 Mar he removed the two edits by RickK from his Talk page.
9. At 5:43, RickK blocked him for repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VfD and Talk pages. Has been cautioned before).

From this sequence, it is clear to me that CPS thought he was removing personal attacks from a VFD, and the User Talk pages he was editing were his own. Also, RickK warned him about vandalism, but these edits were not vandalism, and anyway as we discussed above, administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism. As for whether it was disruption, I don't see how removing one comment from a VfD vote, especially the one in question, could be construed as disruption of the Wikipedia rising to the level of blocking. Nor can I see it being disruption justifying a block to edit your own Talk pages. --BM 03:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if any admin agrees with you, they will unblock CPS. FWIW (not being an admin), I don't think RickK was in the wrong here. --Deathphoenix 03:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus (among the people who read this page) is that the block is appropriate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The amount of time spent in pointless, wasteful, inane wiki-lawyering here boggles my mind. Get a life, and use that energy doing something which actually contributes to the real point of this project - produce some content.

Having said that, one comment, about the claim that "administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism". If that were true, all vandals would have to do is sign up for a user-name, and we'd have to resort to the ArbComm to get rid of them. People block vandals with user-names every day. The policy says something rather different. Noel (talk) 14:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Why do we have these policies if it is "inane wiki-lawyering" to actually read them? Have you not read the blocking policy? What it actually says is that a logged-in user cannot be banned for vandalism unless the account is used "effectively" only for vandalism. So, yes, what you put forward as obviously stupid is precisely what the policy states: if someone intent on vandalism creates an account and makes some number of reasonable-looking edits, then according to the policy he cannot be blocked for vandalism by an administrator. It also says that a logged-in user cannot be blocked for "isolated vandalism". Presumably the vandal can still be blocked by Jimbo or the ArbComm. I would not argue that this policy is especially logical, but that is what it clearly states. (Really. Read it.) So what is the solution? (1) all the administrators just ignore the policy and try to follow the "unwritten consensus" about when they can block people, whatever they might think that consensus is; or (2) we revise the policy so that it reflects the de facto consensus. It is obvious that most admins have decided on option (1). Since few people seem to care what the policies really state, option (2) is just too much trouble. This is basically my point: the policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support his pre-conceived position. When they don't support what someone wants to do -- well too bad for the policy and any "inane wiki-lawyers" with the poor taste and lack of common sense to mention the policies. --BM 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BM, I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the blocking policy. You have repeatedly quoted the following line: "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." Taken out of context, it appears that logged-in users should not be blocked, but if you notice, the phrase "the same time periods" and "in this manner" refers to the earlier sentences. I recently became an administrator and I have read through the relevant policies very carefully; this is how I interpret the Vandalism section: Dynamic IPs should be blocked for 24 hours. Static IPs should initially be blocked for 24 hours; repeat violators for increasing amounts of time up to one month; and that there are various rules of thumb for the schedule of increases. Then comes "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." (emphasis mine) I interpret this to mean that if a logged-in user is only vandalizing, he may be blocked for the same time periods, that is, up to a month for repeated vandalism. However, an account that is performing a mixture of edits should not be blocked in this manner; that is, not using the same increasing block lengths. However, it does not say that logged-in users who have good and bad edits should not be blocked at all. This seems the most logical interpretation to me, but perhaps we can reword it if you feel it is ambiguous. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BM, there's some page I spent a while looking for (and couldn't find) that basically said "not all policy on Wikipedia is written down". (It might have been Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided? that I was thinking of: In many cases, policies are not always formally written down. Or perhaps the page I was thinking of has been edited since I saw it. And of course there's always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - simply use common sense .. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective.)

I agree that there is a problem where policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support [their] pre-conceived position. However, more detailed written policies aren't the answer to this - without more time and energy than we are (in practise) willing to expend (first to formulate policy, second to have everyone learn it, and third to do it in practise), that will make the problem worse, not better. Perhaps we have some janitors who aren't suited to mop-n-broom duty, whose "common sense" (above) isn't up to snuff. But the answer to that is to exercise better care on selecting janitors. I myself would be in favour of a mandatory "probationary period" - i.e. new janitors get a month on the job, so people can see them actually in action, and then have to go through the approval process again to get permanent janitor status. Noel (talk) 16:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM is absoluetly right. If people think that current policies are unworkable, they should change them, not disregard them. The persistent attitude that procedure and consistency in enforcement of policy are irrelevant, as long as there is a general consensus that the result is right, is what gives rise to the sneering and the threats and everything else that gives Wikipedia the Lord of the Flies feel. At least that's what turned me off Wikipedia. Zocky 22:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coming back to this discussion after a bit of gap, I think Noel is leaning a bit hard on the "in this manner" phrase to find justification in the blocking policy for an admin blocking a logged-in user with a reasonable number of edits for "vandalism". Why would the policy make an exception for a logged in user, anyway? It seems to me clear that the intent of the policy is that a logged-in user who has made a reasonable number of good faith edits and is a "member of the community" is to be given the benefit of the doubt and some immunity from the actions of administrators. That is why we have the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo. A user who is not logged in need not be treated with that deference, and administrators need not be slowed down in dealing with vandalism from such users. The in-between case of a named user who starts committing vandalism without having established himself as a member of the community (by making a reasonable number of good faith edits) is treated more or less the same as an anon user. That is, creating an account is not a get-out-of-jail free card.

As for whether the policies should be revised, I think there are several people who would be willing to work on revising the policies, if it was not apparently a waste of time and if they were not so likely to be insulted as "wiki lawyers", etc. Such a revision would be difficult: many users would resist policies that gave administrators de jure the authority which they habitually assume de facto. If you look at the history of these matters, only policies that very clearly circumscribe the authority of administrators ever pass. (These circumscribed policies are then very liberally interpreted by the administrators: look at 3RR.) But any revised policies which did not give administrators something approaching their de facto powers would simply be ignored in the name of "common sense", with the Arb Comm (and Jimbo) more likely to censure critics than admins who overstep the policies. --BM 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey or 68.61.150.80

68.61.150.80 (talk · contribs), which is the IP address for Cumbey (talk · contribs) vandalised Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here, which included linkin my user page. I am not sure if this is plain vandalism or what, but cannot accept my name bein maliciously inserted into the text of a wikipedia article, --SqueakBox 14:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Such a link is indeed inappropriate in an article (for any reason). Things seem quiet at the article at the moment, though. Noel (talk) 14:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey here has writen a blog including info about my and User:One Salient Oversight's work here at wikipedia. This may be a case for the arbcom. Jimbo has stated this sort of behaviour will not be accepted. I think she needs blockiong, possibly on a permanent basis. her blog includes a link to here which was on my User page, and partially identifies me, --SqueakBox 16:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sysop Mark (talk · contribs) reverted User:Kc9cqj additions to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumbey, apparently after taking instructions from a User on the IRC. Can he please not do so again. i don't believe interfering with a legitimate Rfc is anything other than trying to subvert the legitimaste process of trying to sort out my problems with User:Cumbey, --SqueakBox 16:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii

Agwiii (talk · contribs) is making legal threats to me Talk:Abortion#FS 784 Cyberstalking Statute and accusing me of cyberstalking for my legitimate work here at wikipedia, as well as posting false allegations at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (twice now), --SqueakBox 16:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Typical of those who practice online harassment, Squeakbox (talk · contribs) is now accusing the target of his harassment of his very actions. Agwiii 16:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, it's difficult to see how Agwiii can honestly make the claims he has. His approach has been aggressive, and has occasionally bordered on hysteria. He would do well to consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fear Agwiii launched his campaign in order to try and stop me from editing articles in which he has had a major input. On the basis of the first edits of his I saw I decided to check his contribs, cleaned them up where I felt necessary, and put a Vfd on Ron Branson, --SqueakBox 17:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii put a personal attack on my home page which I removed, he then placed it again just now, here --SqueakBox 17:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I begin to wonder if Squeakbox understands the meaning of the words he writes, or of the truth for what I wrote could not be considered a "personal attack" by any rational person. A personal attack would be a statement such as "You are a XXXX." A polite Request that he stop his cyberstalking is not a "personal attack". Agwiii 20:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii (talk · contributions) removed the VfD notice from Ron Branson in an edit marked 'minor'. I've replaced it, but he needs to be watched. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agwiii, it appears that you removed the VfD notice here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As I have written elsewhere, if the Vfd was removed by me, it was a mistake. Agwiii 18:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, you continue to ignore the fact that Squeakbox changed my words on a TALK page. That is not acceptable behavior. Agwiii 18:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• You are correct; in general, modifying others' comments is not appropriate. Can you show us where he has done this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. As Knowledge Seeker says, some evidence of any of your claims would be helpful.
2. Where on Earth does SqueakBox say that he placed the VfD in retaliation.
3. It's a little difficult to see how your removal of the VfD notice ([3]) could have been accidental. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Simply scroll up a few lines and you'll see the admission. SqueakBox wrote, "I fear Agwiii launched his campaign in order to try and stop me from editing articles in which he has had a major input. On the basis of the first edits of his I saw I decided to check his contribs, cleaned them up where I felt necessary, and put a Vfd on Ron Branson." This is what we see with online stalkers, harassers, etc. They make self-serving statements to try to turn themselves into the victim, when they are the perpetrator. Review the complaints and you'll see that Squeakbox only began complaining after I posted notices about his behavior on the Vandalism board. His posting a Vfd on Branson is transparently a 'tit for tat' action on his part. Wikipedia deserves better! ==> Agwiii 18:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Mel, if you were being cyberstalked and harassed with almost constant edits and/or reversions to your work, you would understand how it's possible to make a mistake editing. I make no claims of infailbility, and I wrote to you that if I removed the Vfd, it was in error. I'm man enough to admit my mistakes. Again, now that I see it was simply a 'tit for tat' retailation by Squeakbox, I am offended by his action; Wikipedia deserves better. ==> Agwiii 18:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• One more thing, Mel. One of the PREFERENCES options is to mark all edits as MINOR by default. I selected that option. If it's an issue, then perhaps you should remove the ability to default to minor edit. ==> Agwiii 18:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whether you chose to have the minor edit flag start off being on of off, you're still responsible for seeing that on every edit it's set appropriately - the software obviously cannot know whether an edit is minor or not, only the human knows that. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to mark an edit as minor; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your change was minor, please note that that page says: consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option , so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. Noel (talk) 23:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Here Squeak has DELETED my comments in the Abortion|Talk page. Not content to modify them, he deletes them. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=12135289&oldid=12134819

Agwiii 21:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you have the nerve to bring that up. You struck out his comment, and he reverted; that was careless of him, as your comment went with the revert, but frankly you only have yourself to blame. For someone who has at dreary length been claiming that he has interfered with your comments, you went and interefered with his. Moreover, this can't be what you were referring to in your accusations, which considerably predate it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not place the Vfd on Ron Branson for retaliation, nor havew I said that I did. I gave a section heading to his comments. I did not to the best of my knowledge remove or change anything Agwiii wrote, but I will check, --SqueakBox 18:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

When Agwiii accuses ,me of touching what he wrote i believe he means this, --SqueakBox 18:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your explanations lack any credibility and you are wrong as usual. When I have the time to deal with your tampering, I will post it in the correct place. You did note one of your violations, but you know quite well that is not the point, or the serious violations. Agwiii 19:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

What I especially dislike is what agwiii deletes (his comment) here. get me extradited eh. As we say here, ¿A ver cómo? --SqueakBox 18:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I Vfd'd Ron Branson was because I thought him not noteworthy, and therefore wanted to see if other users agreed with me or not. I put lots of things on Vfd, but always based on my judgement of the piece. If I had been going tit for tat I would have put all his stuff up for Vfd, but the aother articles were all clearly valid. I am quite simply not cyberstalking Agwiii. I improved all the articles he refers to, removing repetitions, unencyclopedic bits etc, all good wiki work. So I feel I am the one being harrassed, compared to the Khmer Rouge, etc, --SqueakBox 18:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

For the man who wrote on his home page that, "My greatest achievements here so far have been elevating Haile Selassie I to the status of Almighty God," you bring an important political perspective to the reform of the American Judicial System. Clearly You know absolutly nothing about the issue. You've admitted you don't live in the United States, so then, what legitmate motive could you have --- and the only answer is none. You know nothing about Branson or J.A.I.L 4 Judges. Your sole reason for the Vfd is harassment. As we say here, "never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." Agwiii 20:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cyberstalking by SqueakBox

SqueakBox (talk · contributions) has a vendetta against anything that I post or edit.

• He follows my work on Wikipedia and dog posts creating intentional distortions of the facts in its bogus claim to be neutral.

• Most recently, it vandalized the J.A.I.L. 4 Judges ® page by turning the registered acronym into the word jail.

• This person is a prolific vandalizer of my work, a dog poster whose only purpose is harassment. These actions constitute the crime of cyberstalking, according to Florida Statutes 784.048(1)(d).

• The behavior of Squeakbox is typical of the online harrassers and cyberstalkers. After a period of antagonizing and threatening, the perpetrator often tries to spin the story around and play the victim.

• Typical of those who practice online harassment, Squeakbox (talk · contributions) is now accusing the target of his harassment of his very actions.

Signed ==> Agwiii 17:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

try WIkipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, without providing diffs, you will get nowhere: people want the evidence presented, don't leave it to us to find evidence of what you accuse people of (but, the collected evidence should go to WP:RfC, not to this page). dab (ᛏ) 19:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware of official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No legal threats. -- Curps 19:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terminated discussion

I am terminating this discussion with you, Squeakbox. Any subsequent messages from you, directed to me, at me, or about me will be considered improper, intentional, wilful cyberstalking and harassment in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Agwiii 19:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• And how is he supposed to solve the dispute you two have if you don't want to talk to him or listen to what he says? Mgm|^(talk) 20:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• glad to hear it. All we can tell you here is: If you want to take legal action, do it, but cease from editing Wikipedia while the case is pending. If you do not, don't make void threats and follow dispute resolution like everyone else. Using the "User contributions" feature is not "cyberstalking" by any definition. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Always glad to hear from the peanut gallery, however you've come late to the dance and the music stopped long ago, but thanks for your opinion. Agwiii 20:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with dab and mgm. At this point you need to either leave Wikipedia or stop making legal threats. It's inappropriate for you to continue editing articles while at the same time claiming that squeakbox is breaking the law by attempting to communicate with you. Rhobite 20:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I have a legitimate right to edit articles about the USA,
• I have the same rights as other unblocked, unbanned wiki user to edit articles on the USA --SqueakBox 20:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, technically, legally, you don't. The Wikimedia Foundation allows you to edit all articles here (including those about the USA), the same as it allows all other Wikipedia editors in good standing. But they don't have to allow anyone to do anything. (The content, of course, is available for anyone to copy, under the GFDL.) Noel (talk) 23:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think a response to a terminated discussion is a non sequitur. Agwiii 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Agwiii here crosses out my edit at Talk:Abortion, and again --SqueakBox 21:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I crossed out your response to me after I told you not to - nothing of substance and NOTHING WAS DELETED -- you don't listen well. However, this link takes all to the place where you DELETED my comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=12135289&oldid=12134819 Signed ==> Agwiii 21:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

hello, Mister? I thought you had terminated the discussion? As in, you know, no more responses? Are you even able to walk away from a discussion you terminated? This is not a schoolyard. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coincidence - not!

Visit the Vandalism page and notice that he had deleted the three individual reports I made of Squeakbox's his behavior. Amazing, he deletes or edits what I write, and gets away with it. Could it be there is preferential treatment for old users versus newer users? Coincidence? There are no coincidences. When you think you have a coincidence, check your premises, and you will find one is mistaken. I begin to smell a fish here. Agwiii 21:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here he removes my claim that I have a right to edit articles about the USA, --SqueakBox 21:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I removed a personal attack. really I should remove all your personal attacks against me, --SqueakBox 21:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I beleve I was mistaken but I apologise, --SqueakBox 01:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

As I have not threatened Agwiii, nor less threatened him with death or serious bodil harm I don't believe anyone can say I have been stalking Agwiii. If he studied law he should no better than to make this claim with no evidence that I have been threatening him, --SqueakBox 01:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet letter

It appears that RexJudicata (talk · contribs) created Agwiii (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act. Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 here. DJ Clayworth Vfd'd it 6 minutes later [4] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit here with Rex coming back in here at 12.15. Here RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin's creation, the 'no fault' divorce.. Here Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father's rights being POV'd into Abortion. Agwiii being a sockpuppet would also explain why he was so paranoid about having his contributions investigated, --SqueakBox 20:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg

Despite an utter lack of consensus to delete the image (according to the final count at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2 of 64 deletes to 48 keeps, User:Timwi has deleted the image. He didn't even bother to modify the Autofellatio article to delete the link, and he didn't justify his deletion anywhere, he just unilaterally deleted it. RickK 03:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-uploaded it. Unfortunately, I don't have information about the original copyright grant, I just know it was free use provided that we give attribution. --Carnildo 04:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Image talk:Autofellatio_2.jpg. The person who obtained the image and permission was User:Christiaan. FreplySpang (talk) 04:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the remaining discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (where it belongs) dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:65.12.194.210 neo-Nazi propaganda

For now I'm treating this guy's edits as iffy on content grounds (he's planting links to what looks like a neo-nazi propaganda site). I've left him a polite note explaining why I've reverted all of his edits. Could be part of a wider attempt to plant dodgy nonsense on Wikipedia.

Articles affected so far:

• 12:32, 11 Apr 2005 Treblinka
• 12:27, 11 Apr 2005 Jennie Jerome
• 12:23, 11 Apr 2005 Winston Churchill
• 12:19, 11 Apr 2005 Terezín
• 12:04, 11 Apr 2005 Lockerbie
• 11:59, 11 Apr 2005 Drancy deportation camp
• 11:53, 11 Apr 2005 USS Cole bombing
• 11:48, 11 Apr 2005 Kristallnacht
• 11:43, 11 Apr 2005 Leopold and Loeb
• 04:00, 11 Apr 2005 Lindbergh kidnapping
• 03:57, 11 Apr 2005 Leo Frank

The thing to look out for seems to be dodgy conspiracy theories implicating shadowy Jewish or Zionist groups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, he can always discuss things on the talk pages, and any notable theories can be included and treated in a NPOV manner. I think there's been a worrying tendency towards the idea that these views should be excluded outright. On the other hand, repeatedly adding dubious material without discussion would also be cause for worry. Everyking 13:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment. If he can produce a NPOV treatment of the subject matter that's fine. At the moment he's representing these conspiracy theory links as factual by adding them to the external links with either no comment or a misleading one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider

GRider edited Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Middle School earlier today, in violation of recent ArbCom decision. Radiant_* 18:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Snowspinner 18:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted GRider's vote while putting in your own. Would it be better to strike out his vote instead of deleting it? It makes it a little more clear that he actually voted on that page, and a strikeout (with comment) is just as good for the WP:VFD/Old person working on this vote. --Deathphoenix 20:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps - if you want to reinstert it struck through, go for it. Snowspinner 22:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm pedantic enough to ask, but lazy enough not to do it. ;-) --Deathphoenix 02:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why stop at a week? If you're gonna abuse powers, go ahead and make it a month, two, or a year. I think it is perhaps representative of one of our greatest failures as a community that we have allowed someone with such a totalitarian mentality to call the shots on so many issues for so long. Everyking 22:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I understand how this is an abuse of powers... I blocked in accordance with the blocking policy. Snowspinner 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because the arbcom ruling said (fortunately) "up to a week", not "however long the blocking admin feels like blocking". But of course "common sense" might dictate a longer block. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And leave it to Snowspinner to pick the most extreme penalty possible. Everyking 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought breaking the ban within 24 hours of it being imposed was particularly flagrant, yes. Snowspinner 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think before I told you that while a kid should not steal gum, a policeman shooting the kid for it is much worse. Do you see the logic here? Everyking 23:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How long would you have blocked for? Are we talking about 1 hour vs. 7 days or 4 vs. 7. This was a fairly flagrant violation and if their is a decent excuse GRider may email us and we can consider reducing the sentence. BrokenSegue 23:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have blocked at all, but I think a ban of perhaps a day could've been justifiable. A week is tantamount to telling someone "go away. We don't want you here." Everyking 23:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider broke the arbcom parole the day after it was imposed. This was a clear attempt at thumbing his nose at the community, and the block was entirely appropriate. RickK 23:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BrokenSegue that this violation was quite flagrant. If you check the block log, you'll notice that I actually blocked GRider for a week before Snowspinner imposed his block. Last week, GRider violated the ArbCom's temporary injunction and was blocked for a day. After the ArbCom ruling was posted on his talk page, GRider blanked it and proceeded to edit VfD pages. This can not be taken as anything but blatant disregard for his deletion-related ban. It also emphasizes GRider's refusal to ever discuss his behavior. Carbonite | Talk 23:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Carbonite's reasoning. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I fully support Snowspinner on this. The arbitration committee's resolution specifically said:

1.3) GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator and shall have the parole reset. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator. Passed 6 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are several points to consider with this:

1. Is the page he edited deletion related? I think everyone can agree that VfD is deletion related.
2. Was he covered by the ban at the time? The resolution was passed at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005. This edit [5] was made at 18:23, 11 Apr 2005. So, yes he was.
3. Could he reasonably be expected to have known about the ban? Arbitrator Sannse left the message about the ban on his user page at 18:58, 10 Apr 2005 (correcting the link 1 minute later) [6]. At 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 GRider edited his talk page [7], removing Sannse's post. It is safe to say therefore that he was well aware of the ban.
4. Does this deserve a punishment? Imho, yes. This was a clear violation of the arbcom resolution. If such rullings are not enforced, what is the point of the ArbCom?
5. What punishment does it deserve? This was a deliberate violation (imho) - editing a page that was clearly deletion related (indeed it is a vote on a school, the exact sort of article that broke the camels back and led to the case in the first place), less than 24 hours after the ban was enacted, and less than 2 hours after he had removed the notice of the ban from his talk page. Short of one or more frivolous nominatons to VfD and posting a message on his talk page about it, I don't think he could be more blatant in his defiance. If this isn't punished severely then what message does it send to him and other users subject to arbcom cases/resolutions/injunctions? It would say that it is fine to ignore them, and you'll only get a short ban at most. Imho that would be a very Bad Thing. The maximum penalty available is 1 week, and based on my reasoning I feel Snowspinner is perfectly correct to have blocked him for that amount of time. Fwiw, I am not an admin, but would likely have done the same thing as Snowspinner. Thryduulf 23:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Does Grider have to check in with his Parole officer every week or so, to make sure he's still on the path to righteousness? Did we outfit him with a Wikibraclet on his leg so that he won't wander into areas his "parole board" has decided he shouldn't violate? Is there a set of "rules" on Wikipedia regarding his behaviour that aren't, of course, editable and changeable by the entire community, including Grider? I am concerned that if Grider is a recidivist and ends up back in Wikijail, he may get shanked by some of the other miscreants. Apparently if he uses Wikipedia facilities to the best of his abilities, he will be punished. Does his name need to be changes to GharrisonBergeron? I'm all for it; then we'll know what he's about. Too bad his name doesn't have a letter "A" in it, so he can change it to red. I hope I meet none of you in the road. --Jscott 17:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

School Inclusionist

Interestingly, User:School Inclusionist made his first edit a few hours after GRider's ban and shows quite a familiarity with this issue despite this being his first day. Gamaliel 01:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock created to vote disruptively in VfD debates. Asking for a sockcheck. Snowspinner 01:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of how obvious it is, why was a block necessary? Everyking 01:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from WP:SOCK: "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes. [...] [A]ccounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently. [...]

"[U]sing a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account.

"Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart."

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. [...]

"Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently.

"Reincarnations of blocked disruptive users will be reblocked if they continue being disruptive, or if they edit in a way which suggests they are likely to continue being disruptive..."

Based on the above quotes, I'd say that a block was legitimate and justified. I'd also contend that a username like "School inclusionist" is inapropriate as its highly likely to have been created for a single issue and will cause/inflame disputres, and therefore is very unlikely to contribute anything positive to the encylopædia (regardless of whether schools merit inclusion or not, conflict is never desirable). Thryduulf 02:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how any of what you quoted accounts for the block. Everyking 02:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not intend to be disruptive and thought I was being helpful by editing school articles and hopefully making them better. Contrary to some of the stuff said above my only relation to GRider is that I agree that school articles can and should be improved! Can someone please remove my block now? School Inclusionist 02:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edited via User: 208.62.7.133. The account is still indefinitely blocked. If we want to keep this up then the ip should also be temp blocked for block avoidance. I'm not going to do it, however. BrokenSegue 03:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a developer should check on this. Please bring it to WP:RFAR and request clarification. I'm not going to unblock School Inclusionist but I think there is some serious conclusion-jumping going on here. Rhobite 03:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've already asked for the sockcheck. To be clear, I did not block School Inclusionist as a GRider sock. I blocked it as a disruptive sock. Creating an account with the explicit purpose of voting a controversial position in deletion debates is disruptive. Snowspinner 03:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Update:I've gotten some outside information (Not a sockcheck) that says that School Inclusionist is not GRider, but that it is a sock of an established user. The sock was also apparently run through a proxy, so as to make a sockcheck pointless. So we have a sock created to be bitchy about the school deletions, maintained by an established user who has gone out of his way to disguise his identity. I'm not unblocking this one. If nothing else, it serves to close out the proxy. Snowspinner 03:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymity

I have a question about the School Inclusionist issue... there are a number of other recently created socks-to-make-a-point (User:School deletionist and User:GRuder come to mind, and User:Navid whose first edit is VfD'ing a FA). Why is there a policy to allow these people to hide behind anonymity? If one creates a sock that is then blocked for vandalism (as the first two I mentioned), shouldn't the original user be held accountable? If one creates an account for WP:POINT or insulting someone, shouldn't the original user be held responsible?

That sounds like a good idea, though it isn't policy yet. But blocking accounts clearly created for disruption (as these have) is within policy. And School Inclusionist was also pretty clearly created to try to get GRider into trouble. - David Gerard 10:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a related point, it has been alleged that a certain user has two established accounts, used for double-voting. If true, that sounds unacceptable. If false, it should be possible to clear his name of the accusations. But the anonymity policy makes both impossible. Radiant_* 10:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Usual thing to do is shrug off the accusations. Or ask on their talk page and they answer "no." Then the answer should be accepted in good faith unless there's good evidence otherwise.

(I have the power of limited sock-checking, but it's somewhat controversial so I can't use it very much - clear ArbCom purposes, pretty much. I recently used it to check on an apparent sock abuse by Rienzo, which it turns out almost certainly was him. That level of thing. Casually looking people up, I can't really do, and the devs who can generally won't, often 'cos they're too busy.) - David Gerard 10:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LibraryLion

LibraryLion (talk · contribs) just removed a Vfd from War of the Stray Dog here. can someone please restore it and warn him, --SqueakBox 21:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:24.69.255.205

The above IP address keeps being blocked, I believe because of vandalism from User:Kracky. This is a Shaw proxy server and the block keeps catching legitimate editors too, even though this isn't their IP address. That is, it seems Wikipedia is only finding the proxy server in this case, not the individual IP address. I don't know what the best thing to do is. I'm also going to leave a note for Jamesday. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kracky was vandalizing the Mma troll page, which I've vprotected, so we can remove the block until he finds another page to vandalize. RickK 23:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. That's a Shaw Cable proxy, and LOTS AND LOTS of editors from Soviet Canuckistan will show as coming through it. So admins should be careful not to block it for long periods, only enough to dissuade a vandal (say, 15-60 min or whatever) - David Gerard 10:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Long term persistent vandal

24.60.128.48 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the same erroneous information into Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends related articles, and a similar pattern of vandalism on a few other articles, including Alien experiment (Lilo & Stitch). The contribution history goes back to Novemeber and as far as I can tell they have made no undisputed edits. Its taken me a good half-three quarters of an hour to revert his latest round. I request that they be banned, they have been warned twice before today and on numerous talk pages. See also Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#24.60.128.48. A minium ban of a week will be needed as they don't come here every day. I'd prefer a month or longer ban though. Thryduulf 23:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a reincarnation of the Cartoon Vandal, who makes tons of erroneous edits and never discusses them, gets reverted, and comes back and makes the same edits all over again. He/she seems to use lots of anonymous IDs which nobody else ever uses. RickK 23:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I can hardly fathom the workings of such a mind. Deliberate misinformation should be dealt with harshly, I agree. Everyone makes errors, of course, so one has to be careful in distinguishing it from honest mistakes. But this certainly sounds deliberate to me. Everyking 10:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I used to follow this guy around and remove his sneaky vandalism, but after a while I simply gave it up. It takes much time to fact check every one of his many many edits, you can't block him as he'll simply use another IP, etc. Between his vandalism he makes alot of valid edits as well, usually hiding his vandalism behind the good edits. He likes to create lists (like lists of episodes) with tiny mistakes in them for example. Sometimes I'd really like to simply revert him on sight, no matter what he is doing, and if there is consensus for that, I'll gladly do the job. I created a watchlist (just use the "Related changes" links) a while ago of articles that he edits frequently, feel free to use it and add new vandalized articles. --Conti|✉ 12:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that if his work is riddled with what we can judge to be deliberate errors, they should all be reverted, even if there is some valid content there. That would probably also get him to stop, if he saw the futility of his efforts. Everyking 13:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That didn't work with Michael. Snowspinner 13:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would not want to generalize from Michael to other problem editors. He is not really typical, from what I've seen. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POofYS

POofYS (talk · contributions) is an account that is being used in a very strange way: on its user page, we're told that the account is being used by a large number of people, including students. In fact, edits are being made to the relevant (Korea-related) pages mainly by people who aren't logged in, sometimes signing themselves "POofYS". What should our attitude be to this sort of thing? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

m:Role account -- Curps 16:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Ah, I had read that at some time. OK, so "Use of role accounts is not sanctioned on most Wikipedia projects (including en:)" — what should we do, then? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Treat it as a single, somewhat quirky user? As long as the account does no harm, I guess it's fine. If someone does something silly with the account and gets the whole department blocked, well, that's about the time they might consider changing their procedures O:-) . Either way, it hurts them more than it hurts us, so *shrug* . Kim Bruning 16:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)