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

homophobia and vandalism

unresolved He's back (16 June 2007)

(hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance he also goes by Chunda18 (talk · contribs), as the topics and approach to submissions is identical, and Chunda18 stopped "contributing" at almost the same time that DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) started. It's always similar: certain major stars (primarily John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart) are right-wing Republicans and therefore any positive thing about them should be removed or so qualified as to eliminate the positive aspect, or they are homosexuals and should be exposed to the world. This morning someone on his talk space politely suggested some help for him if he needed it on the matter of proper citing. DaveyJones1968 replied "Fuck you." Doesn't seem resolved to me.

I've blocked DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) for now. From the looks of it he has devolved from just adding unsourced additions into articles and now is engaged in trolling. I don't see much reason to unblock unless he commits to following WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP.--Isotope23 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) responded to his being blocked by taking on a new identity and immediately reinstating -- verbatim -- the POV material I had reverted from the John Wayne article yesterday. His new name is InLikeErrol (talk · contribs).

I endorse the block of DJ and have blocked the new account. This guy is clearly trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He's back again, a day later, as BreckColeman (talk · contribs). He put back all his trash again. Monkeyzpop 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And again, June 17, 2007, as LinkJones (talk · contribs). Monkeyzpop 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future you can just alert me or another admin directly about future socks that need blocking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish rant

User:Alex mond, who appeared in Wikipedia on June 5, seems to be an essentially one-purpose account pushing extremely nationalist fringe views on Armenia and Armenian language. User:Dbachmann is the only editor who had the stamina to argue with him, to revert his most impertinent edits, and to help him with kind advices. After he understood that the case is hopeless and desisted from time-consuming arguments, User:Alex mond started pestering Dbachmann on his talk page:

• We think you are a Jew (and no its not Just Wikipedia that you think im referring to Jews propaganda), dont waste our time here
• By the way you are disguised as German. You're obviously the worse of the Jewish type.
• You are probably the worse of that type with your race, I dont know your race, but does it matter if I do??
• Dbachmann, I guess I was right, you're not serious about this, you are full of it.
• And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide

How long will this last? I request someone to investigate the situation. Why should Wikipedia tolerate such editors? I believe anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks only drive serious wikipedians away from the project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He was warned by Alison at 17:14 on the 11th, and all of those diffs are from before then - unless there's been more comments since then, the warning may have done its job. Neil ╦ 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is disappointing. Could you refer me to a useful edit from this account? How much time you suppose people should spend arguing with him on talk pages and reverting his eyebrow-raising edits in mainspace? Thanks, Ghirla^-трёп- 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Has he made any incivil comments or personal attacks since being warned? If not, then there is no administrative action required at present. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If he has stopped, then there is nothing to prevent. Neil ╦ 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great if you and Nick added Armenia and Armenian language to your watchlist and, next time Alex mond attempts to edit them, discussed with him the harmfulness of fringecruft, especially that motivated by nationalist mythology. Thanks, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Neil. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas, I don't give a hoot whether the account is blocked or not. I'm well aware that some people, especially those who don't have to deal with extremist editors on a day-to-day basis, are willing to assume good faith ad infinitum and keep the project full of "potentially reformable bad guys", as long as they don't have to reason with them themselves. My request was to investigate whether the guy has really been helpful. I have yet to see a non-disruptive edit from this one-purpose account. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps start a Sockpuppetry case and back it up with evidence? Or contact a checkuser? :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's User:Artaxiad again? It does not appear to be plausible. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can investigate this on your own - contribution logs are public. At this time no Admin will do the investigation for you because it isn't an interesting question. If someone's been warned and then continues to be disruptive, blocks may be in order to get their attention, or force them to knock it off. If they've stopped being disruptive, then there's nothing left to see.

I'm afraid we have different ideas of "disruption". --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ghirla here. I've been watching this user's contributions on Armenian topics over the past few days and he is clearly an extremist crank (and an anti-Semite to boot) with no scholarly knowledge of the subject at hand who is causing disruption with his editing. He contributes nothing to this project. I'm amazed there is no mechanism for the speedy removal of editors like this who cause far more disruption than drive-by vandals and who waste large amounts of bona fide users' time. This is exactly the kind of POV pusher who is wrecking large areas of Wikipedia and ruining its reputation in the wider world. --Folantin 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've only taken a cursory look at this, but what I've seen makes me agree with Ghirla and Folantin. This guy is an obvious crank, and unlikely to contribute anything valuable to the encyclopedia. It's really a shame we can't show such users the door immediately, because even when they are civil and limit themselves to the talk pages, they still chew up an enormous amount of time and patience. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think an indef-block for serious WP:NPA violations and bigotry is in order.Bakaman 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bakasuprman. We can't have racism destroy Wikipeida.--Epeefleche 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. However, Neil brings up a valid restraining point, in that the warning from Alison was after the racism. If it happens again, I will block the user.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, blocking for 24 hours for this personal attack here and this one here, after the warning from Alison. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

from my nigh three-year experience with this sort of situation, it is very, very unlikely that we'll ever get anything useful out of this editor that would even remotely make the bother of putting up with him worthwhile. But I am really agnostic about permabanning him, since, well, he'll just be back under another account anyway. Btw, I am neither Jewish nor German, but I do not consider it a "personal attack" to be called either. If you're going to permaban this account, let it be in some way on grounds that this user seems to consider 'Jewish type' a withering insult, not on grounds of him actually attacking me (I have been known to take much worse trolling without any rise in blood pressure). dab (𒁳) 08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty four hours? That's it? El_C 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to observe who here seems to be tolerating the hate speech with disgraceful word lawyering. El_C 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Not worth it. El_C 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-four hours really doesn't seem nearly long enough. I'd argue for a perma-ban. This user's anti-Semitic rants are part of a far wider problem than incivility (though we shouldn't be tolerating racial harrassment like this at all). These comments show he is a crackpot and his contributions are cut from the same cloth: he is simply adding lunatic fringe content to Wikipedia. This is a major problem for us as an encylopaedia as far as our credibility goes. Plus, I don't see why bona fide editors with knowledge of the subject should have to waste endless time on article talk pages arguing with tendentious ignoramuses. Wikipedia should have more robust and swifter methods for dealing with such cranks. We now have the opportunity to get rid of one of them, let's take it.--Folantin 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that instead of being immediately blocked for his anti-Semitic attacks, he was warned, and he seems to have stopped. We can all see he's a crackpot, but for some reason obvious crackpottery isn't grounds for a block, even though it's a more serious threat to the quality of the encyclopedia than personal attacks. Now we have to follow the tedious processes outlined in WP:DE and WP:TE, or argue for a community ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A week ago, I proposed on WP:VPR to set up a project or a noticeboard that would deal with the most glaring cases of fringecruft-pushing. There has been no feedback so far. IRC chatting is much more interesting than actually making some cleanup in mainspace. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, this is possibly the biggest problem with Wikipedia. We're not talking about good faith editors making honest mistakes by adding bad content and we're not talking about overheated but valid intellectual controversies, we're talking about out-and-out crankery. Yet there seems to be no efficient way of removing such editors and their "contributions". It appears we'd have to go through some long drawn out process involving plenty of Wikilawyering to deal with this problem. In the mean time, this kind of thing drives away plenty of knowledgeable editors who can't be bothered with the hassle. Admonitions to show "Wikilove" to the trolls and extremists really don't cut it. I know several potentially brilliant contributors who wouldn't go near WP because of this kind of thing. Ultimately, we get judged by our mainspace content, not how lovey-dovey we are behind the scenes. --Folantin 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, I can't agree with you more. Unfortunately, people who run the project seem to be inclined to treat it as a sort of surrogate Friendster. Long-standing admins have developed adminitis; new admins normally get their instructions from IRC; ArbCom claims that content arbitration is not in their purview. Since we still don't have a procedure of content arbitration, he that has more time to spend arguing on talk pages and a bigger mouth for shouting, usually wins a content dispute, even if his point is utterly devoid of merit. An added benefit is one's ability to ask his friends to register a wikipedia account and to support him whenever possible. It is assumed that, once a person is interested in mainspace, he should be arguing over some point ad nauseum. This is fallacious, since I know scores of pages which contain patent lies, but I'm too busy to even discuss it with people who "own" them. It is easier for me to walk away. This is the case of Alex mond. I don't care about Armenia and I don't want to spend my time on arguing with a person whose point is apriori false and whose opinion will not be changed a bit by all my efforts. This is a problem that the community needs to address if it wants to keep Wikipedia more or less creditable. Unfortunately nobody seems to be interested, except you and me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction notice board to suggest a community ban instead of a block? Personally, I'm glad that people with admin bits are slow to give long blocks to people not currently engaged in disruptive behaviour. Dan Beale 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those blocks should have been indef, but never mind. If he continues pushing his nutcasery, I'll block for out-and-out disruption. We just don't need talkpage warriors like this who do nothing but shove their original research in our direction. When this fellow goes back to his main account, he'd better be on his best behaviour and actually provide some references. C'mon people, we have an encyclopedia to maintain. Moreschi ^Talk 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note User:Alex mond's recent edits to Armenian hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If he does it again, escalate further. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with block. The next one is indef. Ghirla and Folantin are saying something very valuable here; we cannot allow cranks to win simply by shouting most, and this fellow is definite POV/OR-pushing crank. Moreschi ^Talk 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He edited again, as User:65.148.132.167--see this diff. I lengthened his block to two weeks for block evasion, but probably should have made it indef--I guess I'm going soft. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I vonH removing sockpuppet proof, etc

I vonH (talk · contribs), along with a number of IP addresses, is proven to be a sockpuppet of Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and is blanking all of the pages and removing the links proving it to be so. He is also claiming that he is his own wife, that is, I vonH is saying that Tfoxworth is "her" husband. If that is true, they are engaging in disrupting Wikipedia.

The above statement is offensive.I vonH

Here are the IP addresses and user names that are populating Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth unless I vonH has gone and blanked the IP pages again:

• 12.146.101.146 (talk · contribs)
• 12.146.102.46 (talk · contribs)
• 68.3.32.53 (talk · contribs)
• 68.3.34.152 (talk · contribs)
• I vonH (talk · contribs)

Please note the category page and note that the above five users are supposed to be listed in it. I vonH has blanked a number of the pages and I and at least one other person so far have reverted them. Therefore I have provided a version link to the category page, which itself contains version links to examples of vandalism, versions of the IP pages to preserve them, etc. I vonH/Tfoxworth has also engaged in starting frivolous mediation requests, etc.

Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can probably post more if needed. Charles 23:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is offensive.I vonH

Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said Charles- Tfoxworth is my husband. You are just angry I reported you for 3RR. I vonH 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You have? That's news to me. I am not angry about any 3RR write-up, I am concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia when we have sockpuppets removing warranted notifications on the pages of IP addresses where the connections have been established. If I was touchy, I would consider you calling me angry for something I didn't know about a personal attack, but I will blame it on the established pattern of behaviour. Charles 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny that- all this came about after I reported you. You should be worried about the lack of integrity you have shown thus far.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're his wife, then you're a meatpuppet, and shouldn't be removing notices in such a manner. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. --Haemo 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the IP addresses there are entries that are not ours. We have two computers, not five. However, since you are not in the least way involved in this issue your interest is...? Perhaps you are a meatpuppet for Charles.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that his interest is in maintaining Wikipedia. Any responsible editor can see the evidence and has the right to comment on the matter at hand. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets are not members of the Wikipedia community. If you are accusing me of having a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, I invite you to prove it. It is not true. It is, however, true for "you and your husband" and it is in Wikipedia's best interest that a consistent vandal who engages in harassment be dealt with. Charles 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a meatpuppet. Anyone can see that. --Haemo 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this public noticeboard is to solicit the advice or help of uninvolved administrators, and the advice and help of other editors who also post here. That you would accuse someone providing that exact thing of being a meatpuppet is preposterous. Natalie 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins, is there anything that can be done about this person to prevent the constant disruption, harassment, etc? Charles 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Any further blanking of said pages by involved persons will be met by reversion & protection of the pages, and a block on the person doing it. - Nunh-huh 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tfoxworth has returned to editing, adding the same citations to Russian imperial related articles. Charles 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Range block needed

User: Diluvien has been severely eluding his ban on the recent range of 87.122.x.x. Please see the histories [1] [2], [3], and [4]. He's used IP's: 87.122.38.6, 87.122.58.60, 87.122.44.84, 87.122.54.178, 87.122.56.113, 87.122.28.40, and 87.122.21.58 (still unblocked and edit warring at AN/3RR) over the past few days. The Evil Spartan 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The addresses you quote span a 15 bit space, so the rangeblock you suggest would cover 32768 addresses. That's a pretty big chunk - it would be one thing to briefly block that if we were being attacked by a vandalbot or a determined tubgirl-type vandal, but neither the rate nor the severity of this guy's vandalism seems to call for such an extensive block, particularly for a multi-day duration. As Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Range blocks notes, rangeblocks "should be reserved as an absolute last resort." -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I've seen range blocks per into place for much smaller occurrences. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. Have you ever used a range block before? It doesn't appear much else is coming from that address, and we can always do AO or let someone appeal the block. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And now, after repeatedly undoing other administrator's edits, he managed to get Isotope23 blocked for 24 hours. Thanks a lot, guys, way to be on the eight ball. The Evil Spartan 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick, please. HalfShadow 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the fuck did that comment come from? The Evil Spartan 00:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And I reiterate... HalfShadow 01:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[From the article:] "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones."

What is being said is that your request, which is tantamount to blocking most of the IP addresses for a medium-sized city, would not be a reasonable penalty to inflict on other legitimate editors who just happen to live in the same region and use the same ISP as this particluar object of annoyance. --Dynaflow babble 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was more referring to him slagging off the admins for blocking someone who never had been, but that's an equally valid point. HalfShadow 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastside High School (Gainesville, FL)

The following is from the Mediation Cabal case page of Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida): —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.16.179 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida)

Who are the involved parties?

Thereisaplace, Catbag, TheRaven, Fram, DaDrought3 (writer of "Fram" section on discussion page).

What is the involved article(s)?

Vandalism, false accusation of 'meatpuppetry' by administrator (Fram), unnecessary locking by administrator (Fram).

What's going on?

People such as the administrator who have no knowledge of the article topic are attempting subversion to destroy the integrity of the article. These actions include locking the page from editing, editing the content itself to display incorrect information or to remove factual information, and general vandalism. This behavior was also present in the editing of the Gotem article, in which Fram attempted (and failed) to subvert another article by direct deletion and manipulation instead of going through the appropriate dispute channels. When the article's creators (as is the case with this article) went through the proper channels, overwhelming evidence and wikipedia public opinion supported the creators and NOT Fram.

Upon researching the history of these characters and related articles, it is evident that Fram has engaged in a personal vendetta against certain users associated with this article, after having intervened in the past (these administrative interventions were overruled by other administrators as well as a large contingent of other Wikipedians... for a rather silly but factual history of these events, see this page.

What would you like to change about that?

The main issue here is the abuse of power, and it has been suggested that Fram be subject to discipline such as removal of his administrative powers.

Of course, unlocking the page for proper editing is also needed.

Mediator response

I'm not the mediator, but I'm still making a comment here. I highly suggest that this issue be forwarded to WP:ANI this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. Also, have you tried talking to Fram? No discussion, no MedCab. I also think that you're over-reacting, there's not going to be any administrative dismissal here. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this situation hard to sort out. All I can say regarding the article is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. One cannot win an argument for inclusion here using their own experiences alone. That's WP:OR and unacceptable.

While I'm here, I'd like to quote an earlier statement of yours:[5]

"If you continue with your Belgian crusade of ruining the articles of other countries I will do whatever is in my means to have you permenantly banned from this site. Consider this a warning."

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You will be indefinitely blocked long before Fram if you attempt to do so. Consider that a warning. :) –Gunslinger47 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram has disrupted Wikipedia by stalking users and locking down their activity. While some of these attacks might not necessarily be baseless, the attacks against this article, including regressive and destructive reverts as well as locking to prevent any legitimate activity, only serve to demonstrate Fram's totalitarian and counter-productive attitude. By the way, when have I ever suggested "disrupting Wikipedia"? As I have said before I will go through the proper channels and protocol for resolving this issue - get your facts straight son. --DaDrought3 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, you've yet to present evidence of any significant misconduct by Fram. At face value, the protection seems to have been put in place to prevent repeated addition of unsourced and dubious information. If you want the protection lifted, you'll need to resolve the ongoing dispute first. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for some assistance with that. When you've reached a consensus on the article's talk page, request unprotection at WP:RPP. –Gunslinger47 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read everything in the discussion page, I have already taken steps to resolve the dispute which eventually led to a request for mediation cabal, except that they referred me to this joke of a page and basically ignored the dispute as you and ThuranX are doing now. And what do you mean by "significant misconduct"... what Fram has done over time is significantly disruptive, but evidently the effects are too spread out over time for you to comprehend the significance. --DaDrought3 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are ignoring the details of your dispute. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this page? Please read the details at the top. A single protection of a page is not a significant abuse of administative power, and this is not the place to review page protection. If his alleged misconduct goes beyond just a single protection of a turbulent page, then please provide diffs as the top of the page asks. –Gunslinger47 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin locks a page that is subject to incessant, if not persistent, vandalism, and little else, and there's a complaint? No surprise, but also, nothing to see here. Go play more four-square. ThuranX 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that I don't play four square, and as soon as the lock expires Fram will lock it again preventing the article from ever advancing. Go bother someone else. --DaDrought3 04:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. The kis at that school are vandalizing the page. Fram is stopping it. What's the PROBLEM? ThuranX 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then why doesn't he just block these kids instead locking the whole damn article... That's the PROBLEM. --DaDrought3 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, that's the SOLUTION. Multiple editors vandalizing one page over and over, and using IPs to do so, are handled by locking up the page in question. Everythign was handled properly. ThuranX 17:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I refused mediation concerning these ridiculous complaints. A bunch of sock- and meatpuppets is only out to cause trouble and isn't worth wasting our time. The page in question, by the way, was and is only semi-protected, which so far did its job perfectly. Fram 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosalindfranklin

I have blocked Rosalindfranklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while we clean up the mess of WP:COI edits she has made. I would appreciate a debate on whether this shoud remain indefinite or whether it should be lifted after the cleanup is done. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your blocking her and don't quite understand your reasoning and its relationship to COI. Is this a community policy, blocking people who create articles with which they have COIs? Did you try communicating with her? I see the comments on her talk page, but don't really understand the status of the AfD on the Jessie Penn-Lewis article, either. Oh, I see, it's a speedy. I'll just remove the tag.

There is another editor who is writing equally dreadful, well, that would be hard, but rather extremely bad articles, who chased away offers of help to own and control the crap he's posting--but he wasn't blocked (User:Ken Birman, the guy who created the dreadful article on Virtual synchrony, which he also created, but hopefully it isn't as bad as the Wikipedia crap).

Still, I'd just like to know what the issue is behind blocking her, simply the multiple COI articles? I don't think they were written in bad faith, and I didn't think that COI was cause for deletion (as the policy explicitly states it is not). KP Botany 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The block was instituted to stop her creating more spam links and articles copied and pasted from her own company's book blurbs, while we clean up. Spamming is a problem, we have pretty solid consensus that spammers can be shown the door. The question here is whether it's a clueless newbie or a spammer. I don't really know. Her defence of the article on her own firm was pretty vigorous. As to Birman, "virtual synchrony" (in quotes) gets 50k google hits, so there's a reasonable prospect of independent sources. Or you could AfD it. Up to you, really. Either way it's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, plenty of other crap. So the issue is spamming, not COI, then? I would appreciate if you clear that up on her talk page, and here, then, that the issue is whether or not she's spamming (she is, but sadly ineffectively because of her poor writing skills), not whether there is a COI. I would like her to be unblocked and given one more chance--with some understanding to prevent future spamming. I suspect she will not honor the agreement, but then you've clarified that spamming is the issue to her and to Wikipedia editors, and the subsequent block as a spammer will be pretty straight-forward.

I only raise the issue with Birman, because it seems to me that unlike the Franklin case where the issue is spamming, not COI, the issue in the Birman case is most definately COI--both with ultimately one sad result for Wikipedia: crappy articles due to the COI. In Birman's case the articles do belong, but not in his shitty writing style, refusal to write for a general audience, and ownership of the articles--he actually edited back in my edits which he pissed all over, because the edits clarified the topic for a general audience. But he's made it clear he owns his articles. In Franklin's case some of the articles belong, maybe most don't, but I can't tell because the subject matter is obscure enough that there is not much on the Internet, and it doesn't appeal to me much.

So, please consider giving Franklin a straight-forward spamming warning and one more chance after the articles are dealt with--I'm not overly invested in this, but I would appreciate it being done this way. KP Botany 20:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Killer Poet indef block

I have to take issue with JzG's recent indefinite block of Killer Poet for having "single-purpose disruptive account." Poet had registered back in last December and made a few minor tweaks, then returned this July, when he restored spoiler warnings to a couple of dozen articles. He was promptly blocked. I believe that there are several factors that, if they do not justify his behavior, at least go toward explaining it. This is proof of edit warring, not of inability to act constructively.

There's been a continuous debate about the use of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia for nigh on a month now, and the topic is the poster child of inciting edit wars. A total of maybe half a dozen anti-spoiler editors have declared the matter closed and removed all 45'000 spoiler warnings on the encyclopedia, most using semi-automated editing tools that would be impossible to match even if efforts to the contrary weren't promptly also removed. There's no small amount of resentment about this in an already inflamed topic, especially since this started before the now rewritten relevant guideline (currently locked down in m:The Wrong Version) sanctioned it and used tools that are forbidden to be used for "controversial edits." He was not the first, second or third editor that this goaded into trying to fix things the way removers do, and those who were, myself included, were punished lightly.

Moreover, Tony Sidaway, anti-spoiler hardliner and the most visible member of that position has stated repeatedly that he considers the lack of reversions proof of the removals' validity; that anything less than a large-scale revolt constitutes the implicit agreement of the quiet majority. A member of this majority could feel that he'd have to act in order to show his dissent.

Poet had no warning from an admin, only one from his opposing number in that edit war. We don't ban vandals for long periods that easily, or if we do, please tell me so that I can join in.

Also note that this was done during a time when the guideline used as the reason for the tags' removal was under heavy dispute.

In the name of full disclosure I'm very definitely an involved party. I've been arguing against denying our users an option which polls definitely say they use ever since this whole mess started. I do not know Killer Poet, and have had no contact with him beyond leaving a message where I offered a new userbox and asked for constructive suggestions.

The block wasn't exactly by an uninvolved party, either. Killer Poet's user page, along with perhaps eight other ones, displays said recently created (by me, yes) userbox:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

This inspired JzG to create his own:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd.

("Server resources", minimalistic blocks of at most eight words, presently five? Never mind.)

In the circumstances, I believe that an indefinite block is much too harsh and should be changed to one of a few days, at most, with credit for time already served. He should be clearly cautioned on unblocking to avoid future undoing sprees. If he ignores that, then consider longer-term measures. --Kizor 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This whole Spoiler mess is boiling faster and faster. The whole 'no one reverts so we must be right' gets enforced by blocking those who revert, so that the 'no one reverts' meme can expand? Come on. That's like 1984 logic. Intimidation moves like these have been implied in this mess since the anti-spoiler side started their mass removals, and it's part of why there are so few reversions. If you revert, you will be punished, because there's consensus and the policies we edited to say so now say so, so no reverts. A bad block. ThuranX 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• A dormant account which reactivates solely to participate in a battle which had pretty much ended? And we need that in what way, precisely? I woudl say that we need spoiler tag warriors about as much as we need spoiler tags in A Clockwork Orange - i.e. not at all. The point is not the sppoiler tags, it's what looks like a sleeper account reactivated solely to restart the war. And I only creatd the humorous userbox after the block and seeing the foolish "we lost the debate but we still think we are right" userbox on the user's page. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on guy, a little bit of good faith and some proof of your assertions would be good before you indefblocked someone for something as menial as disagreeing with you. This is hardly an indef blockable offence without checkuser evidence that this account is a sockpuppet being used by someone involved in the debate. Just because someone doesn't edit for a few months doesn't mean they haven't noticed the changes and disagree with them, compelling them to revert a few. (nothing near the scale of potential disruption that the mass removal caused). Unless your provide good evidence that this is actually a sock account and not just conjecture, I am inclined to shorten the block to 24 hours from time imposed (if that hasn't already been reached). In doing so I am waiting for the Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law to be called upon, with the winner being the first person to accuse me of wheel warring. Viridae^Talk 11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block them for disagreeing, I blocked them for pitching in and restarting a battle which was over, something which was clearly disruptive. I don't care if they are unblocked as long as they don't resume the disruption, the block was to stop the disruption. I storngly suspect that this is someone's alternate account anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. Viridae^Talk 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were to start restoring spoiler tags, would I get blocked as well? If so, why is the 'there's a consensus because hardly anyone is restoring them' argument being used?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd had no edits since December then suddenly piled into reinserting spoiler tags a couple of weeks after the brief battle had died down, as this person did, then yes. Like I said, the account had been dormant for some time and then resurfaced solely to make contentious edits in a war that had otherwise pretty much died out. They did not discuss any of these reversions, merely piled in and reverted the removals using the Undo tool, which suggests a degree of familiarity with Wikipedia not entirely consistent with a user with so very few edits. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But anyone that tries to restore spoiler warnings gets threatened or banned, regardless of their edit history.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps because all the examples thus far have been blind reversions based on philosophical objection to the pretty solid consensus that most of the spoilers we had were either redundant or downright absurd; has anybody been threatened with a block after giving a sound rationale on the talk page and achieving consensus for inserting a spoiler tag in a specific article? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus you are talking about does not exist in any way, shape or form. We've been over this repeatedly with Tony. All your arguments revolve around you insisting that a consensus exists by using phrases of the form 'there wasn't any substantial/significant/meaningful opposition'. I have given an example where one of you overruled about twenty different people in just eighteen hours. From that, we can infer that hundreds, if not thousands, of individual editors have attempted to replace spoiler tags, only to be reverted unthinkingly. The 'debate' was totally irregular, with the TfD and MfD closed for arbitary reasons at arbitary times, straw polls starting and stopping at random, the mass removals and guideline rewrites two days into the debate, and the threats and bannings that followed.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• And since the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify it and if disputed to seek consensus, the spoiler tags stay out. But actually I think you may be missing something: the deafening silence from the wider community may well be interpreted as consensus. It took some bold actions to remove the thousands of often ludicrous spoiler tags (nursery rhymes, ffs!) but in the end there is very very little opposition to their removal. A tiny number of holdouts still arguing long after the argument ended, whatever floats your boat really. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, these are just rehashes of the beliefs expressed earlier by Tony. You view the consensus as self-evident, despite the improper debate, the threats and the mass overriding of ordinary editors. The 'tiny number of holdouts' greatly outnumber the miniscule number of admins who implemented this policy and continue to argue that it was justified.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nydas, you would. When the removals started, there were some reverts. I can recall seeing (but not where, or by who) Re-reverts by the removing editors declaring wide consensus had been reached, and that going against consensus was to go against policy. Going against policy, of course, means getting blocked. It's why I never reverted. It was clear to me that the anti-spoiler folks, who include a number of admins, were enforcing their cabal consensus at the end of Teddy Roosevelt's big stick. You would've been blocked. that's why there's no widespread reversions going on. ThuranX 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alternative hypothesis: nobody cares. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And any further debate will result in a block, right guy? ThuranX 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Debate? Of course not. Edit-warring, yes, but not debate. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, and reversions woul have been seen as edit warring, and blocked. game, set, match. Reverting to demonstrate lack of consensus would've been called edit warring, and blocked for. Thus, no opposition can be voiced. ThuranX 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

There is a little bit of what appears to be disruption over at WP:CN regarding a preferred style of indention versus bullets. Regards, Navou 02:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your comment, did you have a question? Navou 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there something you'd like done by an administrator? I'm assuming there's a reason you posted to AN/I... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the issue has died down. Had it continued, perhaps. But with it no longer an issue, no. Your response in the way it appeared, came across as if I were wasting your time. Regards, Navou 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a delicate way to put it, but... without some direction as to what you'd like, it kinda was, at least based on the state of the conversation in question at the time you "reported" it. There was one or two comments that had anything to do with indentation/formatting when you posted here, and unless there was some sort of long history of redacted text or multiple erasures/reinserts/etc, based on your report there was no clear problem. In the future, please provide some details, specifically with some idea as to what you'd like done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I apologize then. At the time if the report, there appeared to be about 4 reversions. I probably should have examined to diffs more properly and popped over to 3RR or warned the editors if they were exact reverts. Navou 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems IRC Admins still rule Wikipedia after all

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It appears the discussion is becoming outside the scope of AN/I. It has been suggested this close. Navou 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

It appears that ordinary editors are not allowed to add true facts to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins - is there a reason for this. I merely improved and de POVd it a little and have been threatened with a block. Seems IRC Admins still rule Wikipedia after all. Giano 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no Giano, you did nothing but add mega assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, insults hurled at everyone you dislike, and such gems as "As a result the channel is regarded by some editors as the Lubyanka of Wikipedia" and "However, on occasions the presence of certain admins is felt to be undesirable, on these occasions generally David Gerard will make this clear to them by terse comments or telling them directly to leave. This has happened on a number of occasions when an admin has argues a counter point to that of David Gerard or one of his friends in the channel. David Gerard controls the Arbcom mailing list, and is accordingly in close contact with members of the Arbcom. He also has checkuser access on wikipedia and is thus able to wield considerable power. Many new and inexperience admins find it useful to be friendly to him as he is a source of wise advice" in addition to the equally priceless "Interestingly, Kelly Martin is not an admin, having given up her adminship voluntarily "under a cloud", when she wished to resume it, her request was denied by the Arbcom. Her continuing presence on the Admin channel has been a source of much speculation and comment" and "The IRC fairies spends most of their time chatting on IRC making infrequent appearances on Wikipedia only when rallied by other IRC admins to add their voices to a chorus of support".

Knock it off. Moreschi ^Talk 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think if people take the time to read those phrases within the context in which they were written they will see there is a certain truth and wisdom to them. I'm also concerned that some of those editing that page are not observing Wikipedia's Conflict of interest code. Giano 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I tried. If you guys all want to insist on another giant clusterfuck wheel war extravaganza, go for it. Personally, I think this is, and has been, the longest-lasting, most unproductive series of fights I've yet seen on this project. There are so many people, all of whom I consider valuable members of this outstanding community, and all of whom have better, far more important things to be doing, getting incredibly angry at each other. And what's been accomplished? Anything? Has anything changed? Is anything going to? How many people have to leave over this before we realize this fight is causing far more problems than it's solving? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The way to deal with trolling is not to revert-war. Simply ignore the troll and the thread he started.

I'll go first. --Ideogram 12:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be one of your better ideas Ideo. Nice to see you back. Giano 12:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole IRC issue can be solved very easily by one of three means;

1)Publish the logs so editors know nothing dodgy is going on.

1. The IRC logs cannot be published. This is not a Wikipedia rule, it's a rule of the IRC provider. Corvus cornix 23:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So? If this is true (i believe there is dispute on that) change to another IRC provider, problem solved. Hypnosadist 09:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2)OR don't use the place to talk about editors behind their backs.

3)OR don't get pissed at editors that believe something dodgy is going on in this private conversation because secracy erodes trust and good faith very quickly.

Any of the above will solve this long standing problem. Hypnosadist 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luna. Let it be. For the record, I had to remove the KGB reference... that's more than slightly inappropriate, IMO. I'm pretty neutral regarding the rest of it; not very subtle perhaps, but there's a certain truth to it. Riana ⁂ 12:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why what is wrong with the metaphor, both IRCadmins and the Lubyanka are place known for the cooking up of secret ways of contrlling others - or are you saying that has never happened on IRC adminsGiano 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I've seen. Most of the times I've been here, the discussions have been fairly mundane, even boring. Then again, I've only been using it for the past 3-4 weeks. Maybe the "exciting" stuff happens when I'm not there. Riana ⁂ 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3 or 4 weeks you are still a newbie to the channel - you obviously have no idea what goes on there. Giano 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Compared to 0 weeks, you must be an expert. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I assure yout that the logs which I have seen and where my name was mentioned, were uniformly puke-provoking. I see that an increasing number of administrators view Wikipedia as a surrogate Friendster. This is regrettable, but we can do nothing about it, unless David Gerard's behaviour is investigated and the logs are made arbitrable, which appears highly unlikely, even in the long term. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the logs - hundreds of them. Giano 12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, Giano! However, my comment above was poorly phrased. The times I've been in there, the discussions have all been productive - productive to the point of being boring. There are a few bad apples in every basket, let us not forget that... Riana ⁂ 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Really Bad apples, well don't say that on the page concerned that has to be whiter than white. I won't be commenting for an hour now, as I expect one of the IRCAdmins is already cooking up the famous " IRC cool off block" to shut me up. What a shower. Giano 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nobody's said anything in there for about an hour and a half. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

By golly, I have a lot of logs, too. In any case, we should probably be responding to the productive posts in this thread -- specifically, Hypnosadist brought up some possible reforms. I personally think that the paranoia regarding public logging is excessive -- I can sympathize with those who worry about snippets being taken out of context, modified, or even falsified, but an authoritative log seems to resolve that well enough. Even if it's only accessible to administrators (IRC or non). There are occasional discussions which do have some legitimate need for privacy. I agree that there should be some limitation on topics of discussion, and also that the channel should not hold water in the face of on-wiki discussion or controversy -- I've seen some progress, in this regard, and I hope more will follow. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you made a bunch of bad faith accusations and you got reverted, everything seems in order here. I see a block was also threatened, yup everything seems in order. ^(H) 12:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet again I have been misguidedly blocked for telling the truth concerning the IRCadmin channel - but fear not I'm free again the truth will always out. Giano

The block was absolutely inappropriate, but Moreschi also has a point. Giano, editing that holy page is like fighting a tsunami. You can't do it alone, can you? As long as mainspace editors don't have a place to hang around all day long the way non-mainspace-editors do, you will always be reverted. Even if they did have such a place for instant messaging, they would not be mainspace editors any more. Better leave it at their mercy, I think. Last year I made it clear on my user page that IRC is poison. It's the best I can do to express my opinion on the issue... as long as its discussion on the arbitrators' mailing list is bombed by the former arbitrators, that is. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, let's change policy to support making snide remarks about named Wikipedians in prominent meta-pages, great idea. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I hope that you don't refer to snide remarks that have been made on IRC about myself. Anyway, I am told that every essential issue is discussed on IRC these days, so posting on this page is pretty pointless. Whatever you say in Wikipedia does not matter as long as IRC does not approve it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Never seen any such, so no. The closest I've seen to snide remarks on irc is the occasional /me waves to matthew and DON'T BLOCK GIANO!!! running jokes. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hardly use IRC (three or four times in two years now, when I needed to ask something important on the dl), but Giano, you know exactly what you're doing, and what you're doing is deliberately causing trouble, and you know exactly what will end up happening, which makes me wonder is because you're bored - it's been at least a week since the last fuss you were involved in, or maybe you're going on holiday so it won't matter if you get blocked. Who can say. Neil ╦ 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And someone other than Luna Santin could bother to respond to my ways to stop this constant good faith draining poison on wikipedia (or more precisely OFF wikipedia) rather than just bitching about who is the most uncivil/disruptive/troll delete as appropriate. Hypnosadist 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective, I have protected the article for 24 hours to calm things down. Please discuss changes on the article's talk page, like everyone else has to when an edit war sparks off. I really do hope my fellow admins will show they can be grown ups and not have to edit it to get the last word in just because they can. Neil ╦ 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh look thats already happened. Hypnosadist 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see the nasty little page has been protected to save it from the truth [6] Wiki-admins just cannot bear the scrutiny. How sad is that. I will see that page reflect the truth or be perma-banned so someone had better start writing the truth and fast. Giano 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Picaroon9288 blocked for 1 hour, for edit warring on a protected page. Neil ╦ 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And where are all the powerful gods of IRC while the minons are edit warring I wonder? Giano 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Be nice. If not for me, do it for the children. Neil ╦ 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a big huge conspiracy. Sean William @ 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No because conspiracy's have meetings of unkown people, behind closed doors where everything thats said is secret, hold on!20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon was n't edit warring, Neil. Check the diffs carefully and unblock him please. Majorly (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he was (and he accepted that on his talk page), so no, and his block expires in about 30 minutes anyway. Neil ╦ 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Warring involves repeat back and forth edits. He made one such edit, which was probably done before you protected anyway; the second was a format fix. I don't see an edit war, or any reason to block. He should be unblocked so his block log shows it was a bad block. Majorly (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the block was longer, I'd have unblocked him myself. The first edit he apparently began working on before the page was protected and saved after you had protected (and no, an edit conflict message wouldn't have popped up, I checked) and the second one was a simple |} to close the table so the page's formatting isn't screwed up, hardly a blockable offence. I assume he didn't wanna argue anymore, which is why he accepted the block. Yonatan ^talk 21:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Note I did unblock him, and given the charming way he accepted it, I rather wish I had done it sooner. Neil ╦ 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now is David Gerard going to get a ban for editing the protected page to how he likes it? Hypnosadist 09:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well at least i know where wikipedia is now run from! Hypnosadist 08:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Giano that the logs should be open to scrutiny. If there is real-world sensitive information, it can be redacted (and probably shouldn't have been discussed on IRC anyhow, try e-mail.)Proabivouac 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I think the problem is that you wish to talk about things you have problems with related to Wikipedia's on-goings and running of the site, but have no where to vent these frustrations. As a user of the channel, I have seen times where users might have been assailed left and right (I most likely took part in these myself, so I am just as guilty as the admin to my left and right.) However, comparing the channel like KGB headquarters (Lubyanka) and to make some of the edits you did, it would be best to email them to the people who run the channel or to place them on an outside blog (like what other users have done). Just a friendly suggestion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest venom from the IRCadmin channel

Just in case anyone is wondering what the latest venom being cooked up on IRC is - here it is [7] straight from the lips of Ms Martin herself. As always completely groundless lies and proving as ever I am completely correct in my suspicion of what goes on there. Poor old Jayjg looks like the reptile pit is about to turn on him next. No doubt even as I post this "He who must be obeyed" is sounding the trumpet calling the drones away from their chatter to comment and pronounce further rubbish against me. When are people going to see what is going on there and do something about it? Giano 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh so this is how WP:CANVASS is violated, thats another piece in the puzzle.Hypnosadist 12:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

They are just planning something unpleasant for Jayjg now, I expect there has been some minor squabble on the arbcom mailing list, and the knoves are out for him now - she is not supposed to see the list - but well draw your own conclusions. Giano 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, Giano. Spin it this way: You're a great editor. Your edits were amusing. And, you are one of wikipedia's better editors. Clearly from that text/blog, you weren't held as incivil or personally attacking. Thus support was just given for unblocking you.

Now, on the other hand, discussing a non-article space block on you, on IRC, where nobody else has a chance to participate... well.. THAT speaks volumes about this problem.

I'm also concerned that Kelly Martin is contributing in an admin channel, about blocking a user, off-wiki, where other non-admins do not have a voice. This does appear to be a serious problem. Lsi john 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• My dear chap - you surely don't imagine our senior admins decide anything here do you? Giano 13:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to talk about anything they want in any form of venue private or otherwise. The fact is that if it is not justified on wiki then it is not a valid decision. You are going to be just fine. If people talk about blocking you, it may be due to your behavior, but I assure you that any block that is given without good reason, or contrary to consensus will simply be reversed. People talk, they talk in private, nothing to do about that. ^(H) 13:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides that post was to a public blog for all to see and was the opinion of one person, no conspiracy there. ^(H) 13:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late, I don't beleive you, IRC is snake pit and we all know what goes on there, this latest assault on Jayjg is just the tip of the iceberg and to link me to it is plain pathetic, now run off back to #admins and tell it to them not is. Giano 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused, what is being asked of the administrators here on wiki? What administrative action is needed? Navou 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you, we need this page Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins to be a page that can be edited by all, rather than by those with a possible COI. Now that David Gerard has restored it to the #admin preferred verion and claimed ownership, some editors feel that is a little unwise if not not downright dishonest. Giano 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Straight editing may not be helpful without discussion on the talk page, at this juncture. It appears the page is currently protected, and edits past protection have ceased. There are other methods at dispute resolution that may be helpful, not limited to; mediation, rfc, third opinion, carefully conducted survey, and as a last report, arbitration. Incidentally, the protection is set to expire at 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC). Administrators are not needed for dispute resolution except in the cases of edit warring and other disruptive behavior. If you have any questions about the dispute resolution process, feel free to swing by my talk page. I'm not sure if any administrative intervention is needed here. Best regards, Navou 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, don't worry, most of the admins concerned with this page are all decent honsr men and can be trusted, not to be busy feathering their nests and brown nosing a #admins. Giano 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(twiddles mustache) Mwa-ha-ha, Giano, once I have the fabled Gem Of the Five Monkeys, my superweapon shall be complete and NOONE will stop me, not even you! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you should know we have enough logs on you to se you off the ecyclopedia for a long time - how is what was his name by the way (your friend) Beattacommand or something like that wasn't it? Well I hope? Giano 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your meddling can't stop me now, in mere moments the moon and Jupiter will come into alignment and power my dark creation! With this power, I shall RULE THE WORLD! Open the shield wall, my minions, and prepare for victory! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me, you are obviously taking the same tablets as Kelly and David. Giano 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what else needs to be said here, does this require an administrators attention, or can we put this to bed, as far as WP:AN/I is concerned? Navou 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We are putting nothing to bed. Untill David Gerard has come here and explained why he reverted a whole lot of truthful facts on a protected page with the summary that he owned the page. Giano 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we are still waiting for the explanation for this [8] I had better go and prod him in the ribs. Giano 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia IRC channels are not associated with Wikipedia or MediaWiki. They are not under the control of Wikipedia admins qua admins, therefore, why is any of this discussion on this page? And why should there be an on-Wikipedia page about a non-Wikipedia means of communication? Period? Corvus cornix 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion should be closed and archived as soon as possible since no one here can take action in regards to the IRC channel itself - Wikipedia is not the server the IRC channel is hosted on. Giano's behavior is downright trolling at this point, and this discussion serves only to feed him. If he has a problem with what WP:WEA says, he can discuss it civilly on its talk page like any other editor. I really don't know why we should tolerate this crap all the time. --Coredesat 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I simply don't care and don't wish to see this page being used as his personal complaints page. It's already been stated that the IRC channel is seperate from here and that nothing can be done about it. Every line of text further wasted on this is a line of text that could be accomplishing something. HalfShadow 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kurdistan Workers Party

• "that s not encyclopedic"
• "re u terrorist? this is a propanda. wikipedia refuse it."
• "yes u r!! that news are not approved! and thats a propagada. not belong here"
• "rv"
• "rv"

A user, Qwl (talk · contribs), is repetitively removing sourced material despite being told not to. In the process he is also engaging in personal attacks. -- Cat ^chi? 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have dropped a 3RR warning template on the editors talkpage. Any other infractions, please come back. If you want the personal attacks reviewed, please provide diffs. LessHeard vanU 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have. "re u terrorist? this is a propanda. wikipedia refuse it" and "yes u r!! that news are not approved! and thats a propagada. not belong here" are directed at me/my reverts he disagrees with. Although I do not care much about personal attacks, I feel they should be discouraged on every opportunity. -- Cat ^chi? 16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I had not realised that those edit summaries were personal attacks. I thought they referred to the disputed content only. If this editor recommences reverting again (although technically outside the 24hours) he may be blocked if he uses a similar edit summary as a WP:NPA violation anyway. LessHeard vanU 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User is continuing to revert war and remove sourced material. -- Cat ^chi? 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WFAA-TV- suspicious accounts

At the article: WFAA-TV, This edit has been a theme from multiple SPA's.

I started watching the article when it came up on AN3RR.

The following users have been involved in the reverting: User talk:Puttputtdude, Texastechfan, and User talk:Bobknight880

I'm not sure what the correct course of action is, but these accounts do seem to be connected.

(I'm also not familar with the policies for TV station articles.)

Could someone look into this? Thanks. Lsi john 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone check those accounts/IPs for socks? Or tell me the correct place to post this problem? Thanks. Lsi john 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuskjet

It seems that Tuskjet (previously 166.121.37.12 and perhaps others too) can't wait for his block to finish, and so has reinvented himself as Fortress of the universe. I haven't prolonged the block on Tuskjet (which he used to plonk a lengthy copyvio on his own user page and to redirect his user talk page to Jesus), but I permabanned Fortress. Tuskjet's block will soon end, and I will soon go to bed. Experience suggests that while I'm asleep Tuskjet will have more "fun". (Or do I here fail to "AGF"?) Any time you see User:Dismas being redirected to Satan, or overwritten with some very <big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big> text, you're probably seeing this person at work. -- Hoary 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked Tuskjet for a week. Grandmasterka 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Permablocked "Pocket tissue paper". -- Hoary 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot — Shadowbot3 (talk · contribs)

Probably more a matter for the bot's keeper, but seeing as this bot does a lot of archiving of stuff on the WP namespace, it might be worthwhile adding here. >See here<

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User Arkalsi5 creating hoax pages

Immediately after coming off a temporary block, Arkalsi5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created the blatantly hoax article Titanic Hotel and removed the AfD notice on Saskatoon Heros, an article he also created which appears to be a hoax as well. He's also vandalized Nintendo, List of Animal Crossing characters, and Treehouse TV. He appears to be an unrepentant vandal; could he be blocked again? He's been warned before on his talk page, so I wasn't sure if I should add another warning. --Charlene 22:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

People like this need to be blocked indefinitely the first time. I've done the honors. Grandmasterka 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbanning

(post by banned user removed)

Hi Light Current. Perhaps if you would promise to stop trolling all the time we might really decide to unban you. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergency - rollback tool please ASAP

See Image:Man masturbates.jpg - which has countless links here vandalism. Someone please help! The Evil Spartan 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the vandalism was at {{Infobox Boxer}}. Maybe we could get this semi-protected? The Evil Spartan 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er, I did the rollback as requested. Is it okay now? (I'm not seeing any difference).LessHeard vanU 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All is good now. The Evil Spartan 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did it. Sorry. Was very childish of me. Won't happen again. 87.112.87.193 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Thank God I didn't pull this page up like I normally do in the library. The Evil Spartan 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've issued the user a level 4 warning just in case. -N 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Haelstrom

Resolvedblocked for 24h by User:Nishkid64. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Haelstrom is on something of a "ignore all Wikipedia rules" tear and being highly disruptive. He is also ignoring (and reverting) all warnings, including final warnings. User:Yamamoto Ichiro suggested I report him here, after listing him on WP:AIV. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that as this editor contacted by e-mail about the above (randomly as far as I can see) that I have simply assumed good faith in my dealings with them, and would ask the community they understand that. User Talk:Haelstrom and User Talk:RandomHumanoid refer. Pedro |  Chat  20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

JJH1992 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I reported this to AIV, but was informed to bring it here.

*JJH1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user; continues to change infobox and section formats without discussion and against consensus. User has been blocked multiple times in the past for doing this. Other users and I have tried talking user but he refuses to discuss and ignores messages on his talk page. Acalamari 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

*:this is not an obvious vandal, and therefore this should be taken to WP:ANI. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I know that AN/I is not for content disputes, but this isn't a content dispute; it's about disruption. If you see his most of his recent contributions, he has continually been changing infobox and section formats without consensus. I, and other users, have tried to talk to this user but he ignores us. From his block log, he has been blocked five times. What should be done about him? Even administrators, including ShadowHalo and Mel Etitis, have tried to talk to this user but he continues to disrupt. Should he be blocked again? As I said, I've tried talking, and I've given him links to follow, but nothing works. Acalamari 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours, the user has had plenty of warnings and 4 previous blocks for exactly the same thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since this report, so I don't see an imminent need to block. Maybe you can pursue dispute resolution of some sort? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's been going on for days, coupled with blocks for exactly the same reason previously, hence the block this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your block came while I was writing my comment, and I have no objection to it. It was a toss up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've repeatedly warned this user about this, so I'm going to up the block to a month - he has a bad habit of coming back from a block, and immediately edit-warring on infoboxes again, on the exact same pages. I would have caught him this time if I hadn't made the mistake of thinking he had stopped and so had removed the pages from my watchlist. If he does this once more, I move for permanent ban. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SadMinge

Resolved

According to WP:AIV SadMinge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not an obvious vandal and needs to be reported here.—eric 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked as a vandal only account, plus they have rather a questionable username. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

His talk page was confusing though, took a while to figure it out. For a while I thought it was a compromised account. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Light current (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Look at the histories, interests, and account creation times of SadMinge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and PotStirrer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was Light current based on the pages attacked, and his previous block log. KOS | talk 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Just blocked BulkEraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a light current sock. KOS | talk 00:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rapid-fire external link removal by DreamGuy

I need to get some uninvolved administrators looking at this quickly, please. There's been a dispute going on on Talk:Therianthropy for a couple of days now over whether an external link to the WikiFur wiki fits the criteria of the WP:EL guideline, with User:DreamGuy arguing that EL absolutely forbids it and a number of other editors arguing that it's actually fine under the existing guidelines. Serpent's Choice came in and tried to offer his view on the situation (at Talk:Therianthropy#WikiFur link and WP:EL) and in the process pointed DreamGuy to a list of other articles with WikiFur links, at [9]. DreamGuy has commenced the mass removal of these links. I really don't want to get anyone banned, but is there any way this can be stopped while the dispute's unresolved? DreamGuy doesn't appear to even admit that there is a dispute here. I fear this is going to spread flames all over the place. DreamGuy's contribution list: Special:Contributions/DreamGuy. Bryan Derksen 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User has just been warned; if it continues after the warning I will block. DGG 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to mention that the discussion had just been started at Wikipedia talk:External links#Wikifur as well, but DreamGuy started removing links less than ten minutes later so there wasn't much there anyway. Bryan Derksen 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, and then removed 1 hour later as a trial to see if similar editing resumes. DGG 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, my reply is in this diff but I hope to add more soon. Please be patient and thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

attack on australian academics

User:ExtraDry has placed a serious of AfDs and now speedy tags against an increasingly eminent series of Australian vice-Chancellors. [10] ,[11], and now a speedy A7 on the most eminent of them Gavin Brown [12]. with obviously major awards and honours They are all being increasingly quickly closed at AfD. this is disruptive editing, but I do not want to take action because I have been involved in defending these articles. DGG 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the new account of User:DXRAW, who made several disruptive AfD nominations in the past such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimania and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (also included Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikijunior, Wikibooks and Wiktionary). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The name ExtraDry indicates he is probobly Asutralian, refering to Tooheys Extra Dry. Viridae^Talk 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He is. The account was created on the same day as DXRAW was temporarily blocked back in January, yet the first contrib wasn't until 06:21, 28 May 2007 conveniently just after DXRAW left around 10:15, 27 May 2007. There's frequent contribs to Newington College, just as DXRAW used to to, and it's also been mentioned by an IP editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about his or her other activities, but I've had Newington College watchlisted for long enough to know DXRAW's editing pattern. And ExtraDry's editing pattern on the Newington article is identical to DXRAW's. --ElKevbo 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why am i being told that i will be blocked for disruptive editing? The 3 articles that i tagged were unsourced how do we know that the major awards and honours are true, Anybody can edit that why is why they need sources, Anyway if the purpose of this page is to attack and upset me then it has worked. I have used another account before but i am not dxraw. ExtraDry 09:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

**Comment. ExtraDry summed up the policies excellently. Under WP:PROF he doesn't meet 1) isn't an expert in any field 2) isn't regarded as important by others in his field 3) no significant works published 4) no significant body of work 5) hasn't originated a new concept, and 6) the only award received is the centenary medal. Under WP:BIO, has no independent non-trivial secondary sources. As I said above, the only independent source is an interview given by him to the ABC. Apart from those problems, I agree that this should be closed as a keep, as I reckon it would be a nice article to have in Wikipedia even though it doesn't comply with the guidelines. Assize 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This was taken from [13] ExtraDry 13:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, to show I brought it here not primarily based on Nicholas Saunders but the 2 subsequent noms of stronger VC's

for Nicholas Saunders, the one discussed above by Assize, comments from other eds. "Keep. VC is an important position which almost always follows a distinguished academic career." (Bduke) "Keep. Notable for being dean of two med.schools and then a VC of a major university. Notable for receiving the Centenary Medal which,.. when awarded to those in the academic field was awarded on the basis of their national or internat. impact in the field: (David Newton) & about 8 or 10 others-Random Humanoid just suggested a Snoball close. But of course I didn't & wouldn't have mentioned it to ED at this point, because keep opinion not unanimous, & nom by itself not disruptive until

AfD nom of Glynn Davis, VC Univ. Melbourne. closed by User:The Winchester as "Keep Per WP:SNOWBALL," [14] (I didnt comment myself on this Afdl)

and finally, Gavin Brown was Speedied by ExtraDry as db-bio [15]--"does not assert the importance...of the subject" but Gavin Brown... Vice-Chanc. Univ. of Sydney...Chair of Pure Math. Univ. of New South Wales...Sir Edmund Whittaker Memorial Prize & Australian Math. Soc. Medal...more than 100 research papers...on board of international journals...PhD Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, honorary LLD Univ. of St Andrews, honorary LLD Univ. of Dundee...Officer,Order of Australia. There is no way this can be seen as "not assert importance" Vice-Chancellor is equiv. of [US] Univ. President, & ExtraDry knew this.

At that point, I stopped AGF or ignorance. But at this point, no admin action is in my opinion needed unless stuff like this continues.DGG 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Springbob Squirepants

Heads up: Springbob Squirepants (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is autoblocked as a consequence of a checkuser block by dmcdevit that expires 2007-09-08T03:23:17. He started putting edit requests on his talk page because he can't edit while blocked. Of course blocked users don't have the privilege of a dedicated editing force of admins. I have protected his user talk page for two days. I do not believe an unblock or unprotection would be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As the user was unblocked, the page should now be unprotected as a matter of course. --Random832 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The block log isn't accurate because the user is autoblocked. I don't think the user is unblocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edit-warring duo

Resolved

I bring to the attention of administrators, 2 edit-warring ideological trolls - Bakasuprman and Anwar saadat. For more than one month, these 2 have been revert-warring with each other (without any earnest effort at discussion or dispute resolution) and with other editors - violating WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:POINT and gaming WP:3RR by conveniently spacing out their reverting over 24 hours. As a result, they have converted the following articles into battlefields:

• Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]
• The Goa Inquisition (book): [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]
• Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg: history is filled with blanket reverts without any reasoning; just personal attacks
• Idolatry: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]
• Persecution of Christians: [40], [41], [42], [43]

I request administrators to take definitive action, as both Anwar saadat and Bakasuprman have a long history of disruptive edit-warring. The latter is an involved party in the on-going Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 with me, which is why I can't take action myself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I already warned both of them last time this was on ANI two weeks ago (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar, for example). I admit I haven't really kept an eye on the conflict since that night, but the amount of continued warring since then is unacceptable. It's probably time for a block. Dmcdevit·t 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested page protection on a couple of the articles. Perhaps this will encourage use of the article talk page. Regards, Navou 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(lol) I have already protected Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham, Idolatry and Persecution of Christians. The result on the latter two has been the immediate resumption of hostilities after protection expired. No, I agree with Dmcdevit that a strong block needs to be imposed - both these editors are experienced, disruptive trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I are in agreement also, however, I lack the technical ability. Navou 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of problems, and given Dmcdevit's warning, I'm going to block both for a week. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I just did. Circeus 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. Still, problem resolved! Let's hope they calm down a bit on return. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. For heavens' sakes Baka made the same reverts that Rama's Arrow made on one of those articles! How convenient of Rama to incite admins here with gratuitous use of labels to brand these users! If we cut out the motivated high pitch that Rama uses to present the case and examine the issue, this is what we find with regards to reverting...

• TNMMK - 5 in 20 days
• Idolatry - one revert by Baka in a week.. Anwar keeps going against consensus of three other editors..
• Persecution of Christians - 3 reverts in three days

This is nothing!

Compare this to RA's three per day on Iqbal in January and then goes on to block his opponent! With regards to civility, this is nothing. The incivility that RA has displayed on arbcom and elsewhere is far far far worse than this. And RA is an admin!! Shameful. If Baka can be blocked for a week for this, by that same yardstick, RA ought to be blocked for a month atleast! Sarvagnya 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RA noted that they didn't break 3RR. They just reverted each other a number of times on various pages without discussion their revert on talk or user-talk pages over a long period of time. Don't you think it would have been better if they had at least notified each other about their ongoing reverts? They are both experience Wiki-users and should have known what they were doing was futile. And apart from some of the parties involved, I don't see this isn't really to the arbcom case. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You also rolled back Anwar on those pages without saying anything. You have solicited others to revert what you are unwilling to do. Are you going to block RA or any other admin for reverting? Are you going to block anyone. You know full well that you would never have done those indefinite blocks in April (since you have only ever blocked vandals and seem unwilling to do any nontrivial blocks)...Why did you incite RA to do so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the blocks. One revert every four days is hardly anything, and if we blocked people for that, heaps and heaps of people would be blocked, including many admins like RA and many many other people including some arbitrators I would bet. As for the "troll" edit summary, what is happening here? See what has gone on the arb case by RA calling other people criminals etc etc. This block is useless and inflammatory. The Persecution article where Baka does three reverts in three days, he discussed them on the talk page. RA himself did three reverts per day back in January without discussing and with a machine revert on Iqbal for consecutive days and went on to block his opponent. Here is a clear case where admins are subject to different rules than ordinary users. RA took umbrage when Nearly Headless Nick noted that admins are subject to different rules.....well here is RA getting a benefit which Baka and Anwar did not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:LightAudit only here to cause problems?

I'm unsure about the presence of this user. It looks like he's only here to vandalize and mock me based on his contributions. The user page is a carbon copy of mine, still linking to my talk page and sandbox. I'm loath to just storm right in there and remove those links, but if I must, I must. DarkAudit 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've indefblocked.Do you want me to delete-protect his user page?

If you would be so kind, please and thank you. DarkAudit 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Query

I've created the sock account User:Adam Cuerden 2 for use when not at home - I don't trust internet cafés to be all that secure, and if I get hacked, I'd rather not give them an administrator account.

I've added a clear note saying what I'm doing to both user pages. Is there anything else I need to do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably the wrong forum to discuss this, but your sockpuppet isn't a doppelganger account (these are used to stop impersonation - I could register User:x42bn7 which would be a doppelganger account). Just saying it is a legitimate sockpuppet for security issues is good enough, in my opinion. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll lose that template and just link. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What you have done seems adequate. I'm sure everyone appreciates the notice here. Accounts of that sort are explicitly acceptable per WP:SOCK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear! Just, while it says it's allowed, it's not very explicit about how to declare the connection, so thought I'd best check. Should throw together a template or something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight the urge to templatize – a simple user page notice will be clear to anyone who gives even a shallow look. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits Talk:Ezhava an flare up cast riot India

I am in suspicion that IP anons (219.64.151.135, 125.99.225.216, 219.64.185.7) are beginning to intrude on talk pages on users about cast rioting in India and attacking User:Ved036 as if he continues write against our community (revision showing suspicion of personal harassment to Ved036). — N96 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would block for the death threat [44] if I was an admin. — Moe ε 06:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first line in that page advises Ved036 to **** some of his relatives. It will definitely get a block if it was in English and the language should not be used as an excuse for not blocking him here. Tintin 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are so many strange characters editing Ezhava and Talk:Ezhava that it is probably time to run a CHU and indef some of them. Tintin 18:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Salting of Joel Hayward

Could I suggest that Joel Hayward be salted - the article has been speedied twice in the last few days? Addhoc 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP may be better. FunPika 12:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's been speedied thrice, by the way. Did the same user create it, however? I'd recommend blocking the user (if it's the same) for 3 days, and if he persists, indef-block him. Why I don't recommend salting is because there might be a notable Joel Hayward out there, so it might be inconvinient for another user to salt it. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's now on deletion review. Basically, it perhaps can be rewritten - just cite your sources properly, damnit! Moreschi ^Talk 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

La Parka Your Car

I have blocked La Parka Your Car (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From an email I received today:

The account has made over 2,000 edits so far, and there's plenty that make it pretty clear it's him. However there's two cast-iron examples.

http://www.socaluncensored.com/board/showpost.php3?p=99228&postcount=48

Read that forum post where he admits adding fake championships to articles, which he did with many previous throwaway socks. Now look at these edits from his current sock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hero&diff=136450086&oldid=136277261

They won no such title.

• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/c/chris-hero.html
  
• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/c/claudio-castagnoli.html
  
• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/k/kings-of-wrestling.html
  
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Eastern+Wrestling+Federation%22+%22chris+hero%22+%22Claudio+Castagnoli%22&btnG=Search&meta=
  

Ditto for this edit.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Evans&diff=136458105&oldid=135506953
  
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22jack+evans%22+%22Canadian+Wrestling+Alliance%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= }}

I believe this. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to check all his contributions to make sure things like this are taken out? Because if you need someone to check out subtle vandalism in professional wrestling articles, look no furthur :) — Moe ε 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a much more iron clad example: Kevin Steen

Sequence of events:

• JB196 sock Madman Entertaiment adds fake titles
• La Parka Your Car adds a CWA history
• I remove both as even after looking up Kevin Steen I can find no evidence of either
• La Parka reverts me
• I reverted back again followed by this edit

I left the situation after that but this, along with early edits to Kevin Kleinrock, a major part of JB196's playing ground XPW pretty much confirmed this to me. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone may want to get ahold of his publisher (if he has one). I believe the phrase "moral turpitude" applies here. No book, no reason to vandalize. Blueboy96 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly his vanity is that bad that he doesn't get that nobody will want to read a book written by a wrestling fan about a promotion that very few people even watched when it was going. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's even sadder as long before he got here the internet hated him. He just doesn't get it. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through all his contributions now and reverting any of the blanking or vanity he inserted. I suggest another CheckUser be run to see if more established accounts are being created. His game seems to be adding the reference tag and later with another account removing the information stating it has been "unreferenced for such and such period, cite it", thus blanking the article. I already caught a few articles that had extensive histories, maybe 16,000 kb worth of article (reduced down to a single sentence by a first sock) that were being proded by this account. Luckly I caught that. — Moe ε 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What accounts were adding the reference tags? –– Lid^(Talk) 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember the exact page, give me a few minutes. But I saw a few examples where either a ref tag was added (this was rare, mostly this account was adding the tag) or various polices were added in edit summaries (mostly this from older accounts) decieving whoever came to the article into thinking this was a normal activity. He would then repeat the action with multiple accounts stating policies in the edit summaries removing more and more information until an article about a professional wrestler read nothing but "Whomever is a professional wrestler", and then he proded them hoping they would be deleted (I just removed a couple now). — Moe ε 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A first checkuser only found one account, User:Guidejo, whose only action was to db-bio a wrestler's entry (after a BLP-related blanking), and no signs of proxyitude. I'm going to slap a block on that account, it's pretty obvious that it's another JB sock (first and only edit being a speedy delete?) SirFozzie 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can that article be restored with all revisions? –– Lid^(Talk) 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can swing that, since banned users should be reverted. Just the article should be cleaned up asap. SirFozzie 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I spent a long time yesterday checking through the contribs of La Parka Your Car, and I must say I did find many similarities in editing, a checkuser has previously been inconclusive, but I believe the user is a sock. It's sad, but it seems the user was trying to rack up the edits to run for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the same feeling and was thinking up drafts for an oppose essay. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just given both Venkat47 and Jordan brice 24 hour vandalism blocks for altering information in wrestling articles. Do you think they are connected to the above situation? IrishGuy ^talk 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a look at them. SirFozzie 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fit the mold of JB196, but I would be honestly shocked if the two are not the same person. SirFozzie 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde is harassing me again

Now it's Routesteep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Somebody please rangeblock this troll ... I don't want to have to semi-protect my talk page, but if it's to keep this guy from trolling I may have to. Blueboy96 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just asked him to avoid writing lies about me. Is writing false statements a good thing here? The fact thath he calls me "troll" and "vandal" means he is showing no good faith.--Routesteep 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you filed a checkuser? -N 13:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this fellow is boring. Yes, get a checkuser to find and block the IP, anything to end this silliness. Moreschi ^Talk 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. *sigh* Here's another one: SouthernStock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Blueboy96 14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Working on the IP block. Moreschi ^Talk 14:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you simply answer my questions? You said I was banned for "POV pushing and incivility", but there is no reference to such allegation in my banning. Are you extempted by writing the truth?--Poetry is legal 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you're blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Repression wins over truth, right?--Drama of range 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, what do you expect? Yes, you're blocked as well. Moreschi ^Talk 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is your Wikipedia. Mine had good faith an trusted truth.--GrarTrees 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and a whopping amount of revert-warring, 3RR blocks, and incivility. Moreschi ^Talk 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ACB, anyone? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"ACB", what is it?--GrarTrees 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Somebody's persistent. Marskell 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose spam account

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龍)

Farther Spacing (talk · contribs) seems to have the account solely to push gamerflick.com links on to articles. He was previously warned in april, took a break, come back and was at it again.--Crossmr 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No edits since being warned. I warned the user that a block will result from any more of these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He was warned in april about placing the links and added more in June, how is that no edits since warning? He hasn't edited since I warned him again.--Crossmr 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blacklisted gamerflicks\.com on Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

and yet he's done it again. After being asked twice not to, he simply continues. [45].--Crossmr 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim continues uncivil behaviour

Mark Kim (talk · contribs) As I previously pointed out this user feels no one is allowed to disagree with him, and he should be allowed to threaten users and attack them if its for a really good reason, like getting his way in an article. He owns his talk page, and removes reminders not to make personal attacks with personal attacks. Most recently he's now Made a comment like this [46]. On his talk page, which is neither appropriate or civil. Here is the pre-archive version which you can compare to my talk page for the conversation that takes place [47]. Where he admits that he thinks he should be allowed to attack people to defend his view point. His threat against another user [48] as well as an article talk page where he's had some civility issues Talk:Bose (company). While passionate he refuses to acknowledge that he's bound by the policies and guidelines here and thinks he can act however he wants as long as he's doing the "right" thing. This is a situation which is just going to result in more personal attacks and threats unless its dealt with.--Crossmr 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Has the editor been warned about the perceived or actual WP:NPA violations prior to this AN/I report? Regards, Navou 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I warned him a year ago when he was involved in some similar tension of an Apprentice Season 4 article. He continually sanitizes his talk page so you have to dig for it. I will dig it up, but also bear in mind I had that long conversation with him about his behaviour and he's still making uncivil comments and attempting to own his talk page which shows an unwillingness to change his behaviour.--Crossmr 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous warnings and behaviour:

• Here he was previously warned for making threats against other users and trying to control content he put on wikipedia (the same behaviour which bore the recent personal attacks) [49].
• here is a previous warning over another article he got too passionate about [50].
• Even a year ago he was demonstrating this behaviour of taking every comment on his behaviour as a personal and painful insult.
• Here radiokirk reminds him to assume good faith, and its again suggested he shouldn't act so abrasively.[51] by theresa.

There is quite a bit more in there as far as warnings and previous examples of behaviour go. Plenty of examples of him ignoring policy and acting uncivily towards others.--Crossmr 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Further examples of behaviour and warnings, I did some more looking and this is just from what is picked up on his talk page. He's had numerous examples of this behaviour, and in fact several individuals have spoken to him about it previously. This is a recap up to 1 year ago. There should be a very clear pattern established.

• [52] - Makes statement close to owning article
• [53] - Attempts to own talk page
• [54] - attempts to exert further control over his talk page and what people may say to him. He's warned about WP:NOT and to not censor things. He is also informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
• Here he states any perceived insult is essentially a life long vendetta [55].
• Here he refers to a criticism of his behaviour as "an insult" [56].
• Here he makes a threat towards users in general if they criticize him [57].
• He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour [58].
• Which he dismisses by again calling it an insult [59].
• Here its pointed out that he started the debate which this surrounded, and he again reiterates the life the long hatred [60].
• Here he moderates someone for "blatant incivility" (warranted) so it demonstrates that he's aware of what type of behaviour is inappropriate in wikipedia [61].
• He threatens to moderate a user for any comments they make if they contain words he doesn't like [62].
• Here his reminded to assume good faith [63].
• He's reminded about owning content on wikipedia and about working with others.[64].
• modifies his control message of his talk page, and in process of those edits, removes theresa's previous reminder as an "insult" [65].
• Here he makes a complaint about Theresa on AN/I. Which again demonstrates that he is aware of what kind of behaviour is unnacceptable [66].
• This is where I first met the individual, over some uncivil exchanges at the apprentice season 4 article. I reminded him to act civily and edit politely. [67]. He claimed to always try to be a diplomat.

--Crossmr 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the situation, this user appears to be significantly uncivil when provoked, but is otherwise not a disruptive presence. Blocking him at this point would do more harm to Wikipedia than good, but someone might want to help him understand why stalwart civility in the face of provocation is necessary. He is otherwise a productive contributor.
As for his "threats" and "attacks", in all cases I've seen they be be construed as good faith warnings or simply more uncivil smack talk. –Gunslinger47 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And do NOT give me any harsh criticism anymore because if you do, then you will pay I'm not sure how that could be seen as anything other than a threat? People have been trying for a very long time to help him understand why his behaviour is inappropriate. He dismisses any such conversation as a personal insult of the highest kind and wipes it from his talk page. He's been doing that almost since his arrival here back in 2005 if you go back through his contrib and talk page history. Any good faith assumptions are long gone on this. Several editors made a heroic effort to try and get through to him a year ago, and he's gotten bent out of shape for far less than what he's hurled at other users. Good edits don't give you license to stomp all over other users and treat them like garbage because you think you're right. Wikipedia doesn't and will never need that kind of editor.--Crossmr 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two problems at work here. The user seems to believe that any disagreement with his positions is a personal attack or "abrasive criticism". This makes it difficult for him to engage in any kind of content dispute without it quickly degenerating into a unilateral broadside of warnings and threats.

Second, I think the user's skills in English are at a somewhat less-than-native speaking level, at least in formal writing. In order to get a message across to him, one must repeat it over and over and over again, each time attempting to make it clearer and simpler. This is exasperating, of course. Perhaps we should encourage the user to find a Wikipedia that more closely matches his formal writing skills. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, that does make sense. If you notice the discussion I had with him (using my provided link and my talk page) I noticed once or twice he seemed to clearly miss the point. I wasn't sure if he was doing it intentionally, or if he was lacking complete comprehension. Even after several exchanges of my explaining his behaviour was inappropriate, he then draws the conclusion that I was taking some stance on the article dispute, which I had never brought up other than to say that he shouldn't have behaved as he did in that dispute. Either way, if you edit on wikipedia, you're going to eventually (and usually frequently) not see eye to eye with someone and this user clearly cannot handle that type of situation.--Crossmr 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Extending the ArbCom ban on Beckjord to indef

While looking at WP:LOBU to familiarize myself with known vandals (the better to help catch their socks), I came on the case of Beckjord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is none other than fringe paranormal theorist Jon-Erik Beckjord, and was banned in 2006 for inserting pseudoscientific garbage into articles relating to paranormal phenomena (such as Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster), both under his main account and via sockpuppets. He has since had his block reset across two full calendar years for sockpuppetry.

I propose that his ban be extended to indefinite on the following grounds:

• Beckjord's whole career was focused on inserting pseudoscience into Wikipedia. This sort of junk is not tolerated in serious academic circles. If we're to have any credibility as an encyclopedia, he must not be allowed back.
• He has openly called for his supporters to help him insert said garbage into the Bigfoot article (and even has a page on his site telling them how to revert it to his preferred version).
• Despite knowing about our policies on WP:V and WP:OR, he openly disregarded them. Judging by the above link, the chances of him ever abiding by them are only slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Blueboy96 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement for this case, that is a more appropriate place than here given this user has been under arbcom restrictions already, SqueakBox 18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sosomk

Upon returning from his last block (block log) this user modified the economy section of the Georgia (country) article. When other editors asked him to bring sources supporting some questionable info there he responded with statements like these - [68] (to User:Tamokk and [69] (to me). Then I had placed two tags in the article which were then removed by User:Sosomk ([70] and [71], with remove the nonesense in edit summary). His next revert was accompanied by 1st revert of POV pushing and vandalism edit summary. Alæxis_¿question? 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been notified. Alæxis_¿question? 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Returning from the previous block like two weeks ago, I initiated voting on the talk page and most of the users supported my version of the economy section, except of Alæxis and this is just a content dispute rather than anything else. Thanks, SosoMK 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. I didn't support any version of the economy section as could be seen here. The version that User:Sosomk doesn't like was proposed by Tamokk and supported by User:Corticopia. Alæxis_¿question? 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry: User:Corticopia is the only one who actually voted against my economy section :) SosoMK 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Long-term problem with two users

Article in question: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Users in question:

• User:Iipmalum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Sunilalagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the past few months, the page The Indian Institute of Planning and Management has seen heavy edit warring. It seems that the users mentioned above are employees/ex-students of this institute, and have been engaging in massive reversions. They are against adding some perfectly cited and verifiable information that is unfavourable to their institute. To that end, they've continuously blanked this information, giving flimsy reasons like "undoing libelous and false revert" [72]. As their contrib trails will show, these editors have used their accounts as WP:SPAs to constantly engage in edit wars on this article. Months of negotiations with them have come to naught; they just won't listen (they've already refused a request for mediation, and two RFCs didn't do any good). They show scant regard for policies and etiquette. Two previous users who were also from IIPM (User:Iipmstudent9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:AlamSrinivas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), were indefblocked for issuing threats of physical harm to another editor, User:Makrandjoshi ([73]).

I sincerely believe that these people are being highly disruptive, and are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I know that the admins are already loaded with tons of work, but I would really appreciate it if someone could help out in dealing with this problem. Thank you, Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That Dude 07

Someone might want to look into That Dude 07's contributions and roll them back. He or she has come off of a 24 hour block for trolling and has upped the ante. Just check his or her contribs - it's blatant. --ElKevbo 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for page move vandalism. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

good faith vandalism

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=138800335 Is this good faith vandalism to my talk page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=124685002 Cool Cosmos sent me the welcome message.

The real question. Is there such a thing as good faith vandalism? Any thoughts. I have a right to remove old discussions from my talk page or what I feel is harrassment or what I believe is vandalism. My talk page should not be turned into a battleground. Other editors should not undo my edits or change the name of who welcomed me on my talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to Fyslee about this? Metros 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He has not responded to my e-mail. Nevertheless, I want my talk page properly restored to the correct name of Cool Cosmos. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm back. I see the problem. Sorry about that. It was an honest mistake and an AGF would not call it vandalism. My apologies. -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The applicable guideline can be found at WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings. You might want to peruse all of WP:USER and WP:TALK. Everything removed from User:talk is archived in the page history.

• As far as the first diff, it would at first glance appear that you have signed a post as [[User:Cool Cosmos|Cool Cosmos]] here and that the other editor corrected it here. More investigation is required.

• As I read more, and review the page history in depth, I realize that you did not post the original welcome message and was only restoring it to the original poster, which is why I had originally assumed good faith, while I investigated it. Seems like a misunderstanding to me. I have none the less restored your user page to its original welcome message according to your wishes, and the fact the Cool Cat had originally posted this message. I'll also direct User:Fyslee to this discussion. Navou 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my mistaken edit. I misunderstood things, all the deleting of warnings and such. I made a false assumption. Good to see it's fixed and that the current comments and warnings on the talk page have not been removed. Collaboration here is based on openness and communication and talk pages are there for a purpose. I would gladly have fixed it myself if I had gotten a message on my talk page, which I would have noticed before getting an email. Sometimes an email gets me first, sometimes my talk page....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the so-called warnings on my talk page (not by one but two editors jumping all over me). As per guidelines, I will remove the warnings and take a deep breath (and possibly a wikibreak too). The wikidrama is getting tiresome. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you would be permitted to remove the warnings. Removals are taken as you have read them. Navou 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reading" and "heeding" are two different things. Regardless of the current (it has been different in the past) guideline, your current pattern of editing and dealing with criticism will cause involved editors to see your deletions as devious attempts to avoid discussion and bad faith attempts to ignore warnings and to hide them from others. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is forbidden here (that's another guideline), and refusal to discuss problems violates our obligation to edit collaboratively. Ownership of articles is not allowed, hence cooperation is a must. -- Fyslee/talk 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no authority to enforce Mr.Gurü carrying a scarlet letter just because it makes your life easier. The page history exists as a record of actions; if you feel a stronger record needs to exist, make sure your edit summaries reference the behavior in question. Persisting in the replacement of warnings on a user's talk page is incivil at best and disruptive at worst. -- nae'blis 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. This user needs all the allies he can get, and he isn't making life easier for himself by being uncooperative with his own allies, of which I have been one. Not very smart, but that's his problem now. He's already been (and currently is) the subject of several RFCs and this is going to end badly for him, which I'd like to prevent. I have never seen a user start so many articles and lists that have been successfully AFDed (I'm sure there are others, but this is the user I'm familiar with), and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. -- Fyslee/talk 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee went against policy with his warning (because editors are permitted to delete warnings)

[74] [75] He undid my edit on my talk page and gave me a warning: You will be reported if you continue. Actually, I allowed to remove warnings from my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: Not very smart, but that's his problem now. I did not do anything for you to call me not very smart. No, it is not my problem now. I have no idea what you are talking about. It is your responsibility to comply with policy and stop breaking policy with strange warnings against policy on my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. ...and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. After Fyslee broke policy he is now saying he will leave me to my own fate. No, I have not tried the patience of the community for a long time. Fyslee, please try to remain civil. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=138908108&oldid=138829593 This editor reverted my edits on my talk page. Also read the edit summary. Very disruptive. This is blockworthy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ShreddermanHides a User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet?

ShreddermanHides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very likely Danny Daniel sockpuppet. The user created a ton of hoaxes, many of them similar to the hoaxes created by Danny Daniel sockpuppets in the past (see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for past sockpuppets). He even added some Jibbert Michart Macoy nonsense to List of main characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends along with the image created by User:Sugarranapanunas (an indef blocked sock of Danny Daniel). Jibbert Michart Macoy is a hoax page that was created several times by Danny Daniel sockpuppets. Note that some of this user's contributions could be constuctive. Pants^(T) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Banhammered to wikideath. Now I'll clean up the mess he created. MaxSem 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, I hope. Please revise his contributions to valid articles - maybe, something is not reverted. Also, please inspect closely the contributions of UBracter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who earlier created one of Shredderman's pages. MaxSem 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to un-move article

A well-intentioned but brand new editor (17 edits to date) moved Twin to Twin (Biological). As over 500 articles link to twin and the vast majority of them are pointing to the correct article, the principle of least astonishment would have this move reverted. Unfortunately I cannot un-move the article because it took the editor five tries to get the redirect parlance correct at Twin. Can an administrator undo this move? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got it, though ideally you should ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

anon IP 82.27.27.31

Resolved

The anon 82.27.27.31 is inserting a "notice" regarding the pedophilia of a named individual (address included) along with some rather extreme accusations of cannibalism and so forth, in articles ranging from pedophilia to moist to refrigerator. I went straight for a final warning on his talk page, and haven't seen a new edit in a few minutes. Bears watching at the very least. -Jmh123 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah...that IP is adding some stuff that needs to be oversighted quickly. IrishGuy ^talk 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted all of his edits so far. He's been blocked. Thanks for the quick action. -Jmh123 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I blocked the user and requested oversight; all the edits have been oversighted. --Coredesat 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Forwarded from User talk:Unconscious by YechielMan

Help

Hey, I need a bit of assitance here. What is Wikipedia's policy on rude users? A few days ago I had removed irrelevant information from the Gerard Way article, and requested fullprotection due to a edit war, and irrelevant vandalism from other users. The edit war was performed between Abrant01 and myself about a irrelevant 'Interviews' section. It had been voted that this information should be removed in the talk page, therefore, it was removed. Abrant01 had replaced the removed information. I issued him a warning (to which I recieved a rude reply), and then I had removed the information again. He had kept adding it back, and I kept removing it, to which point I requested a lock on the article.

Following the warnings on his talk page, he appears to be getting quite rude and uncooperative. What would be the best course of action?

I think I might have been a bit too harsh with the warning, however. Unconscious 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've written on Abrant01's talkpage. If you and him are able to work together that would be great, but I have made clear that we only put in stuff that is verifiable. I hope this suffices. LessHeard vanU 23:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Resolved

The above-referenced user has been harrassing me today and deleting my edits claiming I am a sockpuppet. Can someone pls. help?Accuracy in Reporting 21:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the latest sockpuppet of banned userUser:rms125a@hotmail.com, who's already lost a couple socks today. Seeking confirmation from the person who's had to deal with him the most. SirFozzie 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is - I have done this checkuser but not sure if its right because I've never done one before.--Vintagekits 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. AfD's closed as bad faith speedy keeps. IrishGuy ^talk 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat

This article has been arbitrarily full-protected, cleared, and redirected by JzG without any form of discussion or consensus. In the edit summary, the protecting admin had claimed that the article was original research and "crap." However, the article had numerous reliable sources to back up the information and notability of the article - and I believe the admin's actions were unjustified. Ali ^(t)_(c) 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the sources to the article were Wired blogs and the like. I agree that the lolcat phenomenon would be better covered under Image macro SirFozzie 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were also references to the Houston Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Austin American-Statesman. What's more, the article had survived an AfD already. I suppose DRV is the correct place to handle this? JavaTenor 22:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this has been somewhat corrected already by Viridae (see below), but since I already typed this out: Sources from the reference section include Akron Beacon Journal, Star Tribune, Slate Magazine, Tampa Bay Times, Creative Loafing Atlanta, Austin American-Statesman, New York Times, and two links to Wired blog. The AFD discussion (with overwhelming number of 'keeps' btw) is here. Comments by JzG on talk page prior to using admin tools = 0. Seems like if this article is to be deleted and redirected, it should be deleted after at least a discussion and probably another AFD. Why does this need to go to DRV? This deletion and redirect should be reverted, it goes against the consensus result of the AFD on April 23, 2007. R. Baley 23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect and protection. Protection policy explicitly forbids the use of protection to support your actions in an editing dispute. Guy is well within his rights to redirect it (and merge if he wants) but stopping anyone reversing his decision is a misuse of his admin tools. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse, more like abuse. --MichaelLinnear 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But when one acts consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living felines the rules simply don't apply... Joe 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Witton Albion F.C.

This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism, and I was asked as a fellow admin by User:IrishGuy to help to defend it.

We have both found that when we attempt to access the history of this page, we experience browser-failure with the standard Microsoft message "this page has to close. Sorry for the inconvenience" or words to that effect. If it were just me. or just him, we might think it a problem with a particular PC. But as it is both of us, it would appear that there is some malicious coding in the article text. The problem is a consistent one. Neither User:IrishGuy nor I can figure out what is happening here. Help.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the page using Firefox and IE6 (Win2000, work computer). Worked fine, I did catch that IP address changing the capacity again and reverted it. SirFozzie 22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. As I say, it is not just me. Check out User:IrishGuy's talk page. Obviously I accept that it works for you. But why does it not work for us?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried it again...it still crashed my browser. I'm using IE7 maybe that is the difference. IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using IE7 and it also crashes for me. --Fredrick day 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am using explorer. But I would like a sensible answer as to why this page, like no other, crashes IE, while accepting that it does not crash Firefox (which I have not got).--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an IE7 problem? There might be more information if you search the exact build of your Internet Explorer (like my IE6 is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_qfe.070227-2300). Works for me on Internet Explorer 6 and Mozilla Firefox (the most recent one), and the history page is fully XHTML 1.0 transitional compliant, so it's not a XHTML bug - more like a Microsoft one (where have we heard that before?). x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup - crashes IE7, works fine with Firefox and Opera. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: For the "crashers", does [76] crash your browser? If so, it's not a Wikipedia problem ([77]), but you can try the idea given to copy it into Firefox and then paste it into Internet Explorer 7. Bizarre. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That link didn't crash my browser. IrishGuy ^talk 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We can probably narrow it down to edit summaries by doing this: Go to [78] and keep going to newer and newer diffs. If any crash, it's probably an edit summary or something. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some stupid bug in Internet Explorer that causes crashes for trivial reasons. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems viewing all of the diffs in that manner. I can even view the older 50 edits in the history, just not the current 50 (or 100 or 250). --ElKevbo 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you just looking at the edit history, or a particular diff? I use IE7 and it isn't crashing my browser. Corvus cornix 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit history crashes IE for me. Version 7.0.5730.11. No problem in Firefox, though. Puzzling. --ElKevbo 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the exact same version. Very puzzling. Corvus cornix 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edit history also crashes on my IE7 - same version as above... curious!? - Purples 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it generates such an error it should be logged in the Event Viewer. Log in as an Administrator and then show the Administrative Tools on the Start Menu ([79]). Then go to the Event Viewer. Generate the crash again and then go to the newest System Error event in the Event Viewer. Might reveal a bit more. Though I am more inclined to think it's some freak Internet Explorer bug that crashes because of something stupid like too many consecutive vowels. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

App log does have an entry logging the crash as an Event ID 1000 stating "Faulting application iexplore.exe, version 7.0.6000.16414, faulting module urlmon.dll, version 7.0.6000.16414, fault address 0x00003d85." Next step to troubleshoot this? File bug report with the devs? --ElKevbo 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd editor Jokenda

Jokenda has been editing since 6 May 2007 but he/she only edits the userpage. Now he/she has created Bezaroh and based on this edit that second account will continue to edit the userpage. Any ideas what is going on here? IrishGuy ^talk 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it appears that this user is using the userpage as a blog. Perhaps a nice little notice would help? x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod. MFD if the user removes it. WP:NOT free webhosting. hbdragon88 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on Jokenda's talk page informing him/her of WP:NOT a blog. — ERcheck (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA Wikihermit

Resolved

 – Does not require urgent administrative action; WT:RFA may be a more appropriate venue for concerns raised.

Link : Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikihermit

I'm concerned about how User:N asked irrelevant questions while trying to prove a point. {See question 4,6,7,8,9)

I am also concerned about the fact that, in the discussions, some users did not remain civil example

The RFA turned fast into a riot, and Wikihermit closed the RFA.

I seriously don't know what to do with this. -Flubeca (t) 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The right venue for this discussion is Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, questions asked at RfA are optional; if a question is irrelevant, the candidate is free to ignore it or point out its irrelevancy. The example diff you provide, while strongly worded, doesn't reach a level of incivility requiring admin action. I agree that if you have concerns, starting a thread at WT:RFA is the best approach. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

I'm sorry to post this here, but neither WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA cover the situation exclusively. I didn't want to post it on the Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks then have them refer me to Wikipedia talk:Civility. I realize issues like this are unpopular here, so I'll try to keep things as brief and concise as possible.

Background User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3

A few months ago Orsini created a a sandbox page for editors to plan a WP:RFC/U about Justanother's tendancy to violate WP:CIVIL when he encounters editors who disagree with him, often in the form of WP:ICA statements. (Other policies and guidelines have been infringed as well.)

Situation

Orsini, myself, and the other editors who have contributed to it are more interested in contributing/improving Wikipedia than we are pursuing action against Justanother. However if his attitude does not change it could impact the ability of several editors to make productive contributions. If this occurs the information gathered would be used to show a pattern of disruptive behavior going back a long time.

Summary

Since additions are made to document the ongoing negative actions and statements of Justanother they are a record of his attacks against others and are not an attack against him. I don't mention it as a threat to him, in fact I don't even discuss it with him unless he wants to talk about it. To my knowledge none of the others involved have either. Anynobody 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a no-no. If you want to do a user RfC, do so. But these type of pages are not acceptable. Please copy the text of that page to a local document as I it will be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had considered that option as well, Jossi, however I was unable to locate anywhere in the policies and guidelines where it says that it is indeed against either. Would you please link me to where it says that? (If I had seen a policy/guideline that forbade the practice I would not have posted here having already known what the situation is with these cases. Anynobody 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Classic deletion review

The wiki page on Zelda Classic was deleted earlier this week for lack of notability; to address this complaint, one of my fellow developers (Dark Nation) edited the article, and added citations to third party sources, including at least one in the media (TechTV). He also started a deletion review of the page.

That deletion review is now listed as "closed," with no real explanation given: the requester having "no other edits" strikes me as a highly spurious reason to ignore a review request.

Is it possible to start a calm discussion of the page's deletion and review? I believe that it is possible to create a page on this topic which meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and would like to find out what I need to do to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talk • contribs)

Do you have any links, or diffs? It's kind of hard for me to hunt down what you're talking about without some direction. --Haemo 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links:

• Zelda Classic's deletion log: [80]
• The original AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda Classic
• A discussion on the subject can be found at Talk:Zelda Classic

–Gunslinger47 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - it looks to me like the closing admin's rationale was just a little terse, and his actual justification was that the re-created article did not substantially differ from the original content. Perhaps he could stop by and comment? --Haemo 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a wikipedia newbie and am not sure how to post diffs or even access the old page; when I go to the Zelda Classic wiki page I just get a "deleted and protected" page.

Incivility by Ryulong

Yesterday I was indef blocked by Ryulong with the 3-word summary in the block log "Abusing multiple accounts", despite the fact that I had engaged in no disruptive or abusive behavior. Apparently he objected to my tagging of an image as needing a fair use rationale when it actually didn't. (This was my mistake and I would gladly have corrected it myself, given the opportunity.) No message was left on my talk page regarding the reason for the indefinite block.

I spent the day, on and off, attempting to resolve the issue by e-mail and IRC. The indefinite block was endorsed by SlimVirgin; I finally contacted Ryulong on #wikipedia-en-unblock; his behavior there toward me was incivil and he terminated the conversation after a brief time. That said, shortly afterward he unblocked me.

I twice attempted to post the log of our IRC conversation in my userspace as a temporary reference for this report (per the unblock channel notices, those logs may be published); but Ryulong deleted them as quickly as I could upload them.

I have no desire to beat a dead horse, or to get into a long discussion here. I just felt that Ryulong's behavior should be called to the attention of someone. Videmus Omnia 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though you may not be able to post the logs, could you explain what transpired in the channel, to the best of your recollection, and let Ryulong reply to it, and explain himself? --Haemo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, he wouldn't tell me how I deserved an indef block, and when I requested a review here at WP:ANI or at WP:AN, he said my request was "irrelevant", then said "I'm done with this" and terminated the conversation. Videmus Omnia 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't sound very civil; people who have problems with a block deserve to be treated with respect, especially when their concerns surround the block rationale being incorrect. However, let's wait for Ryulong's reponse. --Haemo 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a case of mistaken identity, for which Ryūlóng appologized.[81]

As for the the heavy-handed treatment Videmus endured in the IRC channel, I'm unclear on if Wikipedia policies extend to cover off-site conduct. –Gunslinger47 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the user in question was a sockpuppet of someone due to his immediate edits concerning {{nrd}} on various images. I blocked, and sought out a checkuser to see if this sort of sockpuppet was permitted. I was not able to procure one until this evening. Anyway, when Videmus Omnia made contact with Slim Virgin through unblock-en-l, he had said that he changed accounts as per his right to vanish. When I asked him if he could give me the name of his former account through a private message so I can confirm that the account did not violate policy, he did not comply, and simply continued to ask why I had blocked him. I left the channel at that point. Based on some of the information my IRC client gave me, I did some digging on Wikipedia, found what I believed was the account he was talking about, and unblocked him and removed the autoblock on his IP. His only actions in the past two hours have been posting the log in that subpage, and then making various complaints about my actions in the deletion, and the tone I had in the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a case of mistaken identity, coupled with some raised hackles all around. However, SlimVirgin's comments are odd; they claim he admitted to using multiple accounts. I guess this is just another part of the misunderstanding going on here. Videmus, I think Ryulong understands that you were upset by what happened, and he apologized. You've also brought it up here, and I understand where you're coming from -- being accidentally blocked can be a real heart-stopper. However, as NewYorkBrad said on your talk page, it's probably best if you move on. In my opinion, I think it was borderline incivil what went on there, but it's understandable given what he explained. This is a real gray area, and I think you would do well to just put it behind you -- I don't think you're really going to get a lot more out of this process than the account you just got. Just remember that we're all friends here, and no one's out to get anyone - just smile, and move on. --Haemo 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHy can't IRC chats be publishd here like Videmus tried? That smacks of the IRC elitism often brought up (and quashed) here on AN/I. What's the deal? ThuranX 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Freenode doesn't let anyone publish logs, for privacy reasons. We try to keep up our end of that bargain. --Haemo 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm sorry, but that just sounds like 'hey all, let's go talk in this place where no one can prove we ever said anything' and smacks of cabalism. Now that I understand this, count me among the masses opposed to IRC use by Admins to create 'consensus' for things on Wiki. Without transparency, there's no accountability. ThuranX 05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, the Wikimedia Freenode channels do not permit the posting of logs publically. Now, #wikipedia-en-unblock is a grey area, in that public logging is permitted, but discouraged. Administrators can see the content of the discussion at Special:Undelete/User:Videmus Omnia/Ryulong. #wikipedia-en-unblock is a public channel, and anyone that was in there knew what went on, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an attempt to create "consensus" - it is a useful service, to help contact admins in real-time. It's a service. And if you've ever spent time on IRC, you know there is no cabal. --Haemo 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)