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

Potential problem conerning episode articles

Moved to /Episodes. Mercury 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

User:Timeshift9 is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of User:Prester John. The latest example is here.

This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as this and this should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely but very firmly warned. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PJ has had a long history of firm trolling, and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to troll. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. Timeshift 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment Do you think "talk to the hand" is an appropriate thing to have on your name stamp? --Danny 17 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ThuranX 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: [[1]], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is my talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be respectful to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving respectfully (for example, see this shocking pre-emptive strike against me personally). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning.[2] Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

And now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page... Nwwaew2 (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)

Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. Orderinchaos 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Prester John

Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, "Leftist scum". I have tried several times to add that link to User:Prester_John/slideshow, but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--71.141.106.98 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued Incivility...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for leaving snide remarks on article talk pages. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the Talk:David_Hicks#Satanic_symbols page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is listed as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.

'Prester John' filed this ANI report at 00:49 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin Raymond Arritt at 01:22. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at 02:50, Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on Brendan.lloyd's talk page , which continued for some time afterwards.

I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, Here and Here. --Lester2 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His badgering of User:Brendan.lloyd was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive. Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? Raymond Arritt 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here consider [3] this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL? Does categorizing another user's good faith edits as a "drive by" constitute civil discussion? I have never met this user before, so I don't know what provoked such a thing. Can someone explain?--Mostargue 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy has quite a history.--Mostargue 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The actual discussion that I had with him is irrelevant, I only wanted a third opinion on his tone. Also, WP:CIVIL states "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.". I am wondering whether or not calling another user's good faith edits a "drive by" is considered civil. Because according to my interpretation of the term, it refers to a situation in which a person drives a car and shoots at people. That doesn't sound like a very nice analogy.--Mostargue 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but WP:CIVIL doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to. ---- WebHamster 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at John Howard and David Hicks (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at Talk:Family First Party, and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Wikipedia policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg this) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness this one) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. This and this are also interesting reads for sheer non-AGF. Orderinchaos 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the Talk:Bill_Heffernan#Climate_Change_.2F_Asian_remark page.--Lester2 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an amicable accord over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: For OTRS respondants, see this ticket which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers, Daniel 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum. Shot info 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Wikipedia, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Wikipedia campaign called 'FREE MATT'. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Wikipedia. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on User_talk:Prester_John#Please_stop, some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --Lester2 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. Arrow740 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this section? ThuranX 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was closed. Orderinchaos then removed the "resolved tag" and ethically forgot to inform me, allowing all and sundry to have a nice little gripe about me without giving me the chance to respond. Not that there is much to respond to. Do I respond to the UserKirbytime ip sock that is upset I reverted his changes to my userpage? Do I respond to Orderinchaos who erred in not informing me of his unilateral decision to reopen this case? His misrepresentation that I called for the desyoping of Hesperian because I "disagreed" with him. (I in fact was calling for an apology for calling me a racist. There was no apology so I question his constitution for adminship). Do I address his absurd insinuation that because the "allegations" of my outing have been repeated over the past few months, that "I" somehow raised it myself? Do I address the nonsense of serial edit warmonger Lester2 who would do anything to get me blocked just so he could continue his BLP violating POV pushing slandering of current Australian politicians? Or shall I just wait to see how this hatchet job turns out? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

huh? you complain about someone not going out of their way to give you the opportunity to respond and then sarcastically outline that you are not going to respond... very odd PJ. You're editing across the board is becoming more and more counterproductive to the writing of a good encyclopaedia and the encouragement of people to contribute in good faith. WikiTownsvillian 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I removed the resolved tag after most of the discussion above - merely because it seemed to no longer correctly describe the route that the discussion had taken. It was more an acknowledgement of events on the ground, as it would have been puzzling to some that an ongoing discussion had a "resolved" tag on it. Also, the "allegations" bit has been misunderstood - a claim was made about your real-world identity, and I had no wish to repeat the claim. My argument on that was only that one is only "outed" if the claim is true, and as the claim has not been established as either true nor false, it remains an allegation. (I would also argue that even if true, more info would have needed to be released to qualify.) That being said, I strongly agree with the warning - that is not the level at which we should be conducting debates on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you have not addressed why you removed the resolved tag, and then failed to inform the party concerned. Does this sound like the actions of an ethical adminstrator? Also, what was the point of speculating where the origin of the outing allegations came from; "i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not"? Did you have any evidence at all for this random slander, or were you just "throwing it out there". I would question whether that is admin behaviour as well. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

stop trying to distract the conversation with wordplay. You sound so offended anyone could have thought that you were a model wikicitizen! Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

and on the theme of PJ being a model wikicitizen, BigHaz has suggested I bring up my latest issue here:

I just came across this where the editor in question has used the edit history of my user talk page in order to identify the IP address of an editor with whom he is in dispute. This and many other links are under the seemingly devious title of "Evidence" (I refer to link 1 under the heading 1 x).

This editor (PJ) himself seems to have successfully enforced a gag order on Timeshift to prevent him from revealing what is apparently a huge conflict of interest of PJ's when editing Australian political articles. My impression from previous conversations is that PJ is content removed who edits on wikipedia for purely partisan purposes and Timeshift had proof of this but has been blocked by admins from using it in discussions because PJ has chosen not to volunteer his identify on wikipedia. Yet despite being the beneficiary of this policy of anonymity, this editor is using a dossier type technique in order to formulate an attack on another editor based on underhanded research such as researching the editor's IP address.

It must be against policy to do this kind of thing, probably the same policy PJ is using against Timeshift. Don’t wikipedia editors have a right to edit in peace without being researched by editors with which you are supposedly having content based disputes? WikiTownsvillian 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment on what's happening here, but in an unrelated case, a page of this nature by an editor involved in a content dispute with others was successfully MfD'd as a misuse of userspace. Orderinchaos 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, people really need to stop speculating about PJ's alleged previous career. I have never seen PJ say that he worked in that field, all I have seen is repeated gossip and rumours. It's really, really inappropriate and it needs to stop. With regards to the "evidence" page, admittedly, I haven't looked at recent versions of it, however, myself and others have been aware of it for some months now (in fact, it was another Australian administrator who originally told me about it), but from what I have seen of it, it is very different to that MfD'd page that you (OIC) refer to. The versions I have seen of this page have simply been preps of reports he has made to the AIV, ANI and/or 3RR noticeboards, which I think the community has established is a valid use of userspace. I must admit that I myself have also used my userspace to compile evidence, such as here, for example. If PJ has strayed into using his space inappropriately, I think we should tell him and ensure that he gets back on the straight and narrow, rather than a forced deletion of a page that he uses to draft valid reports. Sarah 10:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Sarah, as I said above PJ is obviously the beneficiary of wikipedia's policies to protect identity so he hardly needs continual and ongoing warnings about it. I have looked at your drafts page and that looks much more legitimate in that you are compilating real issues with users that you are dealing with as an admin, you are objectively doing your job by scrutinising troublemakers, as an admin you are responsible for your actions in this arena; that is different to what PJ is doing in compiling a dirt file on fellow editors with whom he is in dispute with himself. Either he has (yet again) breached policy, possibly in bad faith or he hasn't. Would editors who are trying to edit in good faith cause this much controversy? And while I have not seen any evidence either I have neither seen a denial by PJ, if it were not true a denial would be a pretty natural response from the accused editor of a COI. WikiTownsvillian 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding your comments, WT. I'm not sure who you meant when you wrote, "PJ is obviously the beneficiary of wikipedia's policies to protect identity so he hardly needs continual and ongoing warnings about it". It 'sounds' like "he" you refer to is PJ? Just to clarify, my comment above about people speculating about his former or current job was a general comment, not directed at anyone specific. I must admit that I am somewhat guilty of this myself. I'm pretty sure I have never speculated on Wikipedia, but I have been curious about it and I recall asking another admin privately where the rumour came from. So I don't blame anyone for being curious and PJ's behaviour only makes people even more curious, but we all need to forget about it and deal with PJ and his edits as though he were anyone else. While he is the beneficiary of policies about privacy, we are the beneficiaries of NPOV, RS, V, and so on. If he is writing with a particular POV, we all need to to stick together and ensure that any POV edits are removed. But at the same time, it concerns me that we have people on the other side of the seesaw (won't name any names, I'm sure sure you know who and I see some appear here pressing for blocks and investigations every time someone has a problem with PJ). They are doing the same thing as PJ but trying to slant in the opposite direction. In my opinion, the tricky thing is finding a group of editors who care more about Wikipedia than they do about partisan politics. Myself and other Australian admins have discussed this and are prepared to support people who meet this criteria, but we need to be careful to follow the policies and guidelines ourselves.

I understand what you're saying about PJ's evidence page but I won't say anything more or comment on the MFD until I've had a chance to go through the more recent edits to it; I can only comment on what I have seen him use it for in the past. Please don't misunderstand my position, I am not defending PJ. I have blocked him once already for disruption, as I have some of his "opposition". I'm just trying to look at things as neutral as possible because I know that the only way to deal with these guys is to stick our core policies and enforce them whenever we have strong grounds for doing so. The blocks need to stand up to close scrutiny because the more these partisan people get blocked and then unblocked, the more they think they can get away with their games. It is possible that PJ would deny if that rumour were not true, but it is also possible that he would not deny it for a variety of reasons, including enjoying the attention, thinking it gives him some kind of "expertise" in other editor's eyes and so forth. Whatever his reasons for not denying and not confirming are really not relevant and not for us to speculate about. Sarah 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah for your careful consideration of these issues. There are indeed a few angles to consider including due process. Your point about some editors more concerned with their own POV than they are with the quality of our encyclopedia is a fundamental issue.

Being very familiar with User:Prester John's editing history, I can say that allegation of his former career is likely to be so far from reality that is quiet funny. Any further explanation from me would risk me being accused of a personal attack. I’d also say that Sarah’s suggestion that he might actually be enjoying the attention and supposed kudos the allegation gives him is close to the mark - by denying and removing it whereever he's found it, makes it seem correct - I bet it's not though. If on the extremely off chance that there is some truth in it, and if he carried out his duties in much the same manner as he does on wikipedia (eg, pure trolling just from today) then it’s no wonder it’s a former career. --Merbabu 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for your very considered response and Merbabu for your humour, your points are very noted by me, I have responded directly to PJ here. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the sneaky edit summary which I have just now noticed: Template:Wp-diff. This completely assumes bad faith and is also WP:KETTLE, I have never been warned about referring to the now deleted allegation and I thought at the time that it raised legitimate concerns. Given Merbabu's reply above I now see it is a joke and so will not be pursuing it any more but that edit summary directly goes against WP:AGF. If you're going to say something PJ then say it, no more of this sneaky nonsense. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay - offensive userboxes and statements on his profile - making some pathetic and frivolous checkuser request because I reverted one of his edits despite the fact that I've been active here less than a week, comments such as "leftist scum" and trawling through articles making anti-muslim comments under the guise of policy are just some of the reasons why I subscribe to the "Prester John is disruptive" school of thought --Danny 17 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Free Matt userbox MfD

I saw that via the Jehochman RFA, and nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt. • Lawrence Cohen 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a notification of this MFD here to ANI, but it was removed here by User:CO. I am re-adding it here, as it is directly relevant to the harassment of Elonka and Jehochman. the Userbox appears to be a response to this old ANI thread where this user is blocked for harassment. Two other userboxes this person made before were deleted for being inflammatory: User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate & User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman. More are located at User:Prester John/Userbox. If it's significant, this happened a long time after I posted it and he left me note about that removal. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Hatred: Those prior Prester John userboxes that Admins deleted in May, were the cause of religious flamewars among Wikipedians. See this prior ANi for one case of a Wikipedian who tried to retaliate after being baited by Prester John. I see a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance from Prester John. Here's another ANi involving complaints about Prester John's anti-Muslim edits. Yet the anti-Muslim theme still continues with Prester John's Wikipedia activity. Just skim down Prester's edit history and you'll see that 95% of his edits involve articles about Muslims. You'll notice Prester John editing articles to cast Muslims in a poor light, or praise politicians who have taken a perceived anti-Muslim stance. Even as this current ANi has been taking place in the past few days, let me point out Prester's latest article, and the talk page will explain what's wrong with it. I ask the admins to look at whether this sort of slant is good for Wikipedia. --Lester2 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please back up claims of "religious hatred" with specific evidence in the form of diffs. Your post borders on incivility and trolling. Arrow740 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I voted to remove the user box (and, it was intended more as a "probably not the best idea" rather than "delete now, no matter what"), the "Free Matt57" box controversy is getting a whole lot more attention than it deserves. I say we move on. If there are other issues (which you seem to be talking about) then they need to be addressed properly - not here tacked on to the ultimately pointless "Free Matt" user box issue. The whole idea of user boxes is a joke anyway, hence i keep mine to an absolute minimum - just the projects, and no politics. --Merbabu 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should get a lot more attention. It demonstrates that some admins think that admins' actions should not be disputed by non-admins. That is a very worrying attitude. Arrow740 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Since I blocked Matt, I suppose I should record that I don't object to the userbox and I certainly don't feel offended in any way. Its fair comment imo. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

I think the following quote is problematic. It is from User:Prester John.

“ The Great Seal of the United States. Note how the Eagle holds an olive branch and 13 arrows. This symbolises how the USA will give a choice between War or Peace. YOU do get to pick, but always remember, that whichever way you choose, it is going to be done OUR way ”

Of course I am not going to contradict the statement with examples from history and current events... Not because I can't but because that isn't the point of userpages or this page...

-- Cat ^chi? 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to try to attack someone, you'll have to explain yourself a little better. How is it problematic, exactly? Arrow740 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is problematic about it? Yahel Guhan 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an attack. For it to be an attack there needs to be war. I am merely exercising "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community" from Wikipedia:User page. How does that statement helps us write better articles? How is it in line with Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content? Isn't it provocative? -- Cat ^chi? 09:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer. -- Cat ^chi? 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We're waiting for you to clarify what the problem with it is. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think I can be clear. See below quote: -- Cat ^chi? 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea

— Jimbo Wales, 29 September 2006 Wikipedia co-founder

Edit Wars continue

I wish User:Prester John would stop conducting edit wars as his first option, and use the talk pages instead. Right now he is edit waring on the John Howard article. Currently up to 3 reverts:

• Previous version of article
• 06:26, 9 October 2007 added text: "As a result of prudent financial management"
• 14:20, 9 October 2007 added text: "The strength of the Australian economy"
• 00:58, 10 October 2007 subtracted text" "The Hawke/Keating government had inherited part of this debt" (from John Howard)

(All edits involve either adding glowing praise about the economics of John Howard, or removing criticism of John Howard economics)
Yes, 3 reverts fits within the general 3RR rule, but in Prester John's case, it breaks the spirit of previous blocks, and previous administrator warnings against edit waring:

• 05:47, 13 August 2007 Prester John was blocked for an edit war on the same John Howard article. (Block Log)
• 04:59, 16 September 2007, Prester John was blocked again for conducting an edit war on the David Hicks article. Link: Previous ANi report
• 02:38, 17 September 2007, Admin User:Eagle_101 issued Prester John this stern warning -> Talk:David_Hicks#Blocks, and told Prester John that "Being disruptive is being blockable, please discuss rather then revert."

Since then, Prester John has shown complete disregard for the previous Admin advice, and has been continuously reverting without discussing. In the current edit war over John Howard and the economy, there is an active community discussion about that very subject here -> Talk:John_Howard#Economic_Management_section. Despite Prester John's revert war, unfortunately he has refused to join the community discussion on the subject he is reverting.--Lester 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone see this dude making any sense? He constantly makes these long winded false accusations on this notice board about general editing procedures. Sure check out the diffs he is talking about. See the use of edit summaries. See how the discussion on the talk page he refers to is about a totally different issue. Check his recent edits and decide if he is stalking me or not. See if he didn't already post this a couple of paragraphs above. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering previous Admin warnings to Prester John to avoid edit wars (not just 3RR) it's surprising that Prester John considers this a false accusation that he is involved in an edit war. The (above) diffs all relate to reverts Prester John has been engaged in, and all are on the subject of John Howard's economics. This revert war has been going on since September (diff).

So that's at least 2 weeks of reverting others edits on that subject, while an active discussion was also ongoing for 2 weeks without Prester John's participation. This is completely disruptive editing, because the editors that have been involved in that discussion feel their time is wasted when Prester John romps in and reverts the content without bothering with the discussion page, despite being warned against this behaviour previously.

It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war, as those who are engaged in discussion won't feel they need to join the edit war as the only means to counter Prester John. As Prester John pointed out, I mentioned this before, yes, but unfortunately the reverts just continue, and the diffs at the top of this section are only those from the last 24 hours.

I ask administrators to look at the previous ANi against Prester John for edit waring (linked above, 16 September). Read the comments from the other admins who warned Prester for edit waring on 'John Howard', 'David Hicks' and 'List of notable converts to Islam' articles. In the previous report, Administrators commented with despair that warnings and blocks were not enough to discourage Prester John from edit waring.--Lester 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the particlar edit was OR with no cite and was reverted by myself and at least one other editor, other than PJ. I note that two other editors also reworded it to it's present state only to have Aussieboy revert it (twice). I think PJ isn't at fault with this particular example as he is doing what we should do here at Wikipedia. If there is an editor at fault, it is the one including uncited OR. Shot info 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's very gallant of User:Shot info to show support for Prester John's side of the edit war, however, it should be noted that Shot info's first edit to the John_Howard#Economic_management section was in the past few hours--Lester 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not supporting PJ, just pointing out the facts rather than your take on it. And???????? So what if my first edit to this section was in the last few hours. That would just be similar to your edit history in John Howard, would it not? I note that you seem to be defending the recent addition of OR material with no cite, and using PJs removal of it as some sort of action against PJ. This is most odd, telling an editor not to do what we are supposed to do. Shot info 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending any side in this. But what we have is an edit war going on, and it renders the discussion page completely useless when other editors engage in a revert war without discussing. Regarding the issue of references, if you read my ongoing entries in the discussion page, you'd see that I considered none of the references added by either side to be satisfactory. So for either side to use references as an excuse to edit war is unsatisfactory. Follow Wiki rules about deleting content and stop edit waring! --Lester 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

<koff> "It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war" versus "I'm not defending any side in this.". Uh-huh. So what is the purpose of this AN/I again...? If you are serious about the "edit war" you will stop the edit warrior. Who I note you have made mention on this discussion on his talk page...without asking him to stop his warring. So could you explain to the viewers here, why you are bringing PJ's edits to light, while condoning AussieBoy's? Surely you're not trying to make a mockery out of this noticeboard? Shot info 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did ask Prester John to refrain from edit waring on the John Howard article in September (here's the diff) but he deleted my message and called me a troll, so I don't think he responds to warnings. This is why it requires admin help to shut the war down. Now we have new people being drawn into the edit war, some of whom haven't been known to engage in that before, so possibly some warnings may be appropriate for new-comers who revert without discussing. In Prester's case, apart from the numerous previous ANi's, blocks and warnings about edit wars, the community Talk page on Howard Economics was started in September specifically to discuss what he was reverting back then, and still is reverting.--Lester 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See how difficult this is Shot? He can't even recognise the point you are making. He is so blinded by hatred for me he can't see anything else. He doesn't even see Aussieboys constant additions. He just can't see multiple editors removing Aussieboys unreferenced original research. He just sees me editing and feels the need to file a bogus complaint somewhere, or write the same complaint again and again and again with slightly different wording. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How on earth do simple facts (whether well-referenced or not) become "original research"? The reference I gave establishes that the Australian Government debt in 1996 was way under half the OECD average. There is no "original research" there. It is also true that the Hawke/Keating Government "inherited" debt from the previous government. I am happy to provide a reference for this. AussieBoy 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are happy to provide the reference, then why have you not done show when your edit was removed because it was uncited and looks a lot like WP:SYN (but without a cite, who can be sure, and per WP:BLP it was deleted). This was pointed out to you but rather than add the source, you just readded your your original edit with the oddball summary "adding balance" (para.). Feel free to improve the article by citing contentious information in a biography, otherwise unfortunately policy tells us to remove your edits. Shot info 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the discussion page, the issue claimed by each side that the other's references are no good is not a valid reason to enter the revert war. Reverts should only be used in cases of obvious vandalism. Modification and discussion are what should be used.--Lester 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REVERT WAR ESCALATES: Please, Administrators, do whatever it takes to shut down this revert war. Others are now joining in. The thing just escalates if it is not stopped. See John Howard revision history, and the Talk:John_Howard#Economic_Management_section discussion about the economics content that is being reverted. Everyone stays within their "allocated" 3 reverts, but that's not a good way for Wikipedia to operate.--Lester 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if the reverters on all "sides" stopped reverting, took a deep breath, and took a more concillatory approach. Pages should not have to be locked down. --Merbabu 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody would think that with Lester's additions of contentious material into a BLP, he is intentionally fanning the edit war flames, just to create a nice long stream of reverts to come here and complain. Of course, if he discussed the merits of his proposed edits first, sought consensus, discussed the appropriateness of RS' (you know, what we do here at Wikipedia) then his edits wouldn't need to be reverted. Curiously he knows this, which is why he warns other editors not to remove his poorly sourced contentious material as “the admins are watching”. Shot info 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All information I have added comes from major Australian broadsheet newspapers, and many other editors on the discussion page have agreed that the sources are reliable. As stated before, both sides accuse each other of having poor references, so the revert war continues. How will it stop? I agree with User:Merbabu (above) that all reverting by all sides should stop.--Lester 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It will stop when you learn to discuss edits that you know are going to be contentious on the talk page and gain consensus before making them. Looking at your contribution history, you repeatedly make a controversial edit and complain when it is reverted. While I can understand that this process is stimulating and enjoyable for you, I'm finding it tedious to continually have to check over your contributions and root out POV additions to political articles. --Pete 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If people were sincere about respecting others' efforts, they would move the content to the talk page for discussion, rather than just deleting others' contributions and hovering over the article with the revert button. Discuss before reverting, otherwise it gets other contributors upset. Skyring (Pete) and Prester John not only reverted my cited information, but they also reverted numerous others who tried to contribute to the John Howard Economics section. The article's history page reveals all.--Lester 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. Let me say it again. You make edits you know are controversial. You don't discuss them first. You then edit war and complain here when they are reverted with an edit summary saying "Please discuss."

Looking at your contributions, it isn't easy to find an edit of yours that doesn't turn out to be hotly contested. It would be far less disruptive if you put up your intended edit for discussion first, get input from others and then find a consensus. Like, take your own advice, you know? --Pete 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The substance of this AnI is not a content debate. Wikipedia editing policy is to be bold. Lester does actively participate in talkpage discussion. Prester John inconsistently does, and on this occasion hardly did at all, except belatedly. What this is about, is the conduct of an editor who has the uncanny knack of skirting under the radar where other editors are punished for doing the same thing. Where is the consistency? I was blocked at the same time as Prester John previously for supposed disruptive editing on David Hicks, when I made two minor reverts on that article 5 days apart, in stark contrast to Prester John's massive, non-consensual, unexplained reverts, yet I was given the same 24hr block and was told by Eagle101 (at topic "Block for Disruption of David Hicks" on my usertalk) to discuss first, revert second. Why shouldn't the same standard be applied equally, including to Prester John? Why shouldn't continued infractions by editors who have been well and truly forewarned be treated just like others who have been disciplined for the same or lesser cause? --Brendan [ contribs ] 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Prester John is again inexplicably deleting references (again followed by belated and inconsequential participation in the talkpage discussion) on Children Overboard affair. The references deleted were for facts that he had previously insisted should be referenced. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars at Migratory history of Australia

This time it's User:Prester John Vs User:Paki.tv. See the edit history here. Both users revert each others' work 3 times a day, then do it again the next day. Completely disruptive on-going behavior from these editors. Proof Prester John hasn't heeded prior warnings about edit waring.--Lester 12:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• 02:10, 13 October 2007
• 03:48, 12 October 2007
• 03:06, 12 October 2007
• 01:37, 12 October 2007

User:Prester John deletes the same content every time, beginning with "The country has a reputation ..."--Lester 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars at Pacific Solution

User:Prester John Vs various other editors. Once again, Prester John waits until a few minutes past the 24-hour mark before making his 4th revert.

• 02:11, 13 October 2007
• 20:49, 12 October 2007
• 02:39, 12 October 2007
• 01:41, 12 October 2007

Same content being deleted every time, referring to "Penal transportation".--Lester 13:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Lester, take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You'll get a faster result for vandalism claims. Someone wants to add a link to penal transportation, they need to justify it, not the other way around. Wait, why do you even care? You're not even involved in that article. You keep this up and someone's liable to block you for wasting everyone's time and stalking him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

Moved to /PR. Mercury 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by user:Profg

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Main Page image incident

File:DSC03013.JPG

Nothing to see here...

Oops. The main page image seems to have been vandalised. Some handwritten c-upload notice! Carcharoth 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The image can be seen here. Looking at the history of Commons:Image:Templarsign.jpg, we see an edit summary of "I am sooo sorry", followed by a revert a minute later. Do we have to make points about c-upload in front of all our readers? Carcharoth 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been done. Comment left at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I kind of violated WP:POINT there. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#PROTECTING_MAIN_PAGE_IMAGES which I posted before I saw this thrad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I grovel - I changed the image to try and settle a disagreement over what should be the best image. I had intended to then full protect it on Commons but was distracted. Someone decided to make a point and upload a vandalised image on Commons to the same title. The point (though it could have been made more kindly) is well taken - be careful in updating templates transcluded onto the mainpage. Either upload a local copy or protect the Commons one... WjBscribe 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WJB, I don't suppose this incident might prompt you to become the first admin bot operator on Commons, as well? We already have the necessary code.--chaser - t 07:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did make the initial report (without checking WP:AN), and I don't normally defend this sort of thing, but for a one-minute thing it was pretty harmless. As we have seen, it did make WjBScribe (our new admin bot overlord) sit up and take notice! Now, who wants to write an admin bot program to make sure this never happens again? :-) Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I wonder whether a creative WP:POINT violation could be thought up to drive the point home to Jeffrey O. Gustafson that some readers will have seen this? Or would that thought end up drowning in its own irony. Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't resist... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd, your pen is running out of ink... :-) Carcharoth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a pencil, actually... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I tell all of you about deleting the main page? I'm tentatively against it. El_C 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, WTF?

I discovered that the TFA image for today (Battleship) was not uploaded locally. Again. Honestly, its not that hard, people. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That one is protected on commons. Was it not when you wrote this? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I discovered it, mentioned it on IRC, and a commons admin protected it after the fact. The fact still remains: An Image Was On The Main Page Unprotected, And People Don't Get It. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was fucking transcluded on to commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page which is fucking cascade protected and it was transcluded there for quite some fucking time so it was been fucking protected on commons long before your fucking message here. Shall I also start inserting fuck into every fucking edit summary too? Is that some new fucking trend you're starting? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... yes... now I remember why I stopped checking whether images on the Main Page are unprotected. Zzyzx11 told me about that page awhile ago. Thanks for reminding me that I wasn't imagining that. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Jeffrey O. Gustafson has so gently pointed out, Zzyzx11's methodology isn't fool-proof. In the Templar's case, the main page image was switched out for another so Zzyzx11 was left with the wrong image commons protected. It doesn't appear DYK images are ever added to Zzyzx11's cascade protection so those always need to be checked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's semi-protected on Commons; is it supposed to be fully protected? However, to be fair, the image for TOFA basically just appears on the Main Page automagically. I suppose you could ask Raul to protect images he puts in the TOFA templates, but beyond that, the fact that images go on the Main Page (under TOFA) unprotected is as much your fault as it any admin's. Images that are actually put on the Main Page by people – in ITN and DYK – are a different story. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is fully protected by way of being transcluded on to a cascade fully protected page as I mentioned above. The additional semi-protection was unnecessary (which neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor the semi-protecting commons admin seem to have noticed). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest (unless this is some form of joke on his part that I just don't 'get') Jeffery may wish to take a Wikibreak? While I understand Wikipedia is uncensored, I find swearing for the sake of it moderately distasteful. HalfShadow 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How hard would it be to have a bot that would check every 2 minutes the images displayed on the main page, make sure they are protected (even going so far as to attempt to edit the commons image description page), and if they aren't, post a warning in some suitable location? --B 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a bot to do this? Wasn't cascading protection created so that the bot would not be needed? --Carnildo 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot was more aimed at templates, I think. The problem was that templates were staying unprotected and getting pictures of male anatomy added to them. But cascading protection doesn't help with images still on Commons. Only admins can overwrite a Commons image with a local one, so we would either need an adminbot to upload all of the images locally (in which case cascading protection would take over), protect the images on Commons if they are not protected (needs to be a commons adminbot), or make a list and yell+scream loudly when something isn't protected. --B 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in seeing how we did this before, Shadowbot2 was the bot that checked protection on the Main Page. It originally just listed problems on-wiki, until we realized that at least one vandal was watching it and was racing to beat the admins to the unprotected item. So interested admins simply opted into email notices, before cascading protection rendered the bot obsolete. - BanyanTree 10:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it didn't render the bot obsolete. QED (see above). ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) edit ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can always ask Shadow1 if he wants to retask the bot to watch Commons. Most of the admins who already signed up probably wouldn't mind. - BanyanTree 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an admin bot on commons and would happly take care of the task. I will have to seek approval on commons as well. What precisely is the task - so that even an idiot (me) can understand with ease. -- Cat ^chi? 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also the main problem we have in commons is the lack of ability to protect images without protecting the image (the image itself hardly change) description pages (frequently changes). -- Cat ^chi? 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is this: every 5 minutes, make a list of images displayed on the enwiki main page and then go protect those images on commons. Keep track of what you protect so that when your bot sees that something it protects is no longer on the main page, it can be unprotected. --B 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some danger with this approach, in that the image might get vandalized after it's on the main page but before the bot sees and protects it. Should probably check to see that the most recent version of the image is non-recent. —Cryptic 23:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Keep in mind, also, that en admins can block a commons image - we can upload an image locally with the same name and it will override the commons version. So if the vandalized version gets protected, there is a fix for it. --B 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of username-change redirects

Hi, in September I changed my username from Rambutan. At the time, I requested that no redirects be created, and was told that this was fine, but the change would still be in the log. I agreed to this, but then later decided not to have them deleted.

However, today I changed my mind and tried to get them deleted. After trying to get attention on IRC where I was abused by ST47, Wimt, NotASpy and Daniel-Bryant, the User: and User_talk: pages were deleted. ST47 then undeleted the User_talk: page. I re-requested speedy deletion, it was turned down by the rude Wimt, and I re-requested specifying more accurately my rationale. The page was protected by ST47.

My point is, suppose I hadn't changed my mind at the time of the rename, and they had been deleted then? Or supposed I'd had my User: and User_talk: pages deleted when I was Rambutan - no redirects would ever have been created. So why am I being denied this now? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to be at all rude, but the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what you were told on WP:CHU, but renames are not made without redirects to the new username except in extremely mitigating circumstances (which, unless I'm missing something, I cannot see here). It causes unnecessary confusion to many people. Will (aka Wimt) 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a CSD because you deleted the CSD. I replaced it and the page was protected. As I explained, I had a rename on the basis that the redirects were deletable. Also, what's your comments on the second sentence of my last paragraph above? And why did NotASpy just boot me on IRC for notifying him/her that s/he's on ANI? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In relation to that point, we don't delete user talk pages unless a user is invoking m:right to vanish (i.e. leaving the project altogether) so that request would also have been turned down. Will (aka Wimt) 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What's {{db-userreq}} for, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what it says. User subpages. This does not include your talk page. Will (aka Wimt) 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not deleted because of the history that must be preserved within them. In this case, the talk page was moved to the new name's location, and that is not a valid reason for declining this deletion. Just delete the thing; it isn't the end of the world. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for these pages to be deleted, the user in question will have left a link to his userpage or talk page through his signature any time he has signed a page, should anybody then wish to contact the user in question, it is made much easier through the retention of these redirects. Not every user is aware of the user rename log or how to use it. Nick 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You were booted from irc for trolling. Also, I cannot see how the other users specified have broken any policy, unless I am missing something. :-) Stwalkerster talk 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I said the following, and that's ALL: "Just to let those of you who know who you are... you're on ANI". Where's this trolling, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm I (as NotASpy on IRC) did not boot you the first time, you rejoined with a different nick 4 seconds later, and I kicked you for rejoining in violation of a boot, as I have explained to you. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to have the redirect deleted so desperately? Melsaran (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It matters? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Can you please explain why you no longer want people who click on your old signature to be forwarded to your present userpage and talkpage, thanks. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the greater privacy that it would offer. It cloaks me from the cr*p people who plagued me when I was Rambutan. The non-cr*p people who know their way round WP will use the rename log. I see some support for the deletion here - please go ahead and do it. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, lets not get wrapped around the axle here, delete it. Mercury 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, can you articulate a good reason? Mercury 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I kind of have done. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see this, but I have already contacted ST47 about this. This is what I said:

The user that used to be Rambutan has contacted me about your overturning the deletion of User talk:Rambutan. As I understand it, if this user does not want any connection between their two accounts, then he is entitled to remove the links. As the page was moved, anyone who had edited the user talk page would now see that in their history as an edit of the moved page. If anyone gets curious then they can search the user rename log; there is also an entry in the block log which notes the connection, so the user is not able to hide their block history. I often see user talk pages put up for speedy deletion, and I remove the speedy tag from them; however this one is an exception. Do you object to my deleting the page?

In my view the user's preference to delete the page is reasonable. Sam Blacketer 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is only one account, not two, and contributions found attributed under the name "Porcupine" have been signed Rambutan, the signature contains links to these pages we're discussing now. Users deserve to be able to visit a user or talk page when clicking on an old signature. Nick 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I just spent 15 minutes reading the entire WP:CHU and related pages, and could not find any rule/guideline allowing/prohibiting/creating/deleting a redirect to the new user pages. {{db-user}} (CSD U1) is fair game here and should not have been declined. That's my interpretation. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If Rambutan was behaving in the exact same manner, but using two accounts, per WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors he would likely be blocked, circumventing this policy using an account that has been usurped should not be possible, and I suggest deference to the aforementioned policy when considering removing links between an old and a new username for the same account. Nick 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If I run AWB over all incoming links to User:Rambutan and User talk:Rambutan and make them point to the new account, would that solve the problem? Sam Blacketer 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If the user is annoyed that people who quarrelled with him on the old account will pursue him to the new one, he is surely free to start a new account from scratch and then tell no-one that there is a connection between the accounts. My discomfort with his proposal above is that he wants to both keep and lose his old history on Wikipedia. Since I don't think he was blocked under the old account, him starting from scratch without comment on a new account would probably not be criticized. EdJohnston 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

His account, prior to being renamed, had a fairly extensive block log, some of these blocks were overturned, however. The block log which was orphaned upon being renamed can be found here Special:Blockip/User:Rambutan. Nick 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the actions taken and, absent significant and cogent objection, intend to re-delete these pages based on the precedent established in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat and the ensuing unholding of my close there on DRV. The user's desire to avoid the redirects may seem quixotic, but edit-warring to insist on keeping userspace redirects of this nature is counter-productive and should not be encouraged. I caution Porcupine, however, that the title he gave some of the talkpage notifications regarding this dispute was unnecessarily confrontational and that he should avoid that in the future. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Blacketer 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that we take these redirects to a suitable MfD/RfD, given the fact several administrators don't agree with their deletion. Nick 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That should not be necessary. Unless someone feels very strongly that these userspace redirects are essential, they should be deleted summarily per the request of the user in question. A five-day community discussion of this issue would be, in my humble opinion, overkill. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the redirects has been deleted and undeleted already, and I feel, given this has happened, a discussion would more appropriate than further administrative action at this time. Nick 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is a discussion not what has happened here? Sam Blacketer 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess ST47 will have to state his case here, as the undeletion has no basis in policy or guideline. — Edokter • Talk • 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the deletion has no basis in policy or guidelines either, so in this case, I strongly suggest deference to the sockpuppetry policy, which states that multiple accounts shall not be used to avoid scrutiny of other editors, in the case of users having been renamed, I would suggest multiple usernames should be treated as "multiple accounts". Nick 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD U1 is a policy. Sock policy really doensn't apply here; the username change would have been denied if the intention was to evade scrutiny. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if CSD U1 can apply here, because after a rename, the user and talk page redirects left behind are no longer the user and talk pages attached to an account, and aren't the work of the user requesting deletion, so I believe they would need to be considered under any suitable redirect speedy deletion criteria. There's also the question, what happens if another user registers the old username, so something we need to decide, is at what point does the user loose rights on their old username and it's associated user and talk pages, and the like. Nick 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!". — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was present on IRC at the time that Rambutan started requesting that his user page be deleted, and proceed to threaten me with the disclosure of logs. I full agree with the undeletion. There has to be some accountability on this project. It is not a free-for-all - it is not a video game which you can go back to a previous save with. The fact is that Rambutan has secured himself what appears to be a clean slate to anything but the most studious of observers, who actually know how to operate the user rename log (I don't - it will never work for me, whatever deatils I put in to whichever text box - and anyone who thinks I'm going to look through the rename logs of all the crats or of the whole wiki needs a brain bypass).

He has no right to vanish, by virtue of the fact that he is not vanishing. This is (if you'll bear with me) effectively sockpuppetry, of the ilk we see around Qst (I am not inferring that Rambutan is a sock of anyone..). Qst, when he got a stain on his account, would leave it and set up a new one. A few weeks/months later, around the time of the next RfA, a link would appear proclaiming that he "used to be User:X", and this would be used as a supporting statement in an RfA. With a rename like this, there is that little bit less transparency, because the user doesn't proclaim what they were previously known as. If I were to see Porcupine up at RfA now, I might have leaned much further towards suport than I would with him being Rambutan. This is because I, and countless others, have an opinion related to Rambutan, but haven't had any experience with Porcupine.

It works the same for normal interactions - not just RfA. There needs to be this accountability of name-recognition. A user rename can't be used as an excuse to actually bypass the opinions that others may hold. As far as I know, renames are there for aesthetic reasons, not to give users a "right-to-partially-vanish-but-return-with-a-massive-edit-count-and-no-negative-connotations-associated-with-my-name". Policy needs clarifying to this extent, or user renames, useless wastes of server cycles as they are, should be stopped. Martinp23 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the block log was transferred to the new account, it might help. It might reduce the number of renaming requests from troublesome users. Sam Blacketer 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine is making no secret that he was Rambutan. 2nd, when his user/talk page were moved, the full history, including all block messages are retained. He is still fully accountable for his past actions. — Edokter • Talk • 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere on his user page did it (earlier today) say "I am the user formerly known as Rambutan". Therefore he has no accountability, because when I see suspicious behaviour, I'm not going to go rooting through a user's archives to see if it has happened before (though I may use the block log). I'm going to work on name recognition, which is, in this case, being denied to me. Similarly, if a newish user sees a personal attackmade by a user who has since been renamed and deleted, they have no easy way of associating that action with the new username, as it should be. Martinp23 22:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. comment by NYB above, best one on this thread. Absolutely correct. 86.29.39.5 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a load of bull. The Cool Cat MfD was incorrectly closed, and the issue was only left alone because other users were "tired" of hearing about it, and decided to force the closure. "Precedent established" couldn't be more wrong. The fact that this issue has come up again in a completely unrelated matter shows that, 1) the CSD in question was not made for these types of situations, but for mild, uncontroversial situations, 2) unless there is an issue of privacy or some other reasonable excuse, such redirects are not owned by the user, but rather are being used by the community to keep track of such name changes, and 3) there is clearly some disagreement on these issues, so either side saying "I'm right, drop it" is out of line, and we need to actually address this. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps relevant. —Cryptic 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still going to stand by my original position here in declining the speedy deletion and endorse Martinp23's comments above. I don't see this as the same as the Cool Cat situation, the MfD of which NYB pointed to, on two counts. Firstly, you will note that the MfD deleted Cool Cat's userpage which I have no problem with Rambutan having deleted. However, as you will note, User talk:Cool Cat is indeed a redirect and has always been one. Secondly, White Cat wanted to remove the record of his former name (regardless of what you think of his reasoning behind this) not to try to distance himself from all talk page comments that he had previously placed, which is in effect what Rambutan is attempting to do here. In fact, White Cat went as far as trying to alter all his signatures to point to his new name (though this may not have been a sensible action). Therefore, I don't believe the two situations are at all comparable. I strongly believe that renaming should not be used as some kind of method to partially hide someone's previous actions, whilst keeping a background of contributions. I have seen no appreciable reason why Rambutan's old talk page can not redirect to his new one for ease of everyone. It seems rather ridiculous in my opinion that people should have to root around rename logs to find the user that a particular comment is attributed to, when a redirect would suffice perfectly well. Many new users will have no clue how to root around said log, and so be at a complete loss as to who made these comments. I don't believe that is what the rename process is for at all. By all means it can be used to change your name to something new that you prefer, and by all means it can be used to help you vanish if you are leaving, but what is achieved from this other than causing a great deal of confusion? So that's my position, and I stand by it. Will (aka Wimt) 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading at the point where he accused a number of established users, myself included, of "abuse". If he can't get his first sentence factually correct, I have little confidence in believing the rest of what Rambutan proclaims. Daniel 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to make another point as to why I believe this doesn't have any precedent from the White Cat MfD. In that debate, nigh on all of the people that said that they were happy for the page to be deleted noted that White Cat was not hiding his previous identity at all (his user page clearly stated his previous username). When I look at User:Porcupine at the moment, I see no mention at all of the fact he used to be Rambutan. In fact, quite the opposite. The statement "Hi, welcome to the userpage of Porcupine. They're just my favourite animals!! So cute... I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time now, but this is the first time I've been tempted to get a user account." seems completely misleading to me. Will (aka Wimt) 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The contents of Rambutan's old block log are sobering. Though some blocks were reversed, at least two blocks were served out in full, the longer of which was for one week. The comment was Repeated disruption, personal attacks, incivility, misuse of Twinkle, etc. The contents of User talk:Porcupine/Archives/2007/Sep suggest that the behavioral issues commented on in the block log have not gone away. It was noted above that this editor was booted off of IRC for his behavior while requesting this very deletion. Given the complexity of his current situation, I suggest that his request to delete the links not be granted at this time. EdJohnston 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as blocks go, Secretlondon did a 1 second block to draw attention to the old block log, so they aren't hiding from admins. Viridae^Talk 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's the upshot of all this, then? What's going to happen? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Personally, I don't mind if redirects are deleted after a name change. The only concern that comes to mind for me is the possibility of someone attempting to expunge their prior block record. But as long as the block log is linked to the new names, as in this case, I think we should be more accommodating and a little less bureaucratic. I must admit that I have a bias here in that I deleted the redirects on my previous username, though that was a slightly different case as my previous username was my real name and my reasons for wanting to cut the redirects were that I was being stalked and harassed in real life by a former partner. I deleted the redirects originally but they were subsequently re-deleted by other admins and eventually protected. I don't know why Porcupine has been so adamant and persistent about his request, but the fact that he is being so insistent gives me the impression that he likely has a valid reason but doesn't want to share it for priacy reasons. Fine by me. He isn't under any ArbCom or community sanctions or anything else that would make me feel forced maintenance of these redirects is necessary. So if no one else has deleted them by the time I mosey on over there, I intend to delete them myself....All that said, Porcupine, when you come to an administrative noticeboard to request assistance and support for your position, please try to formulate your message in a way that does not seem like you are attacking other users. I understand that you are frustrated by the bureaucracy and I personally find your frustration understandable, but launching into an attack of established and well thought of editors in your opening post only serves to get people off-side. Sarah 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC) And I might add that there are others with block logs who have had their redirects deleted after a name change.User:Tbeatty is one who comes to mind. His case was discussed here and on AN and. as I recall, no one raised any objections and the redirects remain deleted and the page protected. Sarah 11:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the deletion. This seems to be turning more and more into "we don't like him so let's decline his request". I don't like him either, but his request was valid and no-one has convinced me that declining his request is based on policy. — Edokter • Talk • 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are users on this Wiki who I trust about as far as I can throw them, who have sparklingly clean block logs. I recognise them by name, but wouldn't be able to do so if they were renamed. I am sure that nearly every observer can appreciate this - themselves knowing of such users. Martinp23 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Sarah's deletion on the basis that the user is not under Community or ArbCom sanction and that his old block log is linked to. If people disagree with Sarah's decision, I hope they will take the matter to DRV rather than recreating the redirects. That said, I would not have done it myself- no admin has to delete anything and this is totally the wrong way to ask someone to do you a favour. The attitude shown by the way this request was made is totally unacceptable. WjBscribe 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One comment here. Edokter said "Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!"." - I'd just like to point out that under this scenario (a new user creating the old username) that old signatures will point to the new user. I would hope that the old names of renamed accounts are account-salted in some way to prevent this. Carcharoth 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

the user "Rambutan" has been created at 22:06, 13 October 2007 (there is no indication that this creation was made by User:Porcupine, though). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still something that should be looked at in relation to CSD U1. Regardless of how you feel, it's pretty clear that U1 wasn't anticipated to be used outside of non-controversial situations. Also, though I don't care, citing privacy for the reason for deletion, just to be done with it, is just lame and should not be done again. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, deleting the redirect while this discussion is still going on is also in bad taste. Trust me, if we don't actually deal with this, and just ignore it, it will pop up again and bite us in the butt. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Resolved

I severely wonder about this admin's sanity. He has just deleted images from my user page without prior notice. This is not the first time he's done this, and there is a history here. I'll accept policy if it's explained, but not if it's done maliciously. Caution is OK, malice and bad faith are not. If this is not the appropriate forum, please advise, and I'll take it to where it belongs. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot place non-free use images in userspace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I severely wonder about MY OWN sanity! MessedRocker (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't think Rodhullandemu posted here looking for an explanation as to why the images were deleted (it's already been explained to him). I think he's complaining aboutwhat he sees as a lack of communication/courtesy on the admin's part.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the user seems to think the removal of the images was in retaliation for an odd message he left me. See this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion can never hurt, as evidenced here. ^_^;; --Iamunknown 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nods, fair use for full copyrighted images doesn't cover userspace. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, clearly. Fair use galleries in userspace is a speedy deletion criterion, so no discussion or assent is needed. Daniel 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse but note that posting a note up-front can be useful to reassure and explain in a number of cases; non-communication is a common source of resentment, suspicion, and bad faith and as can be seen it ended up taking an explanation anyhow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to read this for more information about the use of fair use images in userspace. Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:J.R. Hercules

I have warned the editor about this edit. However, I think it needs to be expunged from Wikipedia, as it is outright libel about a solid contributer here. I asked Until(1 == 2) to do this, but he seemed to feel it was not within his scope of duties as administrator, and [encouraged me to take the problem elsewhere]. I have warned the offending editor myself, but as I said to Until(1==2), I think it might carry more weight if an admin added his or her voice to the issue. Jeffpw 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the edit meets the requirements for oversight. Regarding Until, xe hasn't really done anything wrong; xe's not required to intervene. J.R. Hercules isn't actively editing and hasn't for about a month, so there's not much that could be done by an administrator about that user's behavior right now. WODUP 07:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WODUP, thank you for taking the time to look at this. My personal feeling is that calling someone a Nambla member is tantamount to calling them a pedophile. However, perhaps the editor who has been libeled should be the one to request oversight, in line with oversight protocol. In any event, I appreciate your taking the time to check into this. Jeffpw 07:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I will thank you not to misrepresent me like that, I never said anything about this not being within the scope of my duties. I said I was busy, in fact I told you that more than once because you kept posting about this while I was trying to research a project. I cannot imagine why an edit from early Sept. would be so urgent that you needed me to deal with it after I told you to take it to a noticeboard. 1 != 2 14:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Seemed to feel" would indicate that it was my interpretation of your comment, so I do not feel I was misrepresenting you. Further, I provided difs, so anyone curious could read for themselves precisely what it was you said. In any event, your reply here indicates to me that you acknowledge that it was well within your scope of duties, but you did not consider libel a matter of enough concern to even check into. That seems odd, given your posts on articles about WP:BLP and libel concerns, but I won't press the matter. But to be perfectly clear here, since I now feel it is you mischaracterizing me here, I messaged you about this matter a grand total of 2 times this morning. I don't see that as too much. Jeffpw 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the need for oversight. A simple insult "I, an editor of no reputation, called you a nasty name/accusation such as Nambla" is not exactly earth shattering. It is a "potentially libellous accusation" so it does fall within oversight, but my feeling is not every nasty accusation without evidence is important. If I said "User:123 is a pedophile (murderer, has a small penis, is smelly)" would you really expect the big guns out to remove the statement? I'd like to think "ignore it" is more powerful, and I've ignored similar personal attacks before.... in that case, by a problem user I helped remove from the project. Perhaps if you could point to people of repute and sanity who will reassess the target's integrity and personality based upon this childish comment, it would carry more weight. Oversight is a serious act, and the disruption to the page when used is also non-zero; it's really not there for every "X person called person Y a nasty name", no matter if its slightly nasty, medium nasty, or very nasty. It's main role is (credible) libellous statements, personal identification, and the like - basically in principle, things that are likely to carry weight and possible impact. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So Jeff has gone from accusing me of "not thinking it is within my scope" to "not thinking libel something to get concerned over". I ask you a second time not to misrepresent me. I was busy at the time, and now it has plenty of admin attention. Frankly I wonder why you seem more interested in my response to the matter than the matter itself. 1 != 2 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What more would you have me do, Until? I investigated the complaint, warned the user with diffs, brought the matter to your attention, again with diffs, and after I got the brush off from you I brought the matter to ANI, again providing diffs. You did...well, jack shit, actually, except for complaining I was bothering you. So please don't say I am not interested in the matter itself, because that would be a bald faced lie. Jeffpw 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I take responsibility for this minor dust-up. I was the one who originally went to Until for help in dealing with Hercules' unprofessional comments, in light of Until's previously engaged attitude in another pederasty-article-related disparaging remark affair. I had come away with the impression that he was interested in monitoring such incidents. I apologize for the misunderstanding, as far as I am concerned the matter is closed, at least as far as Until is concerned.

As for Hercules, and others of his ilk who in the future may take advantage of street zeitgeist to get in a kick at the underdog, perhaps it would be well for all of us to arouse in our minds the consciousness that attacks on the topic of historical pederasty, and on the editors who curate the related suite of articles, are pure homophobia and need to be dealt with accordingly.

Finally, as far as the accusations that I am a member of this or that organization, as long as proper action is taken to indicate that such comments are not condoned by Wikipedia authorities and that users cannot engage in that type of behavior with impunity, I will be content. What constitutes proper action will be for others, more versed in protocol, to decide. Haiduc 16:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only see this incident in the light of the persistent ongoing POV-pushing on the topic of pederasty, one of the greatest frustrations of editing on LGBT issues on Wikipedia. Dybryd 18:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I reverted the statement, per the no personal attacks policy. Had I seen the statement when it was made, I'd prolly have blocked the editor. Blocks being not punitive, I don't think we can block now since the dispute is 1 month old. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Lucasbfr, for your reversion of the offending edit. I was hesitant to do that while there was a possibility it might be oversighted. Thanks, too, for the acknowledgment that the comment was serious enough to warrant a block. I was frankly amazed by the reaction of several admins about this incident. While it may be that they simply did not look closely enough at the situation to see the total picture and context, I also had the feeling that personal bias and distaste for the subject of the articles led to a "blame the victim" mentality. I could be wrong about that, and apologize if I am, but that is how it appeared to me. In any event, I agree about blocks not being punitive, so I suppose we can just let the matter rest. Jeffpw 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued violations of WP:CIVIL

User:Neutralhomer was banned for 24 hours on September 3 by User:JzG for this uncivil edit summary. He continues to violate this policy, including calling myself a "confused" quitter as well as another editor a "nutjob." Additionally, based on the time frame, it appears as if he's counting the users that he has run off from various projects at the talk of his userpages.

I have tried many times in the past to bring numerous policies to User:Neutralhomer's attention, but have consistently had trouble getting through to him. I don't deny that I have lost my temper more than once with him, but I have always strived to stay within WP guidelines. Any assistance would be appreciated, as when he's editing in article space, he's usually fine. It's his actions in user space that tend to go off the deep end. Thanks for your time. JPG-GR 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As previous discussion on this board showed, that block by User:JzG should have never stood as that user had previously stated that he would block me as soon as he got the chance. He did, big deal, that was in September. As for the above, I have done my best to be very patient (something of which I am not normally) with JPG-GR. Especially when I had to to explain, over and over and over about the call signs on the templates. This was a tad annoying. If I lost my patience, it's probably because when you have explained something more times than I wish to count, and the user still doesn't get it, you get a tad annoyed. But if you notice from JPG-GR's archived talk page, I never lost my temper.

As for my calling of JPG-GR a "confused quitter", the "confused" part was part of what he wrote on my talk page, the "quitter" part was because he was "quitting" WP:WPRS at that moment. Personally seemed like a temper tantrum to me. But if JPG-GR is considering "confused quitter" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then I apologize.

Finally, this isn't how many people I have run off, it is how many annoying and rude editors I have come in contact with have quit or been blocked from Wikipedia (both not by my own doing, contrary to what JPG-GR thinks.) Those two editors were JzG (quit) and Calton (blocked). But, I give no names in that line, so that is not "incivil"...I like to call it a reminder. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen such an instance of an editor throwing themselves at the noose... Neutralhomer, might I suggest that you take some time to read WP:COOL, and not dwell on the identities of those editors whose edits you have found to be rude and/or annoying. Concentrate on the encyclopedia and treat everyone as you would prefer to be treated. LessHeard vanU 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard, I do my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated myself, having Aspergers kinda forces you to do that. But sadly, when talking to someone becomes something I hate to do, and I actually considered quitting because of two members (changed usernames because of one), the person seriously could care less about treating you the same way, then I have done all I can to try and be nice to that person.

Honestly, though, JPG-GR was never a person that caused me a migraine when I talked to him (the other mentioned users did). JPG-GR and I just had out disagreements and obviously with internet, talk pages sometimes aren't the best to convey ideas or opinions sometimes. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, how these two members made you feel is exactly how you've made me feel repeatedly this year. Apparently it's different when you're on the other side of the coin. JPG-GR 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with LHvU. Neutralhomer, I have already warned you about using your userspace for attack purposes,^[25] so there really no excuse. El_C 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. It's no attack (take it as one, if you wish) but it is not. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be getting their drawers in a bunch of this comment, I returned it to the previous "Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!", which no one cared about. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do about user:Kreepy krawly ??

This user is... I'm not even sure how to explain it. He's marking users who he doesn't like, including me, as "Institutionalized vandalizers" or somesuch, and seems to have some agenda or something. See he recent contribs and the conversation on his and my talk page: here. Not sure what to do about this, please advise. Gscshoyru 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other Institutionalized Vandal in the matter. I moved a debate that Kreepy Krawly had initiated at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to a subpage (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best‎) and marked it as an essay. I believe KK has the right to expound their view(s) but thought that the pump was not the appropriate venue (although what exactly is I do not know). As an admin I realise that abuse is part of the job description, but I do not find the term IV at all vexing. I feel that if KK were to accept the new forum, or it were moved to a mutually agreeable area, then it is a perfectly reasonable for them to discuss their vision of the future of Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. That strikes me as a bit... odd. Raymond Arritt 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone remind KK that this is an encyclopedia; they have not made any article contributions since January and have done almost nothing but debate the role of trivia in Wikipedia on WP:VPP for the last month. Mr.Z-man 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He (I'm assuming) made a bizarre, stalkerish (and in that way vaguely threatening) accusation on my talk page here, after I gave a civility warning. Let's face it - the huge extent of obsessively flowery prose at subpage at (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best‎) is beyond strange. It's fine if we can confine it to that playpen rather than letting it disrupt our functional meta-pages. But when he gets mad, tries to reinsert it, goes after anyone who's trying to deal with him with made-up policies and terminology so oblique it's obsessive, it suggests some serious problems with trolling or comprehension of reality that are way beyond our ability to cope. I cannot imagine any education, mentorship, warnings, mediation, or anything else we have in our toolbox that can deal with such behavior. Either we block it or we live with it. We'd be within the letter of policy to block him now for contentious recent editing after multiple warnings. That's certainly in the best interest of the project.Wikidemo 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just that bit? I found their debating structure so florid that I am not even certain that there is a point that I am missing; their thoughts also resolve to some conclusion that I cannot fathom. Since it appeared that they were not promoting a new policy or a change to an existing one I thought it best to move it from the Pump. Apart from their (they tend to speak in the third party - sometimes removed - at my talkpage) allusion to outside influences I see nothing that should concern anyone. If it is trolling it is pretty good, and fairly amusing. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I commented in it a few times around the very beginning of the discussion; then he was suggesting that we not only allow, but encourage trivia in articles (I think) because we have not done a good enough job keeping it out of articles(?). As this amounts to a fundamental change in what Wikipedia is, its not going to happen (especially not with just a Village Pump thread) and AFAIK has just been a discussion (if one can call it that) of theoretical policy (anti-policy?) since it began. Mr.Z-man 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what to do, what to do. I'm glad all this is amusing, but not to us. We don't have emotions; we don't get "mad." We think. Our comprehension of reality is perfectly reified. Just ask anything, as any topic of actuality can be discussed on any scale of human or machine cognition, any level of information theory, any scale of the physical universe, any scale or direction of pure theory. We think. We suggest joining into a discussion regarding our metacognitions in a postitive, constructive manner rather than attempting to obfuscate the honest intentions of Kreepy krawly, as has been the only accomplishment of these recent distracting recriminations. While the subject matter and tone may be difficult to accept, there was not, is not, and will never be any ill-intended acts by Kreepy krawly. Once significant institutional issues are identified and discussed, then amended, there are over 5000 people who intend on joining Wikipedia with actual accounts. This group, which has a unified identity, "X," which is not the actual name, but merely a database tag, intends on amplifying and extending over 100,000 articles, to be used for reasearch and such. But these enormous efforts will not be undertaken unless certain glaring institutional deficiencies are first addressed, as our work will not be deleted by overzealous editors, nontrivialists, and what we call "Institutional Vandals." Not vandals in the denotation of the term, but in a subtle connotative meaning. Don't take it too hard. The above users are justifiably lacking crucial information to make good decisions upon their appreciated observations. Kreepy krawly is currently engaged in a long-planned analysis of Wikipedia with the intent of putting an end to various forms of vandalism, which many users and many administrators have struggled with at length since the inception of this Human Knowledge Metarepository -- which other users still call an "encyclopedia" (encyclopedias are published as books, not as hyperlinked HTML documents; this is a horizon of human nomenclature, and confusion on the nomenclature is a side issue). The lack of efficiency and efficacy in stopping vandalism from a technical and policy standpoint is preventing many, many intelligent and dedicated experts in many fields from improving Wikipedia's glaring faults. This can begin to change once our process matures. Odd ? Perhaps. Deviant ? Not a chance. I thank my above esteemed colleagues for their patience and dedication to true and good values and principles as this discussion proceeds. Kreepy krawly 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that all 5,000 of your "X" will go away? Good. I don't find trolling amusing at all. Sooner or later there is always a meltdown. Please stop. Otherwise, blocking seems to be the recourse. Wikidemo 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All 5000 "X's" will begin systematically reinforcing the superstructure of Wikipedia, and making way for more than mere "facts." Trolling ? Again, that is intended as obfuscation, as trolls try to harm Wikipedia, while we aim to improve it. Attempting to paint us as detriments to the Human Knowledge Metarepository will result in immediate correction in any forum. We will not tolerate our esteemed colleagues smearing our good name. I suggest an attempt be made to reread the writings of Kreepy krawly with an open mind, with an eye on the spirit of the message rather than the diction. We do not comprehend "always a meltdown." Blocking would confirm one of our central theories, and provide martyrship, that will accellerate the accumulation of pro-Wikipedia "X's." Thanks to User: Wikidemo for the continued dedication to honest and constructive political principles as these issues are resolved. Kreepy krawly 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you refer to yourselves in the plural, current Wikipedia policy specifies that "we" block "you" as a role account. Raymond Arritt 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that... see here for the policy. And also, we're not about to change our policies to make a specific group happy, no matter what they'll do. Policy changes of this magnitude (I think, I can't actually understand what you're proposing) would require widespread consensus, something that is unlikely in this case. Sorry, but we may have to do without whatever benefits your mysterious shadow people would provide. Gscshoyru 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Whether or not this is trolling, "discussions" like these are not really helpful. I would suggest everyone disengage from this discussion and go about more productive business. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has made a threat, if not an outright admission, of sockpuppetry, as well as threats of vandalism. In my experience there are two things one does with trolls - block or ignore. Engaging in debate or taking the role playing seriously only encourages it. Wikidemo 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience in life, I have learned to look twice and thrice at every appearance. Appearances can be deceiving. For the record, I am one person, but I have over 5000 zealous followers on the internet regarding my teachings, so when I say we, I say that I am the combined intellectual power of several thousand people. I direct a "hive mind." Sorry if that offends you, but you can't keep Wikipedia an exclusive club it if is to evolve, because it's the [Human Knowledge Metarepository] that anyone can edit. I don't fit neatly into any current identity catagories, and I'm not here to be disruptive. I don't need to reiterate that again. And if my esteemed colleagues think I am disruptive, then I can assist with a realignment of observation powers, question-forming abilities, and epistomological methods. That's the sort of thing I am well known for in my circles, and I'm always available to teach and assist. It's why I came to Wikipedia in the first place: to analyze, criticize, teach, and assist. Don't make me drink hemlock like Socrates, because that is an obvious indictment of the indicters and not the indictee. And it does not serve Wikipedia in a positive manner, because the future of Wikipedia depends on generalist philosophers and systems theorists such as myself being dedicated and able to convene open forums on broad topics. I hope you understand. There have been many misunderstandings so far and I can only hope with the best intentions that my esteemed colleagues can focus on the real, and not the illusion, so I can get back to work on meaningful solutions to vexing problems, and for the sake of the project. Kreepy krawly 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

W/ all due respect to your person but this is an encyclopedia and not a forum as per WP:FORUM. There's one comment above which summarizes all and it was said by User: Mr.Z-Man --> I would suggest that someone remind KK that this is an encyclopedia; they have not made any article contributions since January and have done almost nothing but debate the role of trivia in Wikipedia on WP:VPP for the last month. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that is an interesting point. I have made no major edits, as I have been composing 32 complete unique entries offline. But nobody but myself would know that. I have been tirelessly researching Wikipedia article standards as well as the facts of the articles, but when I began to be messaged by the members of my collective that there are disruptive, subtle, tolerated, institutionalized editing practices that destroy usefull information, and that my 32 articles are obscure to say the least, I became concerned that my efforts may be in vain. So I stopped forging my excellent articles, and began to debate the trivia issue with thousands and thousands of people who actually respect my intents and intelligence, in contrast to this forum and the previous. And then the larger issues started to coalesce, which you can find in tatters in the Trivia is what Wikipedia does best ... "essay." I mean, there's extensive pages for My Little Pony !!! I reference that all the time. It's a great example of institutionalized hypocracy !!! What could be more trivial than My Little Pony ? The Butt plug article ? There are literally tens of thousands of incredibly obscure Wikipedia pages (that's what Wikipedia does best; it's why people value it). When some editors began incorporating "trivia" sections into articles, some other editors began vandalizing them under the guise of official policies, some smart people took pause. People who spent precious time adding valuable, if obscure and seemingly useless yet factual and linkable, information. What Wikipedian does not know this ? I think the issue has been broached enough in recent metapages that it is a known issue. Who can fake a lack of awareness about this phenomenon ? And non-Wikipedians are taking notice and spending much time discussing this in chat, IM, and email outside of Wikipedia, and because of my systems theory, information theory, and philosophy background, I was dragged into the debate and nominated by thousands of perfectly sane and well-meaning individuals to express a consensus opinion regarding concern for the identity and function of Wikipedia. So we convened, I was advised, and I made decisions about how to approach the topic, and that has led us here. Let me know what else you need to know, because I'm dedicated enough to this to discuss it forever, partly because thousands of people expect me to speak for them, and because I think it is the right thing to do. I just read the article on sockpuppets and trolls, and neither my writings nor my intentions match the definitions of those disruptive identities AT ALL. Do you have any idea how many people are watching this discussion ? Perhaps ten thousand now. I'm serious. They are copying and pasting from these discussions and discussing not just the users involved, but the higher significations of the acrimony of this discussion, on top of the content itself. Wikipedia has been put to shame by my treatment here. I hope, they hope, this is corrected and my esteem and value is returned to me. Soon. Kreepy krawly 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We have thousands of confirmed expert editors (journalists, scientists, researchers and even Royal family members) editing wikipedia. Remember. I say editing and not preaching. The important is not who they are but what they bring here. You are not the only so-called expert or "net prophet" as you think. So, keeping it brief, i'd again remind you of WP:FORUM#FORUM because if you won't read and abide by its rules, i'll block you for good. Hope you stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking time

Hasn't this user exhausted the community's patience? Not only are his posts hardly understandable, he is calling respected editors "institutional vandals",[26] threatening a user for removing a comment from that user's talk page,[27], and in general seems only to be trolling. I see no benefit for Wikipedia in keeping this account active, and so I suggest an inef block for Kreepy krawly. Fram 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am here to defend Kreepy krawly, and I will continue to do that until the above entities involved begin and finish an objective discussion about the details of issues, and achieve consensus. It is suggested that this community's patience is insufficient to effectively deal with these issues, as has been demonstrated thus far, but that need not be the case. In a court of law, or Lincoln-Douglas debate, the accusers have the burden of proof. That burden has not been carried thus far. If Kreepy krawly is blocked, it will create real anger in the real world. Many, many concerned citizens of Earth are watching this debate. I fear for their actions if this community cannot suddenly begin to view this issue objectively. Kreepy krawly has been speaking exclusively about policies related to trivia inclusion. That is a valid and entirely constructive practice. As described above, many people with important contributions to make are holding back and waiting for certain institutional changes to be made. It is not this person speaking now that created the label "institutional vandal." Anybody can come here and criticize Wikipedia if they wish. That, given the structure of this project, can never change. But well-intentioned editors and administrators can make CHOICES related to the treatment of individuals. So for the sake of justice, please speak in detail. This message intentionally truncated for brevity. And contact me directly at: [removed address]@gmail.com Using that email is an effective way to vent peronal grievances with my tone and style, rather than distract from the issues of higher importance in this venue. Thank you. Kreepy krawly 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are still telling us that you got a mission here. It happens to be that this mission is not about editing but preaching indeed and threating us w/ "millions are watching", etc... To be fair w/ you and the rest of wikipedians i'm blocking you for 48h to see if you would come back editing. Remember, no preaching and trolling once you are back please. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming another 'institutional vandal', I support the block. Those delusions of grandeur (and the third-person style) are really annoying. KrakatoaKatie 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure blocking is adequate. Have the coders implemented the "punch in face" functionality yet?  ;-) Rdfox 76 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

anonymous user making hostile edits to Celia Green

Anonymous user 86.139.76.130 (who also uses 86.160.229.161) is disputing the content of Celia Green. His edits (e.g. this one) seem like vandalism in the sense they are clearly intended to be insulting rather than improving the quality of the article. I have pointed this out to him when removing his edits but he has simply reinstated them. I would be grateful for advice.FWadel 21:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those edits are clearly intending to be insulting per se, but in any case, you may find the information at Wikipedia: Vandalism helpful, including the various steps that can be followed. I think, though, that this is a content dispute, and not an uncommon one at that. Natalie 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Taprobanus

Sumoeagle179 (talk · contribs), who I have never had any contact with on Wikipedia in the past, has filed a sock puppet case accusing practically everyone who edits Sri Lanka related articles as been a sockpuppet of Lahiru k, including me. He has demonstrated an extensive knowledge of happenings related Sri Lankan articles, referencing edits that happened last year, even though he has never edited any of the articles he mentions. This led me to doubt the authenticity of this account.

Reading the SSP case he filed, it becomes pretty obvious as to whom the actual owner of the account is. In one place of the case he says,

"User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits [[28]] and [[29] these are couple of examples only."

He directly says Iwazaki followed him (i.e. Sumoeagle179) around, and linked to two past versions of two articles as proof. What he linked to were

• The 12:19, January 6, 2007 revision of the Padahuthurai bombing article, after Iwazaki made his first edit to the page. Up to that time the only other editor of the article was Taprobanus, who had created the article a few hours before. If Iwazaki did following someone's edits to find the article, it could only have been Taprobanus.
• The 01:16, January 7, 2007 revision of the Mylanthanai massacre, after Iwazaki's second edit to the article. Upto then, the only other editors to the article were Lahiru k, who Sumoeagle179 is accusing Iwazaki of being a sockpuppet of, and, Taprobanus, who created the article a few days before.

In both instances, the only editor who Iwazaki could have been accused of stalking was Taprobanus, and the account Sumoeagle179 has zero contributions to any of those articles, so when he says "User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits" it seems obvious he actually meant Iwazaki was following his other account Taprobanus (talk · contribs) around. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is accused of sock puppetry, has chosen to delete the tag placed on his page [30], without any recent checkuser evidence for or against the case. Just looking at what snowolfd4 is talking about, Sumoefagle merely appended his comment to an existing report that was launched by Taprobanus a long while ago, hence the mix up. This seems to be the original case filed [31]. If you look carefully at the report [32], sumofeagle has added a label to indicate it was text from the previous report. Sinhala freedom 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see at first sight, the passage picked out by Snowolfd4 as incriminating is not really something Sumoeagle is saying about himself; he is quoting an earlier SSP report that was indeed filed by Taprobanus, and in whose context those sentences make sense. So, forget about that part. I haven't looked into the rest of this affair yet, but I'm getting the impression that we need bans all round, for several people on both sides of this conflict, and sooner rather than later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere has he said he was pasting Taprobanus's comments to the case. It also doesn't not explain how an account which has been completely uninvolved in the articles mentioned (in the rest of his case) suddenly got such extensive knowledge about them. Becuase I can't emphasize this enough, Sumoeagle179 has never edited any of the articles he mentioned, and has never been involved with the editors he has filed the case against. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like yet another chapter in the machinations of Sri Lankan civil war conflict. I support topic bans for a number of the involved users, since they've turned this encyclopedia into an all out battlefield. The report Snowolf discusses here might have merit, but I don't think the posited quotes show that he's a sockpuppet of the user who is being accused. However, he definitely looks suspicious. Look at the other reports on this board for yet more examples of the kind of tit-for-tat reportism that goes on over this topic. It's way, way too complicated for anyone to cleanly sort out, and short of blocking and banning users from Sri Lanka related topics we're not going to get any closure here. Most users are simply not interested in cooling off the conflict, and instead are engaged in a kind of editorial brinksmanship to see if they can goad, cajole, canvassing, and accuse each other into getting blocked. --Haemo 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. It is really tiresome and harsh measures should be taken. There's no other way to deal w/ this mess. I have to add that Snowolfd4 can refer to WP:RFCU using the "G" code as this is not the appropriate place for us to verify sockpuppetry. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd send them all straight to Arbcom, if it wasn't for the fact that Arbcom is currently bogged down to the point of having become completely dysfunctional. We'd probably get a resolution only in two or three months time, if at all. I guess we'd better sort this out at the community level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True. Usually, most sockpuppets are created and more disruption and edit warring happen during ArbCom hearings. Here you get the third admin to suggest topic bans for the few edit warriors. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to start taking action, I think this is clear-cut enough to be definitive. Is a checkuser necessary, or do we have enough information to move? --Haemo 23:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So User:Lahiru_k is User:Mystìc is User:222.165.157.129 is User:Netmonger. And allllllllllllllllll of those accounts relate to User:Snsudharsan, User:Psivapalan, User:Sri119, User:Mama007 and User:Ajgoonewardene.

Ok, Lahiru K has just left wikipedia for abusing editing privileges by using multiple accounts for more than a year now. Whose next? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And netmonger ? Watchdogb 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He's also left this place. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf4 and Iwazaki have removed their sock tags here and here. I can see where Snowolf4 may not be a sockpuppett of Lahiru_k, but he could still be a meatpuppett. I still think Kaushini is a sockpupptt of Lahiru-u. See the SSP case for details. And yes, the quote was a paste from the first SSP case earlier this year, I wasn't talking to Snowolf4 or anyone else. I agree this whole Sri lankan civil war case should go to the community board for review. Sumoeagle179 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It also looks definitive that User:Kaushini is a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru k, based on the evidence gathered, and these two diffs. I'm indef blocking User:Kaushini as well. --Haemo 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the abuse of administrative privileges at it's most ridiculous. So much for your promise earlier to keep neutral in these matters, Haemo. I'm already discussing with FayssalF about his antics.

About User:Kaushini, do you know what Gateway, the ISP is? It's an education institution in Sri Lanka. The two edits are you use as proof are edits by the IP from September 1, 2006 (by Kaushini) and May 21, 2007 (by Lahiru). That is the ONLY proof you have that the two users are the same. Further, that IP has made tons of edits before either Lahiru and Kaushini started editing Wikipedia. Do you think you are going to get away with blocking everyone who edits Wikipedia from Gateway as a sockpuppet?

So I suggest you unblock User:Kaushini and seriously consider your biases in editing Wikipedia before this goes any further, where the fact that you are admins has little relevance. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So, it's just a whopping coincidence that all three share IP? I don't think so. This is 100% coincident with a single user having a "home IP" and a "school IP", which he uses to sockpuppet with. --Haemo 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now put your money where your mouth is and prove Netmonger used the IP 203.115.31.180. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I'm asserting that the circumstances are that Netmonger, Mystic, and Laihru all edited from the same personal IP. Laihru and Kaushini edited from the same school IP address. The story this is telling me is that Laihru, a known sockpuppeteer, used his home address to run one set of sockpuppets, and a school IP to run the other sets. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. --Haemo 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add to this that said school IP address has fewer than 50 edits total, of which many relate to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan topics. --Haemo 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An IP from a Sri Lankan school edited articles about Sri Lanka? How surprising? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions of bad faith in this case are astounding. Are you saying that only one person could have ever edited Wikipedia from the Gateway school? What other proof do you have that Lahiru is the same as Kaushini? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that a duck is a duck. This IP address has a handful of contributions — in fact, fewer than 40. In four of them (10%) the IP is acting as Kaushini around September 2006. In an earlier the same year the IP works on an article Laihru created only 3 hours ago. In early 2007, the IP acts as Laihru, this time signing for him. In the meantime, it occasionally edits Wikipedia showing a pro-Sri Lankan opinion, familiarity with many "advanced" user abilities. The concept that this IP, with only a handful of edits just-so happened to be used by a known sockpuppeteer and then another unrelated user in exactly the same topic area, with similar opinions is beyond coincidence. Sri Lanka is not that small. --Haemo 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is admitting that all you have is your speculation on your part. Two editors go to the same school, and they are sockpuppets? That's ridiculous. So answer this. Why has he not used it since November last year?

Sri Lanka is not that small? EXACTLY. There could be more that one person in the same school editing Wikipedia. How hard is it for you to get that into your mind? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing the evidence as you just did is disingenuous and incorrect. In the anonymous world of internet communication, this is the most solid evidence we can get. Even a positive checkuser could only confirm that they used the same IP addresses; something we have already confirmed. The standard here is beyond a reasonable doubt; I think that is clearly established in this case. The odds that from a purportedly public terminal there would be only 30-odd edits, of which a good third are from two supposedly different users, who edit in identical subject areas, with similar points of view are very, very low — especially when one of those users has already been determined to use sockpuppets to support his point of view. --Haemo 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why then there is a 5 month break in this IP? If this is used by a school and people usually edit wikipedia from there, then why is there a 5 month break in this IP adress. What happened there ? Watchdogb 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To further add to Haemo take a look here [33] where Lahir created the article and then the IP edits it. To make thinks more clear, lahiru also does the same edit as the IP did, namely adding the Inter wiki link. Lahiru adds the inter wiki link just like the IP does Watchdogb 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also take a look at this. Again the same IP makes an edit in between Lahiru's edits but not at the same time (days in difference). Taking a closer look at the IP edit it amazingly knows what Lahiru meant when he talked about American MOH. It's a clear cut case of sock puppet usage. Watchdogb 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys for doing the sock blocks. This leaves us with the rest of the Sri Lankan problem: two factions of editors who seem to be doing little else but fighting each other. Who's left? User:Wiki Raja, User:Iwazaki, User:Taprobanus, User:Snowolfd4, User:Watchdogb, anybody else? I don't doubt some or all of these may be good-faith and potentially productive contributors, but with all their fighting, their net effect on the project is negative. Should we consider topic bans? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The blocks of those couple sock accounts may have an effect on how the rest of editors would behave starting today. I suggest we would keep an eye and any further violation of any kind would result in a topic ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Insulting and funny comment made about my account. However, I will assume good faith. Anyways, since fut and Fay are inclined to make the editors cease edit war I sure hope you will find some time giving third opinions. Specially because RFC is another slow process that might not help until edit war is over via a locked article. Watchdogb 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I woke up today in Sunny Canada to find out that I have been accused of being a sock puppet. Well now that things have cooled down and unfortunately my good net friend who ever operated Lahiru_K account is banned, I want to make it clear that I have shown my good faith to cease edit warring by being one of original founders of Sri Lankan reconciliation project. Our intention was to find compromise using wiki rules instead of fighting it out. Alas like all attempts at reconciliation, this attempt too seems to have failed in this case. I hope more Sri Lanka centric editors would become members of it and discuss differences of opinion and resolve them without distracting the entire community. Just a few admins seems to have resolved this problem with bold action. Kudos to them. I just hope someone like this will resolve the real Sri Lankan civil war in Sri Lanka.:))) Thanks Taprobanus 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig

Whig is involved in a NPOV dispute at Homeopathy. Some of his actions led people to create an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whig_2 RfC on him. However (as seen on the talk page), instead of discussing the concerns brought up, he's made unsubstantiated claims that he is in the right, and now accuses people who are against him of deliberately ignoring the evidence. Help please. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like for an administrator to do? Mercury 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him? -Amarkov moo! 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also not object to a nice long block, possibly on community patience grounds if nothing else. It is apparent from the RfC that a) many editors with a variety of different views find him to be disruptive and b) he has no intention of changing his behavior at all or even of trying to constructively participate in the RfC. JoshuaZ 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to object but it would be better to let the RfC goes on. It was just started yesterday. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take that attitude if not for the fact that multiple editors including myself tried to explain to help him in regard to how to respond or benefit from the RfC and we were essentially ignored. See for example [34] [35] [36]. See also his comments about both his prior RfC and this one here where he explicitly says that he thinks that the editors who are involved in the first RfC are acting under "bad faith". JoshuaZ 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors having acted in similar ways have been found outside the project. It is just a matter of time and my point was just about following the process until he'd get tired or more persistent if he'd choose that way. He is free to not participate at the RfC but he is not free to keep being disruptive after its closure as he should abide by the outcome (opinions of the community). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit summary [37] just 3.5 hours ago is downright unimpressive. There's plenty of bad behavior all around in this topic area, but he is obviously creating a disruption. I think a topic ban and civility probation is an appropriate remedy. --B 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate. It would be good to get User:Mercury's reaction to this proposal, as he has been in the thick of it. Raymond Arritt 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a short block will have any effect here, Whig simply does not understand our policies and refuses to engage with other editors in a constructive manner. I and several other editors have tried to coax him into discussions in the RfC, his responses - "I have made my response" and "Am I your monkey?". I agree with B, topic ban and civility probation. Tim Vickers 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent) I've had the opportunity to review everything, and having seen, I'll support a topic ban, and civility parole. Mercury 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, per [38] he doesn't seem to be interested in taking part in this discussion. So the question now becomes how broad a topic ban is necessary. I would suggest pseudoscience and fringe science topics. JoshuaZ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What about the same for User:Sm565? Though it looks like civility isn't quite as much a concern in his case. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. A SPA which was blocked twice. Sm565 appears to be no less disruptive than Whig. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a block for Whig would give him time to cool down. This kind of comment (diff) is completely unacceptable. As a comment, please bear in mind that Sm565's first language is not English, at least some of his comments are genuine misunderstandings. Tim Vickers 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tim - Sm565, while being disruptive, does not display the bad faith that Whig does. Sm has an obnoxious habit of forum shopping and reiterating the same argument over, and over, and over again (ask for diffs, or read his edit history), but he hasn't been calling people names, for example. I'm not uninvolved - I certified the basis for Whig's RFC and have been engaged in a lengthy attempt to get him to enumerate the reasons for his objections to Homeopathy. I would support any sanction against Whig, especially a topic ban, but Sm I think we can deal with without such measures at this time. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cool down" blocks do nothing but cause problems - "cool down" should NEVER be used as a justification for a block because invariably it cools nothing down. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Either there is something to prevent or there isn't. In this case, I believe there is something to prevent, based on the conversation at User talk:Whig. --B 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My refusal to provide a detailed defense to an abusive and improper RfC is not grounds for any kind of ban. Whig 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you should have said at the RfC. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave a formal response to the RfC. Please read it if you like. Whig 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no proper grounds for an RfC. This is an entirely abusive process. Whig 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC on Whig did NOT start yesterday but started on October 10th, 4 days ago. This editor has shown a total disregard for the RFC and any consensus existing against him. This user has clearly said that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him and that he refuses to change any of his behavior per the RFC. Let me post some Diff's. Aside from the vast amount of evidence presented at the RFC, Here is his behavior since the RFC:

here is Whig's official response to the RFC

Here Whig says that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him at the RFC and refuses to change his editing habits

here Whig attempts to bait me into starting an arbitration by adding the POV tag again

here Whig calls the RFC "Garbage"

here Whig calls the RFC "abusive"

here Whig accuses me of "abusing" processes in my request for a comment concerning him

I think that some sort of action is needed in this case. I would not be opposed to a topical ban, or perhaps specific limitations placed on this users editing such as a 6 month 1 revert rule and civility watch, as well as a temporary 2 week ban from the Homeopathy article. I think that this is being VERY lenient towards this user. Although I wouldn't object to a total temporary ban of several weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the RfC as being as much on Wikidudeman as upon me. He has brought a meritless RfC, which is not backed by the links he provided. Whig 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people would, if you gave any reason to contradict our analysis that the RfC is backed by the provided links. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wanderer57's comment. And I do not think it appropriate for me to discuss the RfC further here. Whig 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban him. Why are we wasting this much time on this "editor?" OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. I had come into this thinking that it could be sorted out and not require major sanctions, but Whig's behavior in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the banning of someone who has been an editor in good standing for three years without trying something else first. --B 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --B 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three years? You neglect to mention that of the 42 months he has been on Wiki he has 0 edits for 14 of those months (33%), and less than 25 edits per months for 22 months (52%), and another 2 months of less than 50 edits (4.8%) meaning that he has made numerically significant edits in 5 of the 42 months, or 12% of the time. Really, "editor in good standing" is a misnomer -- he's popped up occassionally, and mostly on talk pages. Really, he's added very little value to WP. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation ... to be honest, I didn't notice or look for the gaps - I just hit oldest to see how far back the contributions went. I'm taking a look at the edit count. Something makes me rather paranoid looking at this. --B 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My patience is running thin with this editor, and I have a lot of patience. I have been attempting to resolve disputes with this editor for weeks now and all I get in return are threats, insults, or simply having the user ignore me. This editor has been extremely problematic since I first encountered him and I believe that administrative action is in order. I propose the following administrative action be taken:

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, where if the editor reverts content in an article more than once per week, he is blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is placed on civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 1 month, but can still comment on the talk page(1rr and civility apply there though).

I think that the following remedies could deal with most of the problems associated with this editor, and I think that they are very lenient considering this editors actions. Please add input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would make the article ban the same length as the other two remedies and add an exception for reverting simple vandalism, but otherwise support. Before anyone considers closing this, please make sure that multiple people with no experience with this editor look at it and agree to it - that is the only way a community action is legitimate. --B 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The 1rr rule should apply only to non-vandalism and non-self reverts. I also think that perhaps the article ban for Homeopathy could also extend to be 6 months, though I don't have a problem with 1 month or somewhere in between. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support this remedy. By way of disclosure, I had no experience with this editor (or with the Homeopathy article) before looking yesterday to check out concerns expressed by other admins. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Block (User:Whig)

I am posting to gauge consensus for an action I am considering. I have been asked on my talk, to block Whig (talk · contribs · logs). Based on the last 1,000 or so contributions (pattern), other editors concerns, and the RFC, I am able to conclude, this user is disruptive and unlikely to stop. I am considering a long term block. Thoughts? Mercury 12:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor has some good edits in other topics so I wouldn't object to a simple topic ban of all fringe and pseudoscience topics. If that isn't an option I think a ban based on exhausting community patience may be in order. JoshuaZ 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that even as Whig has refused to participate significantly in either this discussion or his RfC he has continued to POV push at Homeopathy. This editor is quickly looking unredeemable. JoshuaZ 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Block for a significant period of time, say one month. Then topic ban (I'd say anything in alternative quackery...errrr...medicine) for a year. Get him out of here, please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the user's numerous good edits, I too suggest a topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe science with the caveat that breaking those conditions will lead to a long block. ELIMINATORJR 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A ban/arbitrarily long block is the last resort, not the first resort to a good faith editor. If he will abide by civility probation and a topic ban, that's a more appropriate remedy. --B 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, if that was a reply to me, then that's what I just said. ELIMINATORJR 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We are in perfect agreement that any block on a good faith editor is inappropriate and not a goal of Wikipedia. Since Whig does not qualify as a good faith anything, just a shit-disturber in Homeopathy, then we should all be in agreement that a long block or ban is appropriate. It's good that we were able to reach consensus on this issue so quickly. I look forward to his month-long block on Whig. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe topics would be my preferred option. A block for civility problems and POV-pushing would be justified, but shouldn't be longer then a month. Tim Vickers 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with topic ban, and civility block per Tim Vickers. I havn't been directily involved, but have been exposed to the disruption a bit on homeopathy and some other fringe stuff from the fringe theories noticeboard. --Rocksanddirt 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Will someone who is an uninvolved admin please inform Whig that we seem to have a consensus for a topic ban on pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. We seem to have a consensus for that at least JoshuaZ 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Mercury 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The stipulations look sufficient. I also agree with the consensus. I hope that these limitations on Whig will prevent him from causing any further disruptions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible QST Sock

Previous case [39]. Just noticed this user and did a bit of digging and noticed the following about this user Coolspanner (talk · contribs). A lot of his contributions to talk pages and his edit summaries are fairly belligerent so I dug in to his history. He was created the same month as another QST sock Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) who "adopted" him prior to being found out. [40]. Interestingly Tellyaddict acts like coolspanner was asking for adoption, but I can't actually find anything in his edit history indicating a request. Regardless of whether or not there is a connection here the user is throwing around a lot of hostility for the few edits he's made. [41], [42], [43], etc.--Crossmr 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. Coolspanner doesn't appear to use TW or revert vandalism, and the username would have showed up in a checkuser when they checked QST or Rlest. Carbon Monoxide 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do all user accounts using an IP show up when a check is done on it? I'm unfamiliar with the full details on how that tool works.--Crossmr 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, or at least all accounts within some given window of time. Natalie 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AGNPH

Resolved

- until the block expires.

See AGNPH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user was only blocked for one day, however I don't think that is appropriate given his violations. This user violated the 3RR on AGNPH by re-adding a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED).

Two problems there: 1: Violating WP:3RR 2:Should be noted, that I've explained the following to the user on his talk page: As an ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Remedies), you can be blocked for re-adding the link to ED after you have been notified of this ruling. I thoroughly explained this to the user on his talk page, yet he still added the link. Is this block appropriate given the two serious problems? - Rjd0060 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked the blocking admin? I would probably have done an indef as a disruption-only account, but have no extreme feelings either way. --B 01:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I toyed with an indef block for disruption, but I really wanted to try a short block first to see if the creep user would see the error of his ways. If not, then I'll be happy to turn it into an indef block. I wasn't about to block indef for a first violation of 3RR, and an ArbCom block seemed to be opening a can of worms that, frankly, I'd prefer to keep closed. - Philippe | Talk 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining it to me. I was just thrown by the ruling that said "Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica ... may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users." I tried very hard to explain to this user, as evident from his talk page. To me, it seemed like a clear cut long term block would have happened there. - Rjd0060 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I suspect I'm going to be sorry I didn't indef block this one, but I tend to want to err toward discretion. Then, if he steps out of line, I'll swat him a little extra-hard - that way he can't come back and say "THEY INDEF BLOCKED ME RIGHT OFF! ZOMG!" - because we can prove that we gave a warning block. - Philippe | Talk 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I was quite confused about the short block, but I suppose I get it. - Rjd0060 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article looks like it was C&P'd from WikiFur's article on the same. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 02:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but my understanding is they're GFDL. - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I already noted that on the AfD. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry ... good riddance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Need for Oversight on Paul McCartney

I have to go to work and don't have any time to deal but if you check the history[44] of Paul McCartney you will see a couple of revisions that need deleting quickly. I tried deleting them myself but the server kept timing out. May be something we need oversight on. Can someone pick this up for me please? Also, don't follow the link in the second edit summary - it will crash your browser and its trying to install something. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, who needs to go to work anyway Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done? Daniel 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs oversight. I can't do anything about the move logs. I have already sent an e-mail to the oversight list but it may take a dev to sort out the page log. Any ideas? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, oversight can't be used on page logs, but this is very likely one of the rare instances in which a developer may be willing to purge an entry from logs. — madman bum and angel 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is something that could be repeated over and over. Probably something we need to learn to live with. Who ever looks at page move logs anyway? I don't think we should even bother with WP:OVERSIGHT/developers or it will become a full-time job. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That was precisely my thought. Joe 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rubbersoul20 - Persistent harassment/uncivility, OR, POV, {fact} removal

For three months, Rubbersoul20 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Latin American literature for adding unsourced/OR/POV/weasel, then when it was reluctantly accepted but tagged {fact} or {refimprove}, he just kept on deleting the tags. It's not content dispute since he just doesn't follow basic policy and guidelines.

His talk page shows he's blanked his talk page after a block for harassment and a vandalism warning, and has been moving AFD tags too, so that's a habit. Another user tried to discuss with him on his talk page and the article's talk page, but he just got told he was a penis with a piped link to the graphic picture.

• Sample of tags removal from August to today: [45][46](POV/weasel list he's untagged ever since)[47][48][49][50]

Self-involvement: I am actually a recent contributor to this article, and after today's new revert war I noticed with horror how this had been going on for months in the article history. Except for one resistant, the other contributors that could been seen in the history before August 2007 have all left the building... — Komusou ^talk @ 08:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I warned him about the user talk conduct (which he followed by blanking) but I'll leave the article edits for another day someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection for review

I've IAR'd semiprotecting Turkic peoples against the persistent attacks of an anonymous IP user who insists on introducing an image propagating the nationalist organisation Grey Wolves, against clear consensus of several other users. The IP never discusses, never gives reasons in edit summaries, just reverts blindly. His only talk contributions have been nationalist insults. I've protected even though I was previously involved in the reverting; therefore bringing it here for review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a tough one as this wasn't vandalism, it was a content dispute and by semi protecting the article, you have allowed autoconfirmed users to win the edit war. I would have preferred to see more discussion with the IP's in question as there's seems to be very little so far. Perhaps a report to WP:AN/3RR would have been better (I know it hasn't really broken 3RR, but it had over a number of days). I just don't like the idea of semi protecting to win an edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept your point in principle, but in this case it had become abundantly clear the anon was not a legitimate contributor. This was going on for over three weeks, and the only contribution of the anon to the talk page was this: [51], (besides [[52], ], just today), plus abusive summaries like these [53], [54] ('go f**k your mother'), [55] ('you idiot, you don't have the power to remove the Grey Wolves, give it up') Of course an AN3 report could have resulted in a block, but since he's a dynamic IP and almost certainly willing to dodge our rules, that wouldn't have stopped him and semiprotection would again have been the only solution. -- In the meantime, another admin has replaced my "involved" protection with his "uninvolved" one, I see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have just warned the IP for using innapropriate edit summaries thus reminding them to be civil and asking them to use the talk page before blocking if they don't listen. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There had in fact been ample warnings of that kind, to which the only response, as I now see, was this. I feel my only mistake here has been that I tried to engage this guy as a good-faith editor yesterday, entering into a dispute with him in the belief that this might be possible. If I'd been fully aware of the previous history, I'd have simply intervened as an uninvolved admin from the outset (because that's what I was until that moment), and I could have legitimately blocked/protected in whatever way necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh! and the warning (i'd say the requests) to use the talk page resulted in incivility. Well, then i totally support the semi-protection especially that the IP is dynamic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Over-zealous vandal-fighter

We have acquired an energetic new vandal-fighter in the form of User:TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice (formerly User:TheVandalPolice). However, their edit comments and comments to reverted editors are over-zealous in the extreme. Several other editors have asked them to moderate their comments, to no avail. I'm beginning to think that if they continue like this, they may become more part of the problem (particularly relating to WP:BITE) than part of the solution. -- Karada 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let the cop stay in the office for a while before getting out to the streets. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's a username violation personally, but I also agree his vandal fighting skills aren't really on. I've just warned him about it and if he continues as he has been, it is unfortunate that I may have to block him to stop this. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

His/her contribution is helpful, but the way (s)he is doing is like engaging the war. Per WP:INSULT, I think (s)he needs to cool down for a few hours until (s)he can manage to unlock the CAPS-LOCK button and reading through WP:VANDAL policies. — Indon (reply) — 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes and that's why i showed them how our Can't sleep, clown will eat me works. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the user's opposition to vandalism is admirable but their methods leave much to be desired. Most vandalism on Wikipedia is a juvenile prank and stops when another user drops by to say "Don't do that". Giving an angry and aggressive message (whether in all caps or not) is more likely to encourage a fighting response, and may therefore aggravate the vandalism and not control it. Sam Blacketer 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've advised him on a different method he could adopt when reverting vandalism, hopefully he will change his ways and maybe become a valued vandal fighter. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• All I've got to say is, when you think you've seen everything. I hope he calms down because I can't imagine having to stop someone for being too aggressive with vandals. That's a new one for sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable, we beat bodies go down and get our hands dirty while the top brass sits around twiddling their thumbs thinking up new reasons on why we should be nice to vandals.

With respect to WP:BITE, I try to ensure that any user I warn was clearly vandalising, example posting a chat log over an article, example saying that wind farms operated off “human gas”. These people are not newbies making a simple mistake, they are hardened vandals who want to undermine the integrity of wikipedia.

With respect to WP:Vandal I am well aware of what constitutes vandalism and if anyone can point out where I labelled an edit as being when it wasn’t then I will happily retract any criticism and make a personal apology to the editor.

With respect to WP:Insult, this is an essay filled with original research. The fact that a number of the users I have reverted and/or warned have not continued to vandalise just shows that taking a hard stance against those who wish to disrupt the project.

With respect to people making excusing for vandals in claiming I was “baiting” them, please read above and consider that if I was out to cause harm to the project there are easier ways to do it.

With respect to the templates they remove the personal force that accompanies the messages and often they fail to cut to the chase (saying a person was only testing when it is clear they knew they were vandalising).

With respect to other vandal fighters, I acknowledge that they have their ways of doing things but this is by no means a tried and tested method. The continuing influx of vandals just goes to show that a more authoritative stance is required.

With respect to people who don’t like my caps lock please see that I only use it against the scum vandals in order to make it clear we do not appreciate their edits.

With respect to people who don’t like my username, I make it quite clear (with capital letters) that I am the unofficial vandal police and that I have a disclaimer on my main user page.

I must say I am quite shocked to see some established editors supporting the plight of vandalism. We must not bow down to the beliefs that people vandalise wikipedia because they had a bad childhood or because they couldn’t afford the latest computer game, we must continue to take a hard stance against those who seek to add misinformation and remove valid facts and undermine the integrity of the project.

That said my shift is almost finished, I’ve been editing under IP addresses and two accounts. Hopefully the guys who patrol the next beat will continue to take a hard stance against vandalism without excessive interference from the upper brass.

the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I really think you need to calm down. You are not a police officer, no administrator is. Even if you were, the job of a police officer is to talk not shout. We don't work in police shifts, wikipedia isn't a beat, and there is no upper brass. Admins are vandal fighters are just volunteers who preen the more unwanted aspects of wikipedia and try to keep it readable and useful to everyone as a resource or information. You might want to adjust your attitude slightly, as you come across as very provocative, attacking and insulting to some people. Calling vandals "scum" isn't acceptable now is it? SGGH ^speak! 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do everything in my power to remain civil towards regular editors who wish to make genuine contributions to the encyclopedia. Vandals on the other hand are not deserving of the same respect, as they seek only to disrupt and add vulgar information in the hope of amusing their friends. As far as I’m concerned, and I think many editors will agree with me, editors who knowingly vandalise are scum, and I see no problem with calling it as it is. As for being “insulting” towards these vandals, keeping in mind that I will only call vandalism where it is true vandalism then quite frankly if they find the hard line stance insulting and go somewhere else then the best situation has come about. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please understand that appreciate your efforts against vandalism, and we're just trying to help you be more effective by denying attention to vandals and not biting the newbies. Please help us by modulating the tone of your remarks to other users, per WP:CIVIL, and you'll find that you will rapidly become a welcome member of the team. It would be a great shame if you got blocked for over-zealousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karada (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, but I believe taking a hard line stance against vandalism is better than worrying about the feelings of the perpetrators. You can be assured that I will only call vandalism where it actually exits, and in my mind WP:CIVIL does not apply in its fullest extent to those who wish to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia, if they run away because they feel insulted then all the better for us. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be right but i believe that most admins who approached you and gave you advices have more experience w/ vandalism than you have. So please listen to them as your efforts are positive and needed but not the way you do it. Would it be hard for you to turn off your CAPS, avoid insults and still be more effective w/ your tasks? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try another police analogy. If someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, is the officer not resolutely polite, calm, and professional, even in the face of abuse? The goal is de-escalation, not fuelling the fire. A degree of bland detachment almost always works better than rage. Acroterion _(talk) 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of the tens of thousands of things that annoy me about Wikipedia, vandalism probably tops the list. Warning a user and discussing possible blocks for his or her attempts to combat this problem are...well, let's just say it's typical of the Wikipedian mentality and leave it at that. But I will say I am glad that this user is trying to make the encyclopedia easier to edit for constructive users. Until Wikipedia changes its policies and restricts editing to only registered users, I think we should support anyone who tries to stop vandals (but that human gas wind farm edit was kind of funny :-D ). Jeffpw 12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We all support what he is doing but we don't support the way he does it. The outcome could be the same whether he uses CAPS, harsh edit summaries or not. He is a newbie and we are giving him advices but it seems that he is arguing too much about something which he can do better. WP:CIVIL applies also when fighting vandalism. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to add to the policeman analogies, as you are not a policeman, those whose edits you revert are not criminals, the admins and other editors here are not "top brass" and you are not a hardworking flatfoot fighting to do your job despite the efforts of PC deskbound jonnies who don't understand your effective yet unorthadox methods of policing.... Instead this is an online encyclopedia created and edited by volunteers...

You say "You can be assured that I will only call vandalism where it actually exits, and in my mind WP:CIVIL does not apply in its fullest extent to those who wish to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia, if they run away because they feel insulted then all the better for us." However, if you look on your talkpage you have already admitted one of the vandal "scum" you warn was nor actually a vandal. [56] Your incivility there was therefore completely unwarranted even by your own standards. I wouls suggest that you listen to the advice that has been offered to you. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did this editor just admit to sockpuppeting? See comment above, "I’ve been editing under IP addresses and two accounts." The name is a problem. It conveys (correctly in this case) a loose cannon, vigilante attitude. Putting myself in the shoes of a newbie user who needs to learn the ropes, I would resent and not heed anyone who calls themselves "vandal police" and presumes to school me on the rules of Wikipedia. The defiant tone adopted towards more experienced editors here troubles me. We ought to be reasonably mature and professional, and not go about things with a chip on the shoulder. This whole things casts us in a bad light.Wikidemo 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the IPs they use may possibly be User:58.164.7.68 this IP has very similar edit summaries (all caps, some starting with "BANG BANG". I may be wrong but it certainly looks possible. MorganaFiolett 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He's definetely the same. Check the sign "=" in both edit summaries [57], [58]. However, there's nothing wrong w/ that as the IP stopped editing once the account was created. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case, User:The_Anome has apparently had some dealings with them under a previous account name (see the comment the IP made on my talk page). MorganaFiolett 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

<-- This is not vandalism, and the edit summary of "BYE BYE VANDALISM BURN IN HELL" is in my opinion, unacceptable. This is also not vandalism, it is commentary, and POV, but it is not vandalism. Furthermore, you do not assume good faith on many of the edits you label "vandalism", even those that are most obviously first time editors probably doing test edits, such as this edit that is clearly not vandalism, and the anonymous editor made a total of two edits, that one and this one. And yet you responded to the first with shouting at the user in all caps, which is most decidedly biting the newcomers as well as not assuming good faith. I'm sorry but your methods are not productive, and go against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. No matter what you may think of an editor, it is not helpful to shout at other editors, and referencing violence in your edit summaries ("HEADSHOT TO VANDAL") is unacceptable. Your intent may be good, but I honestly think you need to tone it down, learn the policies and guidelines, assume good faith, and be much more tolerant of children and pranksters. Ariel♥Gold 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked indef by Eagle unless he accepts to change his username though the main concern was his incivil and harsh edit summaries. We'll see if he agrees to change his username and become more civil. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The main goal of vandal 'fighting' (that's a horrible name, always thought so) is not to actually remove vandalism *gasp* although that is an important part. It is, or was at least, to turn the vandals into productive contributors. This may be a legacy of the CVU's overtly militaristic first year. Some of our best examples of community outreach have been on this topic. WP:TIGERS came out of a welcome back of a chronic edit warrior, Phaedriel took to writing individual poems to a couple vandals, which both chastised in a gentle way and amused, to soften the blow. It worked, if i recall. The framing of the whole damn thing as a war, a fight, us against them is perhaps the root cause of the problem. -M^ask? 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka (talk · contribs)

PeaceNT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently correctly blocked Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for having a username violation, seen as it appears to be random strings of characters. Unfortunately now Rspeer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked the username in question yet with no valid reason to do so and did so without discussing it with PeaceNT (although he has since entered into disalogue with her) – the name is clearly an infringement of the policy, rather than wheel war over this, I am bringing this to the attention of a wider audience. As of late, Rspeer has been trying hard to change the username policy by dicussion, however this latest move is simply something he doesn't agree with in the policy so has chosen to use the unblock button when he shouldn't have done. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is a borderline username issue. I have some extended family members of Indian heritage whose real names would rival this user. The syllables are phonetic. It's possible this name has a meaning in some language. My $0.02. Ronnotel 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ronnotel, I have to disagree with this one, "Usernames that consist of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters" aren't allowed - I'm sure plenty of users will see this as confusingly random. It's very difficult to tell Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka from Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to the majority of non-Indian English readers I would agree and therefore cede the point. However, I would submit that an Indian user might not be so easily fooled. Ronnotel 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It just isn't practical for our purposes, here. One could always use an abbreviation and cite the full name on the user page. El_C 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite and Ryan Postlethwite aren't really that different either, and also quite long. Who is to say whether it's random or not? Apparently it's not just keyboard smattering, as at least one a was inserted between every two consonants. Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the fact that Ryan would disallow this username for being "confusing", but would allow usernames in other character sets. It's very difficult to tell Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka from Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka. - that's a reason to block Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka (names similar to exisiting user) but not Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka. The username block is probably valid though - couldn't the user have Yaptitas with a sig? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To me this looks like random letters, and this is the english wikipedia, that's why I believe it should be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize a finding I'm sure we can all endorse: We assume the letters are not random but were chosen in good faith as per the scenario I outlined above. However, as Ryan points out, they are likely to be confusing to the average user and therefore the name should be changed by consulting with the user and explaining the policy. Ronnotel 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The name gets zero g-hits. If this were a real name, wouldn't it likely get a g-hit somewhere? If the user were to ask to be unblocked and say that his name is Yaptitasbama Srakaaslata Kanka, we could assume good faith and unblock, but on the surface, this name looks like random letters and it ought to be kept blocked as a violation of the username policy. --B 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the "google test" on people's names. How do you know how to break it up? As an example from here, googling "danbealecocks -wikipedia" also gets you zero hits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And more generally, I will never understand why people even think unsuitable usernames should be blocked immediately. If this is policy, it's one of the most absurdly stupid policies we have and should be changed post-haste. Weigh it up. The risk of losing a positive contributor by scaring them away when they see that terrible template ("your username is rude or inflammatory") is infinitely more serious than the damage done if that contributor makes a few edits under their confusing username and are then told, politely: "hey, some people might find your name confusing, would you consider changing it?". I have not the slightest idea where people think the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, a very quick google search yields this: [59]. Congrats, we've probably just scared away somebody who might have contributed information from the perspective of a native American tribe from Nicaragua. Not as if that's a big loss, because as we all know, the Wiki is full of contributors with knowledge of obscure indigenous population groups from less developed countries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it doesn't hurt to approach this in good faith as a valid name; but ask the user to shorten it for the typing ease of other contributors nonetheless. If this is what happened here: good. If not: oh well, next time. El_C 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

However, this still apears to be random characters, and will do to most english speaking people in watchlists. It isn't broken up like a name, and would most likely cause problems whenever they edited. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

English is not a requirement for usernames. It can't be. With Meta pushing for unifying usernames across projects, we have to allow anything that would be a reasonable username in any language. This is the same reason we need to allow usernames with non-Latin characters. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) At the risk of sounding preachy, an example of why WP:AGF is so important. Ronnotel 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And {{uw-username}}. — madman bum and angel 15:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at the template. (Oops, sorry, I meant the other one, {{uw-ublock}}). It's terrible. Sad thing is, all through the years people have tried to make the message more friendly, and they were prevented from doing so. As long as we do have the silly policy of blocking apparently good-faith names on sight, we should at least distinguish between two templates: One more sternly worded for those names that are truly offensive or rude, and one much more friendly and welcoming for cases were a name was chosen in good faith but may be deemed inappropriate for some other reason, like here. But really, as I said, we should get rid of the blocking rule altogether. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, edit conflict; I was just about to ask. {{uw-username}} seems rather friendly to me, if boilerplate (as all templated messages are by nature). — madman bum and angel 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ideally those two templates would be {{UsernameBlocked}} and {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. If the username was soft-blocked, we should demonstrate that we're more than willing to assume good faith and that it's not the end of their editing career. — madman bum and angel 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For most people who get username blocked, it is the end of their editing career. With that startlingly unfriendly welcome (not just the template, but the "you have been blocked" message), very few put forth the effort to come back. "Nicer" block messages won't fix this, because a block is a block no matter how you word it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I think the purpose of this discussion is to come up with ways to lessen that effect. — madman bum and angel 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we spend our time arguing about things which don't deserve much fuss. The account got 0 contribs till this moment and i really doubt that this account was created in order to edit. I'll go further and assume that it was opened just for the sake of trolling as it seems that creating a longish username account w/ 0 edits is really trolling. Whatever is the case, leave it there and keep an eye. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It likely was not opened just for the sake of trolling, as Future Perfect at Sunrise demonstrated. We have to assume good faith here. — madman bum and angel 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Startling and completely unjustified assumption of bad faith. The account was blocked some three hours after it was created, and it was evidently created by somebody connected with Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Aslatakanka, who might well have made valuable contributions. (Incidentally, it would still qualify for a username block for being the name of an organisation, but the point is, we should do that after we welcome a user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I expected it (AGF) ;) Well, yes and you're totally right and it doesn't bother me to see the account unblocked as much as it bothers me to see it blocked w/o prior warning. The thing is that the account was created 2 days ago and since then there was no edit. Add to that the username controversy. My comment is based on today's situation and not on the 13th one. Anyway, PeaceNT would have waited instead of blocking the account w/ no edit whatsoever. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So if you don't start editing immediately, it's ok to block? Honestly, you're not making much sense here. That's certainly no reason to expect he created the account to troll. "it's long and he didn't use - apparent troll." I just don't get the logic. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So if you don't start editing immediately, it's ok to block? Oh no. Who said that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"The thing is that the account was created 2 days ago and since then there was no edit. Add to that the username controversy." I'm sorry if this was not meant as a justification for the block, but that's the way I interpreted it. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

and that explicitly means that it is acceptable for someone to think that the account was created in order to troll but in no way it is a green light to block since you don't know about the owner response. I have explicitly stated that PeaceNT would have waited instead of blocking the account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment - the username at the start of this thread can at least be read and typed by English language people, unlike the apparently perfectly acceptable Hebrew and Arabic usernames one sees. And if "long names" are forbidden, then the best way to achieve this is to have a limit on the length that can be created, instead of letting people create long names then going for them afterwards. DuncanHill 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hugh shakespeare

User has created List of Hahnian Organizations, which he called "organizations created by or associated with Kurt Hahn. He listed Freemasonry, the YMCA, Round Square. and Outward Bound, and added the link to his list to all of those articles. Hahn founded one of the groups (Outward Bound), had no connection to two of them (YMCA and Freemasonry), and may have philosophically had something to do with Round Square, which was founded by someone else. I changed the list to reflect that, and that change has stayed, but, the user has reverted all removals of his information such as here (where it said "Round Square is allegedly tied to Freemasonry", here (where a link to the page was added to Freemasonry), and here (where the same was done on YMCA). Moreover, "Hahnian organization" is a neologism coined by this user - the only Google hit on it is WP. I'd like an administrator to intervene with the user to inform him of proper behavior on WP, and maybe speedy the Hahnian list while he or she is at it. MSJapan 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this user is a sock of User:Italways, having made the same edits with User:Zpearson, who is a prven sock. SSP report here. I would therefore amend my earlier statement to ask for a block instread of less decisive action. MSJapan 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026

User Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) was 2-month-blocked 9/19 for sockpuppet LossIsNotMore in violation of ArbCom probation. About 9/28 his 1-year-old puppet BenB4 was blocked. Last night I testified that 1of3 was also a clear 1-year-old sockpuppet, which was used hot and heavy since 9/29. Being relatively new myself to WP policy, I'd be really encouraged to hear that this is ripe for indefinite ban. Thanks! I ask because it's really inconvenient to see a POV tag get added to the Ron Paul article every week or two over basically a single objectionable sentence (which sentence is usually immediately cut and does not appear the majority of the time the POV tag stands). This appears to me as serious article hijacking. Please also alert my talk page, thanks. John J. Bulten 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC) BTW, just in researching this, I happened to search on "WP:pov tag" in the main namespace and, would you believe, "Ron Paul" came up third. <rolling eyes> Just to illustrate the seriousness of this issue. John J. Bulten 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John, you need to provide some diffs in order for admins to verify this issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided [60] and [61], which I think supports the other conclusive evidence, but I have added [62] and [63] (same edit summary: "correct"). As Raymond notes below, James doesn't intend to conceal it much. John J. Bulten 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) John J. Bulten 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins have access to a tool that allows one to compare the edits of two authors, organized by articles edited in common. Using that tool to compare User:Nrcprm2026 and User:1of3 it's game, set, and match. Quite obvious. I'd prefer another admin did the block, since I've had past involvement with this user. Raymond Arritt 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone could also include user John J. Bulten in any checkuser it would greatly ease my mind. I have been a long-time editor on that page and am to the point where I cant tell one sockpuppet from another. Turtlescrubber 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Davidcannon admin abuse

I know how everybody hates it when people scream "admin abuse" but this is a very short, very solid case of exactly that from User:Davidcannon.

Summary: Davidcannon, who is an ex-member of a religious movement that has by some been characterized as a sect, reverts an "anonymous" user's (mine) constructive edits to that movement/sect's article, including several reliable sources added, the fact that the movement has been categorized as a "sect" and a few citations/neutrality tags. The admin then choses to block the user.

Evidence/Chronology:

• 1) I ("anonymously", IP) make a bunch of edits to the article on Plymouth Brethren. Here's a diff showing all my edits: ^[64]. It's important to point out that I provided edit summaries on 3 of 8 occasions: ^[65][66][67]
• 2) User:Davidcannon (admin) reverts my edits, calls it vandalism and says it doesn't match up with what he remembers of the brethren ^[68] (he has confessed here that he used to attend their meetings).
• 3) I revert back, angrily but not rudely. ^[69] I reply to a comment made by Cannon on the talk page, where I complain he labeled my edits "vandalism".^[70]
• 4) David reverts me^[71], blocks me (with an expiry time of 24 hours. Reason given: Deleting information without adequate explanation.) and posts on the talk page ^[72] where he quite mistakenly suggests I deleted "whole chunks of text without justification."

A clearcut case of abuse of admin powers, if you ask me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate a response from Davidcannon. On the surface, the block certainly appears suspect. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Concur, an admin should not implement a block on an editor with which he has recent edit warred. At minimum, I suggest that the block be reversed pending explanation from User:Davidcannon. Ronnotel 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it never really got a chance to become edit warring, he reverted me once, I reverted him once and then he blocked me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I don't think anyone should be unblocked until the blocking administrator is contacted, unless there's much more evidence of consensus. Let's not wheel war here. — madman bum and angel 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The block wasn't extended to account creations, and the user in question is obviously able to edit under this account. I would ask both parties to refrain from editing the page under dispute until this is resolved. —bbatsell

I agree, unblocking or not doesn't really matter. I also agree we should both keep off the article until this is resolved. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated not-anon's edits on the Plymouth Brethren page, and I would suggest he should consider himself completely unblocked by consensus of admins here and not be under any restrictions not to edit this or that. The block was very clearly unjustified, there can be no serious doubt about that, whether or not David has responded or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Compromised admin account?

Wait a minute. Look at Davidcannon's blocking of anons in that log.[73] There are some really draconian anon blocks there, in fact all his anon blocks since March are draconian. The previous one, 70.184.253.131 on September 24, is for one month for at most two bad edits,[74] (one of them is apparently in good faith). No warning was given, the user talkpage still hasn't even been created. That was a case for creating the talkpage and posting a mild, welcoming "test" template; not a case for blocking for a month out of a clear sky. One week seems otherwise to be David's standard block--including the one for 76.216.98.183, August 30, where I don't see any way of telling whether that IP, most likely a student at the school in question, was vandalising at all. They could just as well have been adding correct information, and again they weren't warned or contacted in any way. And look at it--they only edited for 7 minutes altogether, all the same school article. And so on. These blocks are so strange, to call it by no worse name, that I'm beginning to wonder if this is a compromised admin account. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

I doubt very much the account is compromised, but I agree there are a number of poor blocks there in the logs, might be a good idea to wait for an explanation before we jump on him, there may be a reason behind all of them. I see David hasn't been so active with the tools as of late - maybe he's turned a little more trigger happy than usual or he's forgotten about WP:BLOCK? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is - I think it's rather a case of an admin that's out of calibration with the community. I'm looking at his block log going back for the last couple of years and it appears to be ... well, draconian was used above, and that's a good description I think. I've asked him to comment here. - Philippe | Talk 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

83.233.154.50 (talk · contribs) unblocked. MaxSem 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur and I would have done it myself if you had not already done it. I think it's important, though, that we realize this was a good faith mistake on David's part and hardly abuse. --B 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that it was a "good faith mistake"? Could you please explain what part of suddenly blocking somebody who edits an article (relatively) close to your own person is a "good faith mistake"? Maybe all the other previous blocks, where he got away with it, were good faith too? I would say it's extremely bad faith and even if he does apologize, I think he should definitely not be allowed to remain an admin. Is this somehow not anonymous? 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (I'll use this account for the duration of this problem, but thanks for the unblock)

If it were a compromised account, they'd be trying to do as much damage as physically possible before the hammer dropped on them, if I remember the last time such a thing happened. HalfShadow 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the blocked user here. This was nothing more than a content dispute, the user used edit summaries after he was reverted the first time, and engaged with Davidcannon on the article's talk page. Blocking someone to gain an advantage in a content dispute (with a frivolous and untrue block reason, no less) is the very definition of abuse of blocking privileges. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a good faith mistake in that David Cannon thought (incorrectly) that the IP user was adding fact vandalism to the article. That's all I meant by it. --B 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fact vandalism"? I think that's pretty much NOT vandalism at all, see the "what vandalism is not" at WP:VANDAL. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you are correct. The question is what David Cannon believed - if he incorrectly believed your edits were vandalism, then it's a different situation than if he believed your edits to be legitimate, but blocked you anyway. --B 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see where the "good faith mistake" comes in. "I thought it was OK to throw around my authority when people disagree with me? Oh, it isn't? Well, my bad, I thought it was OK." This person shouldn't be an admin. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Even in a best-case scenario, the admin seems to have exercised some really bad judgment, if not outright abuse. And "fact vandalism" sounds like a euphemism for content dispute. -Chunky Rice 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I would really like to hear User:davidcannon's take on all this. On the surface, his actions violated the admin prime directive - don't abuse the tools. Blocking someone with whom you have edit warred is abuse of the tools unless there is a really compelling reason. Ronnotel 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Davidcannon's response

Now that I've slept on it, I think I did go too far. I admit to an interest in the topic, and have strong personal feelings about it, which clouded my judgement. I apologise for that, and will refrain in future from exercising powers in an article I consider myself involved with. Again, I have seen a lot of anonymous editors that are suspect, and when I see an anon making an edit that I believe is in error, I sometimes take that the wrong way. I believe I was wrong this time, and will be more careful from now on. David Cannon 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I still think there's a second issue here as well - I believe that your blocks may be out of calibration with the rest of the community, sometimes. In my opinion, you're issuing much lengthier blocks than what most of us might. I'd like to encourage you to stop and think about that as well. I applaud you for reconsidering this block in the instance above, and for being open minded about this. - Philippe | Talk 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wanna be irritating, but what are the odds he would not say he is reconsidering this block when the 10 or so admins that have voiced their concern on this topic ALL said he has been abusive/problematic, and his block has already been undone? To say "I was right" is not really an option. I know I'm violating WP:AGF here but I'm seriously disappointed in Davidcannon's response. I think the right thing for him to do would be to resign from his adminship immediately. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this response is disappointing. I would like to suggest that a better venue to continue this conversation is at WP:RfC/Use of admin tools. Any seconds? Ronnotel 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better there, far less chance of "ordinary" editors noticing it. DuncanHill 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

isthisanon: I understand that you are upset and quite rightly so. Davecannon has behaved badly and you are entitled to a sense of outrage but we aren't going to see him dysysoped over one block unless there is clear evidence of an ongoing problem and the admin continues to refuse to listen to advice. What I see is an apology and an acknowledgement of error. You should see this as a victory of sorts. I see many worse things done by admins who subsequently do neither. While I appreciate your feeling that something more can be done, that's not really the way we work round here and Davecannon needs to be given time to show that he has learned from his mistakes. Alternatively, consider it as giving him some more rope but there is no way on earth that arbcom will consider further action unless the behaviour is repeated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties? I'm not, and I don't see the evidence. Davecannon has acted extremely badly in connection with this block but has acknowledged his mistake and apologised. He has been told that his block lengths are out of kilter with the rest of us and has been asked to think about it. What exactly will we be looking for from the RFC? I'd said about the same things plus modification of their behaviour. RFC is premature at this stage, a stern talking to is not. Should Davecannon fail to mend his ways then by all means go for an RFC but there is nothing to be achieved by one right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening an RfC makes no judgment one way or the other. I simply feel that a separate page will provide a more effective venue than the extremely busy WP:AN/I to discuss the matter and reach a conclusion. Ronnotel 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spartaz here. So far, David Cannon has made one response and it was a positive one. Let's not go on a sysop hunt quite yet - and let's not go from no one complaining directly to "(he should) resign from his adminship immediately". Surely there's some middle ground. As far as his general use of admin tools (i.e., a trend of overly-long blocks), how about just discussing on his talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see things a little differently. I see a clear abuse of admin tools, a history of overly aggressive blocks, and, quite honestly, an 'apology' that sounds more like he's sorry he got caught - this time. Ronnotel 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

{ECx3}RFC is a very blunt weapon that will not achieve anything further then what we already have here. A community consensus that Davecannon fucked up and that he must behave better in future. Plus he has been asked to review his block lengths. Seriously, what else are you expecting to come out of the RFC process except hours and hours of wasted effort. An RFC is pointless anyway as there is only dispute with one party and it takes two affected editors to certify an RFC. Simply put, AN/I is the place to discuss this. We have discussed this and I think we have a consensus - see above. Now its down to Davecannon to behave better otherwise we will be at RFC and he will be dysysopped - but not now. We shouldn't be after vengeance we should be after improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read all your responses.

I have to admit that some of my recent blocks have been heavy-handed. I know I've done this several times, and it won't do any good to plead stress (though that is real), for that's a problem we all have. The bottom line is, I should think twice before I take action, and I promise to do so from now on. Now, for a word of explanation for this latest issue. The topic is one that I have strong feelings about, because I used to belong to that church. Even though I left it 20 years ago, I still have a lot of respect for it, and I still have friends there, and I don't like it when someone speaks about them in a way that seems unfair. Toning down positive information, or tagging it as "POV" etc., rubbed me up the wrong way. I wasn't very objective and allowed it to go to my head. In future, I will refrain from exercising administrative roles when it comes to articles that I have an emotional interest in. I mean that, and I think it should go some way towards allaying everybody's concerns. And by the way, if my responses seem too few and too crisp, please understand that I work very long hours and can only squeeze in a computer break whenever I can. Once again, I'm sorry. David Cannon 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Give the guy another chance. Llajwa 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for this response. Please recognize that using the admin tools in the heat of battle is exactly the kind of action that generates mis-trust for us among all non-admins. I appreciate you taking the time to write down your further reflections. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, by all means drop me a line and I'll be happy to provide a neutral pair eyes to the problem. Ronnotel 01:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer, Ronnotel. If I see similar issues with articles I have an interest in, I think I'll pass the matter on to you and go by what you say. And I'll take everybody's advice about the length of blocks, too. I won't use blocks in edit wars again either. I can see why a lot of you see my behaviour as arrogant, and if I'm honest with myself, I think I'd see it that way too if I was on the receiving end of it. David Cannon 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Spartaz and Wknight94 - it seems unnecessarily punitive to start an RFC after he apologized. On a note to Davidcannon: IPs are often dynamic/shared and may change owners frequently or be used by many people at the same time; that is why we don't usually issue long IP blocks right away. Only after multiple previous blocks for the same reason makes it is evident an IP is static do we give extended blocks. Also, warnings, like those at WP:UTM should usually be given before blocking. Mr.Z-man 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties?" - yes and well, dunno. There is definitely a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity, but I haven't dug through his talk archives to see if he's actually been warned.

Look at his block log! [75] it's so odd that one admin (Bishounen) suggested the account could have been compromised! The "draconian" behaviour is however NOT limited to the past few months - it's been Cannon's modus operandi since he was made an admin! I don't even think I'm exaggerating if I say that at least 90% of the MANY blocks he has handed out have been handled way improperly. There's also evidence he will block people doing the smallest of mistakes to articles he has an interest in (esp. Fiji). The only good thing you can say about his activities is that at least he stopped handing out indefinite blocks for 1-2 bad edits (he started giving them 1 month blocks instead). If this guy gets to stay admin despite the serious abusive pattern he has displayed, I definitely think Wikipedia loses out in the end. Why give him a chance to improve? This guy shouldn't have been made an admin in the first place, that was an obvious mistake. Now is the time to correct that mistake, rather than trying to make a swan out of a goose.// Is this somehow not anonymous? // 08:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if you say he won't lose his privileges over this he won't - but that only shows there's something severely rotten in the state of Wikipedia. It's an insult to every admin who keeps in line, and it's an insult to every person who fails an RFA. Also it's definitely the kind of things that makes people get disillusioned and leave Wikipedia.// Is this somehow not anonymous? // 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IP three month blocks requested

Resolved

I have been keeping an eye on the vandalism that goes on in my userspace, by listing the IP vandal along with the diff, date and time here (notice - some edits have been removed from page history). As I have been doing it since July, I have noticed several IP's recurring. Therefore, I am requesting a three month block for the following IP addresses:

• 86.20.59.0 - vandalised my userpages nine times.
• 86.20.60.100 - vandalised my userpages four times

This kind of vandalism we as users of Wikipedia should not have to put up with. I will be very greatful if these two IP's could be blocked - as ther vandalism attempts towards me (in one case 86.20.59.0 revealed my full name). Thanks, Davnel03 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for one week for vandalism; I was tempted to block for longer for harassment, but I was unsure whether that would be punitive. Any administrator may feel free to review. — madman bum and angel 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason a three-month block would be over the top, in my opinion, is that this is not a constant problem; the IP gets bored then comes back later, and they are shared IPs. A one month block for harassment may or may not be justified. — madman bum and angel 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• What's the point to this? Your user page has been indef semi protected so ip's can't edit it. problem solved. If you have any other userpages that need semiprotecting leave me a note on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oversight needed

Resolved

 – future oversight requests should go to WP:RFO

Hi. This article was just deleted (), as an attack page, however the attacks appear in the deletion log . Since it violates BLP policy, can someone oversight it please? Thanks.

Seraphim ^Whipp 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's to show recreators or editors who want to see others previous edits. So, AFAIK this doesn't violate any policy. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Log entries cannot be oversighted. This is a technical impossibility. --Deskana 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke. Just wanted to make sure :).

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno - that one's sufficiently defamatory that I would hope we could come up with a way to delete it. Could a developer help, perhaps? - Philippe | Talk 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This should serve as a nice reminder to not always accept the default comment for a deletion. Especially in the case of a WP:CSD#G10. Perhaps a new section should be created at WP:AN to further drive the point home. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there - Always keep an eye on what your going to be putting in the logs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I use User:^demon/CSD AutoReason. Nice time saver that creates standard auto-summaries for each CSD. - auburnpilot talk 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neet... another way to make CSD easier. Best thing since tabbed browsing! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a great find! Thanks. Rockpocket 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major problem. The article is capitalized incorrectly and the deletion log is not indexed by Google. The point about the reason for deletion field is well taken, however. As for expungement, in the past, developers have been asked to remove log entries and have been extremely reluctant to do so [76]. For the record.  :) — madman bum and angel 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be left until we get a complaint from subject. It's buried very deep... and like you said, not indexed by google. Also, it would be helpful if someone could comment out the name above? This page is indexed by some search engines. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure log entries can be oversighted. One oversighter did it for me (see the last deleted revision of this page) and another told me it's impossible. In any event, all future requests should be made privately, to the email address at WP:RFO. I will make one now.--chaser - t 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The software and schema changes for MW 1.12 are a bit held up. It will be supported, but is not now. For now, a sysadmin can of course, manually run a query on the DB. Voice-of-All 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Maplefan

Moved from AIV; previous reports here and here, checkuser request here.

Darano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.97.11.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are obvious sockpuppets of banned user Maplefan. Maplefan and sockpuppet Runescapehater were originally blocked after the first ANI report, for POV pushing on MMORPG articles MapleStory and RuneScape. A second wave of sockpuppets, including Gavegave30, were blocked after the checkuser request. Twice, while using Gavegave30, Maplefan forgot to log in, appearing as 68.97.11.185 [77][78]. Now, Darano has has appeared, doing the same thing as Maplefan (posting about player numbers on MapleStory [79], something Maplefan's socks have always done, and trying to insert unsourced OR-POV negative criticism into RuneScape [80][81]). He makes the same mistake as with the Gavegave30 account; he forgets to log in, so the exact same IP used by Gavegave shows up [82][83] (note "Tally Ho!" used by both). Can they be dealt with, please? See also Talk:MapleStory#Can I ask one question?, Talk:MapleStory#Let me make a point., and Talk:RuneScape#Not enough negative, too much positive. Cheers! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user for the third time

Resolved

- Philippe | Talk 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The anon has, for what is now the third time, started personal attacks to back up his editing. [[84]] is a whole section dedicated to my evils (Including how anti-semetic me and the other editors are). This anon user is clearly a single purpose account and this is now becoming rather irksome. Can't we send him to some deep dark hole where we don't have to deal with him? Narson 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User blocked... again. - Philippe | Talk 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Redlinkseeker

Resolved

This user just goes around deleting redlinks, [85]. Did not repsond to talk page. Is this blockable? Rlevse 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bot or semi-automated script. I have blocked since they did not respond on their talk page. The edits are unsupported by policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to check first. Rlevse 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page and I have given up waiting for bbatsell to reply back so I have just created this account. Ok, I am not a bot and it may be unsupported by policy but it is not against policy. Now this account is no longer needed. Redlinkseeker2 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Redlinkseeker2, because you're clearly using it to get around the block of your other account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid the autoblock on that one because it was just used to respond here (not for any edits similar to that which I blocked him for) and I don't think it was in bad faith, just a misunderstanding of policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, unlikely to be a bot, because of the time betwen actions and that deletions to articles take place over a series of edits rather than all at once, the targets also seem non-random. Is this resolved? Carlossuarez46 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, given the epic poem on the User talk: page. — madman bum and angel 04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – User unblocked, concerns about other (older) blocks may be added to the arbcom evidence page. Melsaran (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite administrator Alkivar being scrutinised by ArbCom, he has once again engaged in some fair poor behaviour. He blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs) for a week earlier today for uploading some images without sources despite no human warnings for it. Then, without giving the user chance to source them, he deleted them after only a couple of hours. Auburnpilot then unblocked G2bambino as this was an extremely poor block and Alkivar has chosen to wheel war and reblock. Firstly, I would like to gain a quick consensus to unblock G2bambino, and a block on Alkivar could well be in order. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan has fairly well summed up the situation, and I'd just like to add that I very much support unblocking G2bambino. The user was not given a chance to respond adequately to the image issues, and I have since explained the requirements to him/her. G2bambino understands the situation, and should be allowed to continue editing. Alkivar....I don't know. I've added a section to the ArbCom case. - auburnpilot talk 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that G2bambino should be unblocked; I'm not sure Alkivar should be blocked, but he should be instructed to leave blocks of G2bambino to other admins for the time being. Sam Blacketer 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock I fully endorse any motion to unblock G2Bambino. Wheel warring is unacceptable and inappropriate. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc.} 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unblock G2bambino. A 1 week block, without previously discussing it with the editor, appears punitive. I don't agree with a block on Alikivar, however incidents of his recklessness with sysop tools are mounting rapidly. I wonder if he could be persuaded to voluntarily refrain from using the tools until this can be sorted out. Rockpocket 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that Alkivar should be blocked. I do, strongly support an unblock on G2bambino. The user clearly understands what they did now, and, how to do it right in the future. A week was overkill, in my opinion. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to correct/prevent editing problems. Misuse of admin tools should be addressed through ArbCom, or in extreme cases, emergency desysopping by a steward. The Arbitration case against Alkivar will likely open this evening, at which point evidence of concerns can be added to the evidence page. Thatcher131 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in to support an unblock. This good faith user honestly did not know what was wrong with the images he was uploading. No one explained to him the problem, nor was he ever warned that he was about to be blocked — let alone for a week. Support unblocking. I don't support a block of Alkivar, since it's apparent he's not going to wheel war further over this. --Haemo 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked G2bambino. Sam Blacketer 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only wheel warring involved was auburnpilot unblocking a user who has repeatedly violated image policy... without waiting for a response from his post to my talk page. If anyone would take the time to read the user's talk page history, you'll see there are numerous warnings for lack of license, lack of source, and lack of fair use rationale. Just today the user uploaded approximately 15 images as PD w/o sources, which triggered bot warnings, and my initial block. If this were G2bambino's first image warning, there would not be a block involved. If this were a second warning, i'd have blocked for 24hrs... this user has several 3rr blocks on his record, numerous image warnings and as such I blocked for 1 week, this is not an unreasonable length, and grounded squarely within policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single warning stating that G2bambino was about to be blocked, if there was, he may have stopped, he now understands what he did was wrong (you see he didn't before) and will change how he uploads - see, no need for a block, just some explanation. AP's unblock was because G2bambino accepted what he did was wrong, and 1 week was completely excessive for a good faith user who didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Then you re-blocked!! That is a completely unrequired wheel war, and I'm stunned that someone in your current position would be so stupid to re-block. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Repeatedly violated image policy"? How far back are you going to find this? I think that if you bothered to take the time to research this properly, you'd find that any image I've uploaded in at least the past year now has sufficient tags and/or fair use rationales; other older images I may have done incorrectly before, and didn't later rectify, I simply let be deleted. Today was the first time I'd uploaded 100+ year old images, and thought my two provided copyright-expired tags on each of them was sufficient for such images. I'm obviously no expert with image management, but I'll tell you I'd have learned much more from an explanation than a week-long block. Plus, you're clutching at straws if you're going to bring up previous 3RR blocks; the majority of those (which isn't actually all that many) weren't themselves justified, nor do they have anything to do with this case. --G2bambino 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) After looking through recent blocks, I found that User:Chiangkaishektwnroc was blocked for 1 week for uploading copyrighted material without a human warning. There's a number of bot messages, but I don't see any human attempt to contact the user. I'm not an admin, but I thought this might deserve a look too. The user doesn't have a lot of contribs, so it's harder to tell if it's a genuine good faith editor. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are a list of users I have found in Alkivar's log that have been blocked with no user warnings, only bot copyright notices:

• Chiangkaishektwnroc (talk · contribs)
• Mikeyxbikey (talk · contribs)
• Cranny07 (talk · contribs)
• Mino Algerie (talk · contribs)
• Ilgb06 (talk · contribs) –– Lid^(Talk) 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason those accounts were not responding to the bot messages? Is it merely that bot messages don't provoke a response? Was there something wrong with the "message bar"? Are people more likely to respond to human messages? Anyone want to try and get some answers, assuming the humans behind those accounts haven't moved on by now? Carcharoth 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He has an open arbcom case accepting evidence. If you want something to be done, then take it there. —Cryptic 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the issue of what to do with these blocked accounts maybe should be dealt with sooner. My view is that it is better to explain things to people, even if they don't understand the image policy straight away, rather than lose new contributors. Is there any reason AN/ANI can't review Alkivar's actions while the Arbcom case is in progress? Carcharoth 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MDtoBe

Resolved

 – WP:SPA indefblocked

User:MDtoBe is an single purpose account who has engaged in repeated blanking vandalism of Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine despite warnings from multiple editors and a final warning. Was referred here from WP:AIV, not sure why, seems pretty clear cut to me. For those unfamiliar, WP:SPA's are banned from making disruptive edits on this article based on this ArbCom decision, and may be indefblocked for disruption. Leuko 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Per User talk:MDToBe, user explicitly rejects warnings about his behavior or attempts to explain why what he's doing isn't appropriate. DMacks 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I archived material. I never engaged in any blanking vandalism. Leuko is using threats of bans and being an SPA against anyone that edits this page and doesn't agree with the POV that he is attempting to push on this talk page and on the main page for this article. If anything Leuko's abuse of warnings and threats of bans should be investigated, he has a very long history of doing this to just about any editor that edits this page except for him. MDToBe 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have every right to blank my user talk page when inappropriate content is left, including inaropraite warnings. MDToBe 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree that you are an SPA or not and whether Leuko is correct in his behavior or not isn't relevant here. Based on your behavior, you seem to some as an SPA and SPA is an active area of discussion on the talk page. This even landed you (rightly or wrongly) as a topic of discussion there. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that the SPA discussion is active, and therefore should not be archived, especially by someone who is the topic of that discussion. DMacks 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MDtoBe indef blocked as an obvious harassment-only account. Review welcomed. To the other editors who appeared to be on the verge of edit warring on MDtoBe's talk page over blanked warnings, please remember that blanking warnings isn't a crime (they're not the Mark of Cain or designed for punishment) and blanking is a sign that they've been read. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Obviously an article to keep an eye on. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Redvers for the speedy resolution. Just for my own education though, I am still confused on the consensus on editors blanking warnings on their talk page, especially when reports at WP:AN/I or WP:AIV exist... What is the template {{uw-tpv3}} etc used for then? It states that removing legitimate talk page comments (and I assume warnings) is a blockable as vandalism. Leuko 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's for article talk pages. Warnings are meant to be read. If they're deleted by the target, they've been read. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Just makes it harder to track down chronic vandals if you keep having to search through the page history... Leuko

That's what the block log is for. -- John Reaves 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And now we have WP:CAIN, so we can beat people over the head with a new line in WP:CAPITALISEDGIBBERISH whenever this question comes up :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summaries despite warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ugh

Let me first say, I do not wish this to be a continuation of the above dispute, and if either party does so, their comments will be removed on sight.

Now, Kscottbailey rather than dropping the dispute, has completely (in my opinion) overstepped the bounds of civility, with this edit calling HiEv a pettifiogger. Regardless of whether the term is appropriate or not (and please don't argue that here), it is a certainly inflammatory edit so I removed that particular bit. He then re-added it, so I have reverted and protected. This dispute was pointless enough in the first place, so fuelling the flames with that sort of behaviour is more than a bit reproachable. Viridae^Talk 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. You have protected my OWN userpage, when I clearly said "unnamed" and made no attempt to identify said pettifogger. The only people who would have known who it was would have been that rare user who put my userpage on their watchlist after also being involved in the above pettifoggery. That would be YOU. I made absolutely NO attempt to identify HIEV as the pettifogger, but was rather identifying why I had received the Barnstar. I know it was lonely defending the above AnI, as few if any agreed with HIEV, but that's no reason to police my userpage for perceived slights to "unnamed" pettifoggers. This is the definition of WP:LAME.K. Scott Bailey 01:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IN the light of his protected user page. He added it to his userpage instead. Undoubtedly pushing the issue. He has been warned that if he continues to add personal attacks he will be blocked. Viridae^Talk 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have duly noted how frightened I am of your "final warning" as to violating your own misperceptions of what construes a "personal attack." Are you TRYING to force me into the truly Socratic action of drinking the poison that causes my Wikipedian death? If so, I will do so. I'm very weary of dealing with all this pettifoggery, first begun by HIEV, and now continued in by you. I may well add it in, and then summarily retire from Wikipedia. If you were trying to chase off a good editor, you have very nearly done so. Good show, admin. K. Scott Bailey 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to turn yourself into a martyr is a fairly pointless exercise. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one doing it with your pointless policing of userpages, enforcing your views of what constitutes a "personal attack." I've made it clear that this pettifoggery has been an unwelcome distraction. I'm sick of it. If this is what WP has become, so be it. I won't be a part of it. Not martyrdom, just getting fed up with petty pedantic pettifoggery (couldn't resist) that distracts from what I thought was the mission of the project.K. Scott Bailey 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott, I really wish that you would take a deep breath and consider the thought that your user page edit might not have been the best idea. Obviously, the person you were calling a pettifogger was going to see it, since they had recently edited your talk page. Throwing such a label out there this soon after a heated discussion seemed needlessly provocative.

Seeing as the original dispute was settled predominantly in your favor, and no one wants to see you leave the project, would you please be gracious, let it go, and agree to not make such an edit again? And Viridae, would you please unprotect their user page? Let's not let our emotions get the better of us; it's time to move on. -- Satori Son 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for your tone. Second, here's what I will do: when the page is unprotected, I will revert the change. After said reversion, I will remove all explanation of the Barnstar, until I can think of a way to explain it that sensitive userpage monitors will not take as a "personal attack." Thus, everybody is happy. Viridae gets the perceived "personal attack" removed, and I don't have to deal with him/her ever again, and can get back to editing the project. (And he will extract no "promises" from me, though I will give my word to you, Satori.K. Scott Bailey 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to him on multiple occasions I am quite happy to unprotect if I get a promise that he won't re-add the inflammatory material. Viridae^Talk 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But as a gesture of good faith, would you please preemptively unprotect it? Enough admins are watching that nothing is going to get out of control. -- Satori Son 03:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was considering it, mainly because he hasn't thus far re-added it to his talk page and he knows the consequences should he do so. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you frightened me deeply with your threats. I don't know if I'll ever recover. Can you not understand just how much time you are wasting with this?K. Scott Bailey 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott, please stop. It's clear that some folks here are intent on pushing you to escalate to the point of blocks, RfC's or other consequences. Be bigger, walk away. Just let it go. Everyone here saw a lot of folks for who they are in this,and some of the readers of this thread aren't likely to soon forget it. ThuranX 03:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX I am not pushing him to escalate to the point of blocking. What he added to his userpage (twice) and then his talk page (once) was needlessly inflamatory considering the above thread, and a personal attack to boot. I would rather not block him, but if he continues to push the issue then thats where it will end up. Remember I closed the above thread because it was going nowhere. starting to call other people names on your userpage is just reigniting the situation. He has the choice to sit up and play right... I hope he will take that option. Viridae^Talk 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I just point out that this is a VERY simple issue that has spiraled maddeningly out of control? - Philippe | Talk 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The original thread shouldn't have been here let alone get to this point. Viridae^Talk 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some irony in the fact that YOU started this thread based on your perception of what I wrote in my Barnstar description.K. Scott Bailey 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the one I closed, above it. Viridae^Talk 03:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And THIS THREAD is a de facto continuation of the above, which you said "should have never been started." Hence, the irony.K. Scott Bailey 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where exactly DO we argue whether what HIEV did above was, in fact, pettifoggery? If you could advise on the appropriate forum for it (as you have barred us from discussing it in this thread), that would be helpful.K. Scott Bailey 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not. I'm truly sorry this dispute got to this point, but no point in continuing. I'm going to bed! :) -- Satori Son 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• So, everyone is happy now? The comment has been removed, pages have been unprotected, and everyone is sorry about over-reacting? Good! Let's end this now. --Haemo 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al Gore's Nobel Prize

Resolved

There's plenty of controversy surrounding Gore's Nobel Prize. I've seen it in plenty of news articles. But, for some reason, Wikipedians seem to only be able to add opinion blogs from the web about it, or add them in addition to news sources to get some sort of left/right balance. A blog is a blog, isn't a reliable, credible news source for the sake of a BLP. Can someone deal with this at Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies? I simply don't have the time. KP Botany 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an administrative issue. Try leaving comments on the relative talk pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Admins can't fix content disputes. Please continue talking things out on the talk page, or take steps towards mediation (such as a WP:RfC or WP:30). If there are actual BLP concerns, that noticeboard can be found at WP:BLP/N. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And Al Jazeera is definitely a reliable source. Please don't forum shop because you don't like the material. Kyaa the Catlord 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, KP Botany is not shopping for a different forum, but rather has concerns that policy is being violated, perhaps inadvertently, by using blogs as sources. S/he is supported by WP:RS in this. I disagree with your opinion about Al Jazeera, but had you or anyone used that as a source, I wouldnt revert it, A blog on Al Jazeera would be another story, as would a blog on the New York Times (my favorite paper). Jeffpw 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then WP:RSN may be a better place for their concern. Caknuck 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, KP Botany is ignoring the fact that the blogs aren't the only sources being cited in this case and is reverting away material backed by sources that do meet WP:RS, including Al Jazeera. I've reverted KP based on that criteria. Kyaa the Catlord 00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh the wondrous harmony. People, no this is not an administrative issue, but some administrators happen to be quality editors and might be able to help generate a consensus. You don't have to freak out at KP Botany. You could, ya know, also assume good faith?  :) Might make ANI a bit less dramatic and contentious  ;-) --Iamunknown 02:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading my previous comment, I see that it is very unclear. I meant to state my opinion that this is not an ordinary content dispute (which I now realize I didn't even mention...) and is, in fact, relevant to this noticeboard. I'll try to be clearer in the future. Apologies, Iamunknown 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Al Gore controversies in RC patrol recently. Maybe the Prize discussions should be suggested to take it over there, where a controversy is within the proper context. (SEWilco 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh, I'm freaking out! I'm freaking out! I'm freaking out! Oh my God! Help me, I'm freaking out. Oops, once more trying to guess my mood rather than dealing with the issue leads to failure--content, not editor please. I don't have issues with the news sources, and I'm not ignoring them. What I am doing is reverting all simply for lack of time. I had already explained the blogs can't go in the article when they were reinserted along with various news sources--this could have been handled by only putting in the news sources, not the blogs. Readers can decide for themselves which mainstream news source to go by, because we have articles on them, they're known and searchable and they're not blogs. However, someone did step up to bat, another editor who has more time, and is taking care of the issue, doing what should be done, discussing it on the talk page with other editors. I'm not reporting a BLP violation or freaking out (good God, rereading my post makes it absolutely clear that I am ballistically over the top shooting the moon freaking fucking out) just putting a notice the quickest place to get some other editor to deal with it on a regular basis to resolve the editing issue. This has been accomplished. Thanks for the help, everyone.

And, BLP violations are indeed admin issues. What a shame that some admins don't know this. KP Botany 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you alluding to Iamunknown's statement You don't have to freak out at KP Botany.? -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OOOPS!!!!! I apologize, as obviously I misread it. Too much to do, and no time. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KP Botany 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

65.54.154.154

65.54.154.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made two vandal edits [86] (they're both identical) to the 2003 page, I reverted them both, adding a warning level 3 tag to the talk page. I did a whois to see if it was a shared one.

It resolves to Microsoft, any idea on actions if the vandalism continues? Kwsn(Ni!) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit, I'm reporting the IP to ANI for a temp block, it's getting out of hand. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I gave them a final warning for more vandalism. If it continues, block as usual and notify the Communications committee. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been uh... 6 vandal edits, and I'm not an admin, so I lack the block power. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours and just about to notify the committee. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist Fixin'.

I just spent several hours straightening out MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist; the requests for Whitelisting certain sites for inclusion on Wikipedia. I went to add a request for whitelisting an official announcement from Dark Horse Comics, that they happened to make on MySpace, and was really messed up by how confused the page was. I didn't, however, have time to fix it then. It had gotten to be a real mess; because of a couple of incorrectly entered sites, it had become *really* unclear where you were supposed to edit things, and people were throwing requests and commentia in willy nilly. It hasn't been archived or anything in half a year.

I have; removed declined requests to their own section; removed expired and withdrawn requests to their own section; extracted all the requests that had been placed in odd places to the proper section; put the requests in date-numbered order; done the same with the discussion section; corrected all the headers so that everything should be tidily in its own place. I have fixed many of them where the header was just 'add this site!' and not, properly, the site requested to be added.

However, I am not an admin; there are 25 whitelist requests that need to be addressed. I believe I have sorted them out so that one studious admin could fix it in 90m or so, but as backlogs go, this is a little mild, and could be cleared out by 2-3 admins with very little pressure work in a day or two.

Also, if anyone is interested in building a bot that would do the archiving this page needs, it seems to me that it might be a fairly simple starter bot. Otherwise, I've just added a note to my calendar for the 1st of the month, and will take hand-archiving this page (and reminding y'all that it exists when the backlog grows!) on. --Thespian 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivilry by User:Tarc

Resolved

Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Four times now, on two articles Tarc has engaged in editing disputes, and has refered to my edits as "vandalism" in his editing summaries without explaining his concerns. [87][88] [89][90] He has also been warned about this three times, and has been asked to stop. Once during the warnings, he said "I really don't care what you think. Do not inject yourself into matters that do not concern you (i.e. your pseudo "warning") and there's not need to take that Talk:AoIA thread here. Stop harassing" [91] He has also said the following when asked for an apology for his incivil comments: "And I have said that you will be receiving no such apology, as none is warranted or deserved. So now that your question/query has been answered, you can now cease this line of communication. Thank you."[92] Yahel Guhan 01:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:Tarc warned. Whether his recruiting efforts for the Waffen SS was anti-semitism or anti-Zionism seems to be a matter of debate among the supporters of Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni, Tarc's calling the opposing side vandalism. Both editors should strive to maintain a neutral POV in that article. Carlossuarez46 02:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Qestions about range IP blocking

Resolved

 – Article sprotected. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was directed to this page from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Someone editing the Glace Bay, Nova Scotia page used to use multiple sign ins, get one banned and move on to another. Now they seem to realise that blackberry IPs are dynmaicly assigned so if they get blocked, they sign out and sign back in with a new ip. I think that the only way we can control this is with an anonblock on the range of ips 216.9.250.xx. From my search, RIM, the black berry company, owns those ips. The Anonblock will require people to sign in to use WIkipedia and if they start vandalising, then we can ban them. They may create more and more accounts but at least this way we are making it more trouble for them then just signing off and signing back on their blackberry. Quick list of Ips from just the Glace Bay article, not to mention the others that are being vandalised by Blackberry users. The warnings and Blocks are for mostly other articles as well.

List of IPs with warnings and blocks: 216.9.250.108 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.102 -> Multiple vandalism warnings and blocks 216.9.250.63 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.101 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.61 -> Multiple vandalism warnings and blocks 216.9.250.103 -> Multiple vandalism warnings

Ips with no warning but all reverted to known vandalism: 216.9.250.37 216.9.250.36 216.9.250.35 216.9.250.99 216.9.250.110

I do not know if I can provide more information without a lot more research but this should be enough to show there is a problem here with blackberries and we need to curb it.-Kirkoconnell 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a couple weeks. That avoids the collateral damage involved with range blocks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing articles that aren't stubs

User:76.15.39.47 has put the Freemasonry stub template on what looks like over 100 articles, most of which are not stubs (such as Freemasonry and History of Freemasonry. Is there an admin tool to mass-revert, or do they all have to be undone by hand? MSJapan 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Seamus McCaffrey

Resolved

 – Indefblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone using account User:Yomama69666 is repeatedly vandalizing the article for Seamus McCaffrey. The subject of the article is a candidate in an election next month (even though the article is a stub and doesn't mention this), so it's a sensitive time. Spikebrennan 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Account indefblocked as blatant vandalism-only account. Please try WP:AIV for a quicker response. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article to watch

This edit attracted some attention on a fairly widely read liberal blog (which now has a link to the specific version from the history). It might be good for a few folks to watch the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article since there appeared to be repeated attempts to put back the claim in question. JoshuaZ 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to delete the goat.  :) This one really does bear watching. -Jmh123 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Either the block didn't take, or someone had a spare old registration lying around. The vandalism continues as fast as it can be deleted. -Jmh123 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sprotect took, but it appears to be an aged account. I blocked it. Let's see if that works - if not, I will (reluctantly) consider fully protecting for a day or so. - Philippe | Talk 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's semi-protected now, any further activity will probably help identify sleeper vandal accounts (sort of a goathoneypot). I'd suggest we leave it as it is, but continued watching seems prudent. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to do some deleting from the Talk page, but I think it was inadvertent--an editor being funny--but he kept undoing deletions of his comment. Best to keep at eye on this as well. -Jmh123 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. If there are aged accounts out there willing to get perm-blocked over this I think it's probably a reasonable idea to let them do whatever they'd like, fix the damage, and permablock the goat-blthem. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's spilled over into Stephen Kaus now as well. Yet another page to watch. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is coming from the comments link of the relevant article at http://tbogg.blogspot.com/ . It's probably worth watching this as a source of future havoc. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone with oversight powers who can clean up the history on this page and the talk page, including the edit comments on both pages which include the same deleted references? There are references in the deleted comments and text to an iffy site that hijacks computers as well. -Jmh123 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin step in?

Twice tonight, that is, two different disputes, two articles, I've come into conflict with User:Rglong. this edit, however, is the biggest problem. Although I have repeatedly reminded him of policy, I didn't threaten him with admin action, although he did offer to have me banned [93]. I tried to explain to him that he was inserting Original Research into Ra's al Ghul here [94], but he deleted the section [95] before the problem was thoroughly resolved. I did try to explain that blanking after is archiving, blanking during discussion is uncivil, as it actively disrupts attempts to work out a problem[96]. He finally settled on something almost identical to what was there before he started, so I put it back to that earlier, factually identical state, and moved on to other items on my watchlist... Where I saw him on X-Men: The Last Stand, where he's trying to insert a WP:SYNTH Violation, see this:[97]. I've neither called him liar nor vandal, I'm trying to work him through this SYNTH problem, but I'm not going to get this abuse, so I'm stepping aside. please sort this out. Multiple accusations against me, threats to 'ban' me, instead of go for a block? He seems distinctly unwilling to work this out. Specific diffs: Personal attacks, accusing me of calling him a liar and vandal I did neither, wllfully blind and then attacking on a wider scale, Full of shit, retards, and rampant INcivility. There's three concise diffs, and see above for multiple civility warnings.

The editor continues to persist in his comments [98] and then this, in which all editors opposing his edits have a 'scary mentality' about things [99]. ThuranX 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking blocked

I've given Everyking (talk · contribs) a week-long block for his persistent restoration of comments made by Amorrow sockpuppets. He's asked me to bring the matter here for discussion.

I am open to anyone reducing the length of the block if/when Everyking agrees to cooperate in this matter. I'd ask that anyone thinking of unblocking him to be quite sure he's going to do so, however. Kirill 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at his contributions ... is this about the edits to Everyking's talk page? If so, it's user space - who cares? The policy says that it's up to the page owner whether he/she wants to revert. --B 05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a somewhat unusual situation; you really need to know a bit of the background of why this particular user was banned. To put it simply, Amorrow is absolutely not welcome to participate in the project in any manner, even on the level of innocuous talk page comments. (And these were not innocuous, in any case.) Kirill 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does Everyking want to restore the comments? I can't imagine a good reason, but I have a poor imagination. --B 05:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lar#Amorrow has some useful background on this particular incident, I think. Kirill 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha ... Lar won't give Everyking access to deleted Amorrow articles, so Everyking responds by leaving an Amorrow edit on his talk page. That sounds rather pointy. --B 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If a banned editor fixes a minor content error and the edit is later rolled back, then editors who agree with the correction are free to make the correction again. But talk page comments by banned editors should not be restored. Doing so is the equivalent of editing on behalf of the banned editor, which is a violation of the banning policy. WP:BAN The situation is more egregious because the banned editor in question is much worse than most. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I've googled around to find out who the guy is - forget my previous comments - I concur with Kirill's block. --B 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely feel that anyone aiding and abetting Amorrow knowingly and repeatedly should be blocked for a lengthy time period. Under no circumstances is Amorrow welcome back here and anyone knowingly assisting him needs to be kept on a very tight leash as well. The potential real life harm this guy has posed to various persons on this project are not to be taken lightly.--MONGO 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, Everyking wishes to make the following points:

• He pledges to respect consensus, both regarding his block and regarding the comments.
• He further pledges not to restore the comments until a consensus develops.
• He maintains that he was appropriately following the policy regarding the edits of banned users.

Please see User talk:Everyking#Blocked for more details. Kirill 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The current policy needs to be clarified: reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner is being taken as either a) editors have discretion about whether to keep comments from banned users [100] or b) user talk page owners are responsible for reverting them, but should not restore them [101]. There is some value in having whatever his comment is out in the open, but the disruptive effect probably outweighs transparency, especially in this case.--chaser - t 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For right now, I just suggest that Everyking just not revert the comments until we perform Chaser's suggestion. Kirill, I am good for an unblock now, but he should agree to your terms before you do anything. I would have done it myself, but several personal factors will prevent me from being effective in this manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the situation, it appears to me that Everyking was in fact disruptively making a silly POINT, apparently due to his skepticism in the opaqueness of the checkuser process; though it doesn't seem that he was actually collaborating with Amorrow. Given the horrible things Amorrow has been responsible for in the past (and present =/), this was still an extremely poor move on his part, and I think the block was justified. Now that Everyking has pledged to respect the community's consensus, though, it would probably be best to reduce his block to the time he has served, and we can all work on better clarifying the relevant policies and make sure this doesn't happen again. --krimpet⟲ 06:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking appears to have been blocked for a WP:POINTy re-addition of comments which had an unclear policy background. The policy backing him re-adding it is not clear, but nor is the bit of the policy which Kirill used to block him. Given this policy ambiguity (regardless of any statements by Kirill about his interpretation being right), and given that Everyking apparently received no warning beyond these mysterious "subtle hints" Kirill talks about in the block message, this block is not appropriate. - Mark 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've argued this issue from Everyking's viewpoint before (also involving a comment by an Amorrow sock, as it happens), but in this case I feel I must side with Kirill: the comment in question was clearly inapproriate, both per WP:BAN and WP:NPA, and it should not be restored. I might not have blocked Everyking for it myself, although, in retrospect, the block seems to have been the right decision, insofar as it stopped the revert war and led to this discussion. I agree that the wording of WP:BAN needs to be clarified; I'll post my suggestions for that on its talk page. In any case, as Everyking has agreed not to restore the comment until and unless consensus for it develops here, I've unblocked him subject to that condition. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) While Kirill only mentioned the restoration of the talk page comments by Everyking, that hasn't been Everyking's only effort on behalf of Amorrow's edits. He has been pressing Lar for a week to undelete an article that Amorrow wrote as well.[102] I don't think that Everyking takes seriously the concept that banned editors are not allowed to participate in Wikipedia in any manner, or that Amorrow is an especially unwelcome person here. I'm not sure why he is so fond of Amorrow's editing, but it is not appropriate for him to be restoring that person's edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the unblocking...completely disagree. AMorrow is a special case in a lot of ways, and none of his edits should stand under any circumstances and this should apply to all pages, even userpages. Any efforts to aide AMorrow should result in an extended block.--MONGO 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that I'm being portrayed as being somehow soft on Amorrow. I find his actions, which, as I understand them, extend to off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians, to be absolutely reprehensible. I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not (people seem to be taking that for granted), but for the sake of this discussion I'll assume that it is. The comment on my talk page was just pointing out some policy issues and offering advice. I found nothing objectionable about it, I want people to feel free to leave me comments, and I don't believe in removing a comment from someone simply because they are banned, although I may support the ban itself (as in this case) or removal of the comments if there is something specifically objectionable about them. I recognize that other people are going to pursue the absolute removal of anything any alleged Amorrow sock has written, but I like to think my talk page is like my own little garden, a peaceful little place where comments and thoughts are valued regardless of their source, as long as they are not particularly offensive to me. Policy supports me on this; it specifically provides for users to exercise discretion over posts of banned users to their talk pages. If Amorrow is a special case, fine, let's have a decision on that—perhaps there is one developing here. Or we could even change the policy, if there's consensus for that. I am, however, upset that I was blocked for doing something that policy, as it stands now, specifically allows me to do. If I had felt anyone was so extreme on this issue that they would block me for a week over it, I would never have tried to stand my ground about it, although I may personally believe I am right. A simple warning that a block was imminent would have been sufficient to get me to surrender: I value my principles, but I also value my ability to work here and make this encyclopedia better, and I am pragmatic about things. Now my block log, which has been clean since July 2006, is stained by another block, and I had taken pride in avoiding any trouble with anyone over that time. I think Kirill, no matter how strongly he believes he is right, should show a little more deliberation, caution and tact in matters such as this. Everyking 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground. If a banned editor talks to someone on a user talk page, usually the best thing for others to do is ignore it. If in some specific case, it is removed (but still in history) with a clue to why it was deleted (eg "banned user comment deleted"); then it is usually best to ignore the deletion. Minimize the wiki-drama guys. WAS 4.250 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was excessive and inappropriate; a week-long block for restoring a talk page comment in his own userspace doesn't result in the protection of the encyclopedia in any way. What was the block supposed to prevent? Certainly not a major disturbance to the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments above...anyone aiding Amorrow in any way needs to be kept on a tight leash. The level of harassment a number of our female editors have endured at the hands of this guy is truly awful. He has created a plethara of sock accounts and engaged in BLP violations on some of our articles about prominent women. Please do not aide this person in any manner.--MONGO 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - WP:BAN says it clear. Amorrow was banned for a reason, you know (in addition to the AFD, he's quite literally a creep). Will ^(talk) 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse what? This is not a vote. The banning policy is not clear on this. It also says reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner and Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing. All of which were according to the letter of the policy completely in line with James' edits to his own userpage. Apparently there is the Morrow exception to that, a decision that was not made clear to everybody. And yes Amorrow has issues that make him an inimical element to everything we stand for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Users that reinstated banned user's edits are treat like the banned user himself. As Everyking was reinstating a known stalker's edits, in that case he should be treat like a stalker. Will ^(talk) 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock - I would suggest that given above discussion, the consensus was fairly firmly (and correctly) in favour of removing Amorrow's "contributions". Given Everyking has pledged not to go against this consensus, I don't think unblocking at this time should have caused any problems. Whether or not the block was over-harsh is an unnecessary tangent we don't need to go down; the important issue was unblocking once we have assurances the restoration will not be repeated. We had those, Everyking was unblocked, he won't do it again, let's move on. Neil ☎ 08:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Death threat by Golyanovskii

Golyanovskii threatened to kill me. I'm sure it isn't allowed. On a related note, he also violated the 3RR. Click here. Charles 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. His obviously copyvio images are about to go as well. --B 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speed in dealing with this! :-) Charles 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Related note: [103] Is this a sockpuppet? Charles 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, checked and looks unrelated, but still peculiar. Charles 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a harassment-only account. --B 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dojarca disrupting Template after unsuccessful TfD

User:Dojarca nominated Template:Soviet occupation for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_4#Template:Soviet_occupation, however the result of the debate was Keep/no concensus. Four hours after the closure of the debate, User:Dojarca has moved the template twice [104], [105] without any concensus. Clearly this is a controversial move and a concensus should be reached first. Could a admin assist in moving the template back to its original title and clean up the redirects, and protect it from further moves until an adequate discussion for any potential moves is conducted. Martintg 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Dojarca shouldn't edit anything to do with Soviet occupation as it's clear, from the TFD and DoSo AFD that he's got an axe to grind. WP:NOT a battleground. Will ^(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of large IP range

I have just blocked 68.75.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 3 months one month (anon only, account creation off), which is a range that, from all that I can see from simple history checking and personal experience, has solely been utilized by the banned (read indefinite block that no one will ever think of lifting) user Joehazelton (talk · contribs · block log). Just looking at the history of User talk:Gamaliel and prior to the protetion of Peter Roskam shows that nearly every IP edit comes as harassment from Joehazelton. There is nothing we gain by allowing Joehazelton to continue editting, as he repeats the edits that got him banned in the first place, and the only other thing he does is vandalize the userspace. Input on how we can prevent this user from returning, in any way shape or form, is welcome.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally! I assume you are steadily locking down ip ranges, other than that I don't think there is anything to do but wait him out. Even Cplot got bored/got his city blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I'm still hoping for a send-electric-shock-through-keyboard button. —Cryptic 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If this guy is still causing problems this long after his original ban [106] why isn't he mentioned on Wikipedia:Long Term Abuse? There's not even a community ban. William Ortiz 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam Template completely destroyed

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here, but the template Template:SouthVietnamWarMedals was completely destroyed by admins misusing their image delete powers. Nearly every single image was deleted, some of them valid images whose sources were well established (such as the pictures of the Vietnam Gallantry Cross and Vietnam Campaign Medal) as well as pictures of military ribbons which are ineligable for copyright. Also, this matter was being discussed on the talk page and I offered to help verify where these images came from if given a list of the problem images. Without any further explanation or discussion, the ENTIRE template was wiped out. I have really learned the way this site operates, without any soret of QA against admins who have "life and death" power over articles and can blank and delete at will it seems. I am reporting this here becuase the destruction of this template was uncalled for. Hopefully there are a few admins left who will see this for what it was and restore it. -OberRanks 09:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• [107] suggests most of the images were deleted because they were copyright violations. A former admin, User:Husnock, who uploaded most of them, has since been found to be one of the worst offenders of copyright when it comes to images, stealing hundreds from various websites and lying about their source. It doesn't matter if the image description tells us where they were stolen from; they were still stolen. Neil ☎ 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Husnock images by a single admin

I withdraw my complaint about the issue above becuase you appear to be correct; I investigated several of the images in question and a lot of them were from other websites, but some of them weren't. What I DO have a question about is that User:Butseriouslyfolks is now apparently going on a rampage, deleting every single image that User:Husnock ever uploaded without tagging or discussion. Some of them were completely legitimate, some of them were questionable. I dont think admins should be mass deleting images because they dont like someone, they should tag them for discussion and let others try and work it out. And BSF doesnt have the authority, in my opinion, to make that determination him/herself. -OberRanks 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you would be better off asking Butseriouslyfolks about this on his talk page. Neil ☎ 10:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Husnock was a crank of the first order - upto and including pretending to have a dead son - I'd work on the basis that every single one of his image rationales was a lie and work from there. --Fredrick day 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)