Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Linking to external harassment

Sfacets (talk · contribs) has added a link to his user page that goes to a webpage dedicated to harassing an individual who is also a WP editor. When he added it he made it clear that he knew the target of the harassment would dislike the link.[1] I brought the issue up on Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Case study as a test of how that proposal would work in practice. As a result, JzG removed the link from the user page and initiated a discussion on the user's talk page. Sfacets repeatedly restored the link, insisting he needs it for "reference", but without giving any encyclopedic reason. As suggested by Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, I'm bringing this issue here to seek a consensus to remove the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the user can provide a compelling reason why they need this link on Wikipedia, it strikes me as being rather problematic. I notice they refused to provide such a reason, earlier. Is there some reason this needs to be on the top revision, in particular? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A refusal to provide a reason is good enough grounds to take action against that editor and the link. We try to do everything here collaboratively, and a refusal to collaborate makes NPOV editing impossible and thus the editor excludes themselves from our fellowship. Such a wish should be respected, IOW block the sucker. -- Fyslee / talk 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clearly to fall under WP:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F as "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors". That policy notes that latitude is given regular participants, but I think latitude stops when an explanation is requested and refused, per Luna Santin's link. There are many alternative ways the editor might keep this material for reference. (All the browsers I know offer bookmarking, for instance.) I'd support removing the link, unless there is clear & compelling reason for it to remain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that [2] is also an attack page (a superset of the other) and can be found elsewhere on the 'pedia with a linksearch. I'm going a-hunting now. — Coren ^(talk) 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

... and indeed, there seems to be way to many links to the "guru"'s site. POV warrior, anyone? — Coren ^(talk) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he not only links to the ugly attacks on me (and others) by his co-religionists, but he adds links to words from the attack and adds a link to my place of work. --Simon D M 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simon, if you have a diff for that then we may be looking at harassment, in which case he is in deep trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff: [3] --Simon D M 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, he;s really helping his case here [4], especially with the added spice of threats [5]. I wonder if our friend might need a short break from the stress of dealing with those who do not subscribe to his minority POV? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was just blocked for the game-playing on his userpage. I'd say the matter is closed, unless and until he starts trying to reinsert the link after his block expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block, given his apparent unwillingness to follow our behavioral guidelines. He still readded the link even when we addressed it as being disruptive, and he wouldn't give us his rationale as to why the link should be kept. Maser ^(Talk!) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what else we could have done, here. Tried the easy way. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I confidently expect further problems when the block expires, staring with reverting the removal of links to his guru's website. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Guy is right when he predicts that the problems won't end when the block does. To clarify matter I should give some more background on this website and dispute. "Adishakti.org" actually belongs to a schismatic group who believe that the main organization does not proclaim the divinity of the guru loudly enough. Both the schismatic group and the main group share a dislike for the subject of the harassment, who is a one-time follower and now-critic of the guru. Sfacets is associated with the main group, and has repeatedly removed links to the Adishakti.org site.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Unaware of the harassment pages (there are no links to them from the main pages) I restored those links since the deletions appeared to be motivated by POV. However now that Sfacets has become aware of the harassment pages he is in favor of linking to the site and has restored links, in one case even to the same page he previously deleted it from.[20]

Regarding the additions of the link to Sfacet's user page: In addition to adding[21][22][23] and repeatedly restoring the link after it was removed by admins,[24][25][26][27] he added internal links that touch on personal details of the person mentioned on the harassment page, including the person's place of work,[28], the programming language in which the person is expert,[29] along with links to terms that appear on the harassment pages, such as "exocism",[30] "tarot",[31] "vishnu", etc. [32] There are also terms that, in this context, appear to be comemnts about the other person, such as "nutter",[33], "insanity",[34], "infantile", and "abnormal psychology". Given that context it appears undeniable that the only intent was to harass. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The case is compelling. If the content reappears, escalate through dispute resolution. GRBerry 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was blocked was not because I added back the link (of which I made no connection to any editor btw) but it was because I placed a link to a diff on my userpage. If users are blocked because they place links on their user page, then Wikipedia is a complete sham - it isn't a Democracy, sure but it isn't supposed to be a Despotism either. I asked the editors who were removing the link why they were doing so, but neither one of them gave me a valid reason - I was not harassing anyone, and it is apparent that there is no Wiki policy that states that I can not link to a "harassing website" even if I was. Meanwhile Guy thought it a good idea to remove every single link from the domain in question from Wikipedia, including from a protected article. Sfacets 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From the victim's point of view, the harrassment is as nothing compared to the daily misery of having to engage with Sfacets' sham discussions on talk pages which he uses as an excuse to block any edit he doesn't like and proceed with any edit he wants to make. --Simon D M 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to create a neutral article. You are trying to push your POV. But this isn't the place for this argument. Sfacets 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are a neutral editor and I'm the Shah of Iran. --Simon D M 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not exactly helping, but I do get the sense that Sfacets is having difficulty distinguishing MPOV from NPOV. He also seems particularly combative. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets has been blocked again for a civility issue (personal attack in edit summary) and 3RR gaming on Meditation. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

During the same period Sfacets also violated 3RR on Nirmala Srivastava: [35][36][37][38]. And he made multiple reverts on User talk:Try-the-vibe: [39][40][41], and on Sahaja Yoga meditation: [42][43][44], just short of 3RR violations. Those are all in a 24-hour period, and in the same period he made more reverts on other articles too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of Hesperian

Physchim62 (talk · contribs) has blocked an admin Hesperian (talk · contribs) with which he has a disagreement over the nomination of a number of templates. This needs to be reviewed because to me Physchim62 has misused his admin tools in blocking another editor. Physchim62 closed this tfd attacking the nominator Hesperian responded and was block with the explanation that Hesperian was uncivil.

I'll leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to decide whether this action was/is justifiable. Gnangarra 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(moving comment from Hesperian's talk page) This block is completely unjustified. If anything, User:Physchim62 should be blocked for his comments in closing the TfD in question. He was the first person to comment on the other user (Hesperian), and in commenting on User:Hesperian, i feel that Physchim62 personally attacked him, violating WP:NPA. Although, Hesperians comments did comment on User:Physchim61, and at times avoided the topic at hand, he did not violate WP:NPA. Twenty Years 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Hesperian. The diff cited for the block [45] does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion. I think both Psychim and Hesperian could have handled the situation more calmly, but I cannot see any basis for a block. WjBscribe 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is the third contested and then reversed block for this admin in the past few weeks. There was deeceevoice's year-long block, There is this complaint about "Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62" and now this. I'm tangentially involved in all of this so can a user or admin with a more neutral perspective than I respond to what I'm just starting to see as a pattern? I'm sorry to get up in Physchim62's business, but I thought I should say something in case others hadn't noticed that this keeps happening over and over. Maybe, it is just a coiencidence? futurebird 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the block log of Deeceevoice, you wont see Physchim62 there at all. It seems he just brought the matter to ANI for discussion. Just saying. Jeffpw 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that he did not block but wrong about what he was doing there. He attempted to close. It was overturned by User:Matt Crypto: "Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Wikipedia 24/7...)"

The user in the incident was not blocked at all. Had Physchim62's close stood, the user would have been blocked for a year. 86.42.83.73 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't really know how to look at those sorts of things. So it's not that much of a "pattern" nevermind. futurebird 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Two instances of this sort within the last few days seems enough to warrant some further action. He's apparently editing, but has not responded, at least on-wiki. . DGG (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a pattern of blocking, but a pattern of using admin powers when there is conflict of interest.[46], [47]. --the Dúnadan 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what Physchim62 says. futurebird 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a block of one week would be acceptable. His actions cannot go unpunished, not only has he blocked a quality admin, in a situation where he has COI, he has messed up with a few other blocks. Its simply poor form. Needs some sort of official sanction. Twenty Years 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Um, if I remember correctly, aren't admins allowed to unblock themselves? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They have the capability to do so, which is somewhat different. BLACKKITE 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at Hesperian's actions a little bit here:

1. He nominates over two hundred templates for deletion, citing accessibility problems which he has never bothered to discuss with anyone else. He does not bother to discuss with, or even notify, the appropriate WikiProjects or project pages.
2. In placing the TfD notice, he breaks over five thousand mainspace pages.
3. When two admins vote "speedy keep", his reply is to ask them if they have actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, nothing more. [48]
4. When the discussion was closed as a speedy keep on the basis of it's disruptive nature, he then goes onto suggest that I had not read Wikipedia:Speedy keep myself, and that I was abusing my admin powers. [49]
5. He has yet to engage in the slightest discussion as to what the accessibilty problems might be, and how they could be resolved on other areas of Wikipedia which also use <span class="abbr">.

He's lucky that he is such an experienced user: a newby might have been indefinitely blocked for that sort of trolling, as users of this page know full well. I am upset that this block has been lifted, as the reversion doesn't get us any closer to determining whether there are actually problems with the use of the abbr class. Neither did any of Hesperian's actions to date. Admins and experienced users are not immune from blocks when they act disruptively. Physchim62 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gnagarra above: I'm at a loss to see how my TFD close statement was "attacking" Hesperian, while his message on my talk page didn't attack me. Perhaps you are getting your disputes mixed up, and you are still thinking about the discussion we had this summer over Template:PD-Australia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim nope I didnt get anything mixed up you blocked Hesperian for responding to your statement of accusation about Hesperians bad faith, incivility, ignorance and point making. I brought it here because when you block without warning a trusted editor(admin) with 30,000 plus edits it's normal to notify ANI of your actions and get the situation reviewed by independent admins, even if you dont have a conflict of interest. Gnangarra 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at his actions:

OK, he is free to nominate stuff (yes, including templates) for deletion if he so chooses. Did he mean to "break" over 5000 mainspace pages? i doubt that very much, an experienced user like yourself should AGF and realise he probably didnt. Asking if someone has read speedy keep is not a personal attack. When User:Physchim62 (thats you, right?) closed the discussion? he asked you if you had read speedy keep? thats not a personal attack. So in 100% of his actions, he has not done a single thing wrong.

Now, lets look at your actions:

This comment when you closed the TfD appears to be a blaitant personal attack on a quality admin. After discussions with Hesperian, where he again made no personal attack (as said by WjB) you completely avoid that you have a Conflict of interest and block him for 24 hours because he was alledged to have made a personal attack on you, which WjB (the unblocking admin) could not find. Twenty Years 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, this is not the sort of obviously inappropriate action that would justify you blocking someone you're in conflict with. Was it so necessary to block immediately that you couldn't have brought the issue to a wider audience before acting, or at the very least immediately after acting? Natalie 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What Twenty years and Natalie said. The initial block was out of line and against blocking policy viz. you don't block someone you're in dispute with. And to suggest you'd apply an indefinite block if it was a newbie makes me think Physchim62 is heavy handed and misusing his admin powers. —Moondyne 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hesperian

Physchim62 has told a series of falsehoods here. I may have nominated a great many templates, but I actually only tagged one for deletion. That it was transcluded in a great many pages is not my fault. It is also not true that I notified nobody. The TfD tag for which I am being criticised serves a notification function. Also, I notified the creator of the templates, Bryan Derksen, immediately upon nominating the article. We had a constructive and civil discussion on his talk page. If you have a look at Bryan's talk page, you'll see that after the TfD was closed not in my favour, I followed up with a compromise that he described as "an excellent solution". Surely it is clear from that discussion that I was acting in good faith throughout.

Physchim62 was involved in the rollout of the nominated templates.[50] Clearly he had a stake in these templates, and their nomination for deletion pissed him off. Instead of adding his opinion to the TfD discussion, he elected to prematurely close the discussion as "speedy keep", even though he was an involved party, and an angry one at that, and even though the discussion clearly didn't meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Furthermore his closure notice was insulting, and contained the same falsehoods he's claiming here.

He should never have misused his administrative authority in prematurely closing that TfD. Such behaviour must be challenged, and challenge it I did. In response to that I was blocked for 24 hours. In the opinion of WjBscribe, who unblocked me, "this was an absurd block and I have unblocked. The diff cited for the block does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion."

Physchim62 has perpetrated some serious policy violations and injustices here: a biased and insulting TfD closure; followed by a block on someone with whom he is in dispute, without any basis in policy; followed by the indefensible assertion above that I am "trolling". It galls me to be the victim of such injustices, and to have no recourse that actually serves the encyclopaedia.

Hesperian 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I copy from PhysChem's talkpage, as I am sure he would have wanted it here also: " For technical reasons, I'm unlikely to comment again before 12:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)" DGG (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very serious policy violation, from the discussions above, this appears not to be the first time that there has beeen issues with his use of his admin tools. There must be some sort of sanction against this user, to let him get away with this would be to support his actions. Twenty Years 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find particularly disturbing is the fact that regardless of whether Hesperian may have broken the template, it seems he was never warned or told about it, at least not by Physchim62. I mean, if there was some history of template AFDs, maybe, but I find that defense for the block terrible. It is not obvious how the template code works. That could easily be fixed or at least a warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't break the template. I merely added the {{tfd}} template to it. It is standard operating procedure to do so. In doing so, I apparently made the layout of about 5000 ChemBoxes unattractive. Physchim62's accusation of "disruption" rests solely upon this.

I might add that User:Beetstra removed the tfd template with edit summary "Removing TfD-notice, this is disrupting a huge number of pages about chemicals, I will leave the discussion open" 17 hours before Physchim62 prematurely closed the debate, so the assertion that he closed it because I was disrupting chemistry pages is yet another falsehood.

Hesperian 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. That makes me feel much better<sarcasm>. Ok, if the tfd broke it (and I can understand how it might) all that would mean is that someone should move it into the noinclude section (which would then be a notification fight). That's still not a reason to block. Physchim62, you are not exactly encouraging me personally here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian was editing disruptively. He has still shown no signs of actually wishing to enlighten users about the "accessibility problems" in a more appropriate forum. Instead he simply attacks the admin who is trying to avoid future disruption. This merits a short block whoever he is—we have blocked sitting arbitrators before now, after all. I would not indefinitely block a newby user in such cases, in fact I probably wouldn't WP:BITE at all in the case of a newby, but this is a user who has delighted in telling me how much experience of wikipedia he has. On the other hand, I seen newbies indef blocked for less, without any of the self-appointed guardians on this page so much as batting an eyelid. I was not "in a dispute" with Hesperian, any more than I am "in a dispute" with any other editor who is acting disruptively. The block has been undone, fine, I shaln't reimpose it. Now can we get back to wring an encyclopedia? Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has now lasted longer than the block would have done :P Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But your block of Hesperian cites "personal attacks" and a diff showing a conversation with you on your talk page. If the personal attack and dispute did not involve you, then who did it involve? Are you saying your block summary is incorrect? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have in this discussion completely avoided the point that you failed to communicate with the parties concerned and used blocking as a first rather than last resort on an experienced contributor who was acting in good faith. Communication and good faith are vital and non-optional pillars of Wikipedia and far more important than the attractiveness or otherwise of a particular template. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Hesperian "edited disruptively". I also see nothing in this diff (as cited in the block log) that warranted blocking as an instant and immediate response, and I agree with WjBscribe's handling of the matter. As a matter of incident I have in fact done more than bat an eyelid at what I believe to be unfair or ill-conceived blocks against well-meaning newbies, and it is extremely insulting of you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow hypocritical. After seeing your heavy-handed participation in a copyright dispute (over the content of a template) a number of months ago and your threats to block people for merely disagreeing with you at that time, I see a similar pattern here and it concerns me. Orderinchaos 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to give my statement here about the situation. I noticed the TfD when I was looking at one of the chemicals, and it was disrupting the page quite a lot (warping the chembox). When I read the TfD reason, the main feeling that I got was "I don't like them" (nomination by Hesperian: "As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R- and S-phrases look really cool."). There is no discussion that suggests misuse, unhelpful, or whatever, only its apparent lack of function. Also, there was no notification of the projects or contributors (As far as I found, and although it is not a requirement, see WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page; see also below).

Now, WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page suggests "If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead." .. this templates are in heavy use, and when some transclusions would have been checked, it would have shown where and what effect the transcusions have. That also suggest to use the <noinclude> tags, when necessary, though that is suggested for substing. That is not hiding (as suggested by Hesperian), that is why (as I mentioned above) it is suggested to "consider adding {{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. — ~~~~}} on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion".

When speedy keep is suggested (I was the first to suggest that), the response is "Did you ever actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep?". I must concur, before this TfD, and before suggesting speedy keep, I did not, but the tone that is notifying me that I actually should have is not assuming good faith.

As such, I would call this TfD disrupive, and I do fully back up the somewhat hostile tone in the closure of the TfD by Physchim62; the TfD was disruptive and based merely on "I don't like it", which is in no way a reason for deletion. So if I now re-read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, it DOES apply: "The nomination was unquestionably ... disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". Moreover, the remark "It is pretty obvious from the hostile tone of your response, together with the fact that you're deeply involved in chemistry articles, that you didn't like the nomination, and decided to speedy close the discussion instead of just saying your piece and waiting for an unbiased closure. That is a misuse of your administrative privileges." is then a personal attack, an accusation of 'misuse of administrative privileges' (there are 7 keeps (one with option 'rework' and not counting Physchim62's closure) and only the nominator's delete, also a reason for speedy keep, so I do not see any misuse of administrative privileges here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad block, for the reasons set forth by WJBScribe. It's generally a very bad idea to block an established good-faith editor with the justification that they've attacked you. Especially without warning and on the basis of some very borderline "attacks". If I blocked everyone who commented toward me with the level of brusqueness that Hesperian used, I'd get carpal tunnel.

If you're the target of personal attacks, bring it here. If the attacks are egregious enough, another admin will take care of it. In this case, it could have been better handled with a simple statement to Hesperian and disengagement. Blocking an established good-faith account without warning for personal attacks directed against the blocking admin, without even submitting the block here for review, is a really bad idea. Anyhow, the unblock was swift and appropriate, so we probably ought to just move on. If there is really a pattern here (which I'm not seeing just yet), then WP:RfC is probably the way to go. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This TfD started with a disruption (as was pointed out by a couple of editors) on a reason which assumes bad faith on the creators and users of the template ("... really cool."), followed by a couple of bad faith remarks ("Did you actually read speedy keep") and ended in a personal attack of one administrator to another on misuse of administrative privileges ("That is a misuse of your administrative privileges.". But I did, in the above statement, not discuss the block, or how the block was applied. My statement here states my thoughts about the nomination and the following remarks by Hesperian, as I feel that this whole situation was out of line, not only the (discussable) block, as this discussion now suggests! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well that explains why we're not on the same wavelength. Saying "That is a misuse of your administrative privileges" is not a personal attack - certainly not one warranting a block from the admin who was accused of misuing said privileges. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't KNOW about the accessibility problems until halfway through the deletion debate. He thought it was just a useless template, and wasn't aware of this purpose - it was only when this was pointed out that he pointed out that it causes inaccessibility (q.e.d., he himself was not able to easily access the information contained within). —Random832 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep often causes drama, and I would even say it should probably never be used when the nomination is made in good faith (good faith = the user really thinks it should be deleted, even if his reasoning is misguided). What harm would waiting five days have done, as compared to the insult of having your nomination "speedy kept", the block, and all the other drama this has caused (e.g. this thread)?—Random832 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Performing a speedy keep is not a misuse of administrative privilages, nor an insult (thats why we have that guideline), and if you are then accused of misuse of your administrative priviliges .. that is at the least not nice (and it is a comment on the contributor, not on the content). I can understand that Hesperian did not know how the templates were used, and did not see the use of them. Still, I think it should be common practice to at least see where the template was used (Special:Whatlinkshere), and there it could be seen it was used quite a lot (though it is after the latest changes difficult to check). And then also one could check how it got used in the pages and what the effect of deleting all the templates would be (and maybe even after the TfD having a look what happened to the pages the TfD'd templates were transcluded upon, though WP:TFD does not suggest that, it only suggests some alternatives for some cases). Not being aware of the purpose is not a reason to delete, and as I read the nomination, the main reason was "Don't see the use, don't like it"; that could have been a good reason to contact the creator first (I now see that the creator was notified after the TfD, did not see that when I wrote the above statement).

When pointed out that the TfD was disruptive (and I believe that that disruption was unintentionally), Hesperian reacted with a remark where my (and that of Rifleman_82) speedy keep was questioned in a way which did not exactly assume good faith. Although I indeed did not read the document beforehand (I don't know about Rifleman_82), closer examination shows that the speedy keep (in my opinion) was actually appropriate, since the TfD did disrupt (I removed the notice from the template, though I might better have moved it to the talkpage, mea culpa), and when it was speedy closed, there were 7 votes against the nominator; for the latter, if not a speedy keep, then at least WP:SNOW. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but when do you get to the part where a block becomes warranted? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Beetstra, you've missed a crucial fact. If tagging a template with {{tfd}} is disruptive (which I dispute) then that disruption ceased when you removed the TfD notice. Physchim62 speedy closed the discussion 17 hours later. Physchim62's assertion that he closed it as disruptive is therefore a bald-faced lie, as you should well know, yet you've been sucked in by it. Hesperian 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing statement by Hesperian

Physchim62 and Beetstra have successfully turned this into a discussion on the merits and implementation of my TfD nomination, thereby avoiding any scrutiny of Physchim62 behaviour:

1. Physchim62 speedily closed a TfD discussion on a template that he was involved in rolling out - a clear conflict of interest;
2. Physchim62 closed a TfD discussion as "speedy keep", not for any reason laid out in Wikipedia:Speedy keep, but because he didn't like the nomination.
3. Physchim62 left an insulting closure notice, accusing me of acting in bad faith, but you won't find anything in my contributions that suggests I was acting in bad faith;
4. Physchim62 blocked me for 24 hours for a personal attack, but you won't find a personal attack in my contributions.
5. Physchim62 blocked me while involved in a dispute with me, a clear violation of the blocking policy.
6. Physchim62 accused me of disruption and trolling, but you won't find anything in my contributions that looks like disruption or trolling. That's assuming "disruption" is defined as laid out in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors, rather than simply "unintentionally made some pages look yucky for a while".

Obviously there is nothing I can do to obtain redress. I'm not going to take this all way to ArbCom for "Physchim62 is admonished not to be a naughty boy in future". But to the rest of you: be afraid. Physchim62 has not admitted any fault, and that means he'll do this again. You all have to work alongside someone who'll block you in a moment if you dare to challenge his bad behaviour. How do you feel about that?

I'm taking this discussion off my watchlist now, and I'd prefer this discussion ended. I realise I can't deny others the right of reply, but I certainly won't be reading any more of this.

Hesperian 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't the the rest of us have missed the point. Physchim62 would be well advised to show that he respects the limits on how far he can be involved as an administrator in an article or discussion in which he is personally concerned. The two instances discussed in the last few days here would seem to indicate that a repetition would be cause for further action, and I am not the least sure it would be an admonishment only. DGG (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, If Hesperian wants this closed then so do I, at least on this forum. He has continued to edit the templates that he doesn't like here, without any further discussion. It will take some time to recover from this series of edits, and WP:CHEM would surely rather have some wider community input on the accessibility issues than this thread has provided.

I still believe that the 24-hour block was perfectly justified, given Hesperian's conduct on this issue. The admin involved still has, as he has always had, plenty of other channels to discuss the problems which he finds with these templates. That he has still not chosen to use them can only reflect badly on him. Physchim62 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hesperian's edits on these template have quite a range of policy violations in it, not least on Wikipedia:Protection policy. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Shall we stop this thread now, to avoid wasting any more time, and get onto discussion on other fora as I suggested when I closed the TfD? Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad blocks used as a first port of call rather than a last resort are more harmful to the encyclopaedia than almost anything else, as they drive valued contributors away (not even necessarily the ones who get blocked, either). ArbCom have addressed this clearly in a number of recent cases. Orderinchaos 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but assuming bad faith on two long-term editors and administrators, who strongly oppose a deletion (voting a speedy keep, in my case because I felt that not only the nomination caused disruption (which I repaired), but also the possible deletion would have caused much disruption), is also a way of driving them away. That TfD, though filed in good faith, should not have been filed. As is accusing another long term editor and administrator who actually performs that speedy keep (IMHO according to the rules of speedy keep) of abuse of administrative privileges. We all make mistakes, and sometimes we should just take a step back, rollback our edits, and first discuss. Not persue the issue, and when one gets overruled by numerous long-term editors go on and then edit to make a point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have come back here to check out why WjBscribe has the wrong end of the stick in a message he left me on my talk page. Folks, I'm so sick of all these lies, lies, lies. Look at the template history for Christ's sake. You'll see the following;

1. Hesperian makes extensive edits to an unprotected template, before any of this shit hit the fan.
2. WjBscribe protects Hesperian's version.
3. Hesperian makes one last, utterly benign, utterly unobjectionable, edit, after extensive discussion with Bryan Derksen and Random832;
4. Physchim62 reverts all my changes. Let me put it his way: Physchim62 reverts a protected template to his preferred version.

I can see a policy violation here, can you?

Once again Physchim62 has fed you guys lies - that I have violated the protected pages policy, when in fact all my substantial edits were made to an unprotected page before there was any dispute; and that I have done so without discussing it, whereas I discussed it with the creator of the tempalte. And once again it is actually him who is in violation of policy. And once again you've all been sucked in by it. When are you guys going to actually start questioning the tripe this guy is feeding you?

Hesperian 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I rather object to being called a liar, and I am upset that so few other people have stepped in to stop you using your inappropriate language. Please refactor your above comment, otherwise it will not merit a response. Physchim62 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest (as I think DGG said earlier) I think most people are quiet rather than accepting in here - the response and comments in other parts of Wikipedia suggest strong and widespread disapproval of the block. It was unquestionably a bad block - it violated not only WP:BLOCK but also several recent ArbCom pronouncements (most recently the Durova one, handed down the day before this block was made, which *clearly* emphasises blocks should be careful and a last resort), not to mention the entire system of good faith by which Wikipedia runs. Evidence exists that this is not the only questionable block made by the same admin - there's been two raised in this very forum in recent days. The question of the admin's ongoing behaviour over a number of months and his unwillingness/incapability of detaching himself as an admin from areas where he is involved heavily as a user also raises some concerns. The problem is that Wikipedia process doesn't deal with this sort of situation very well, the only recourse is ArbCom really which may not actually achieve the best result in this kind of case (also I'm not sure how they'd feel taking a case about a current candidate in the election?) Orderinchaos 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take it to ArbCom, then go that-a-way. Personally, I have filed a request for mediation to see if Hesperian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has any real issues to discuss besides his ad hominem attacks. I have no wish to be associated with administrators who condone the behaviour shown recently by Hesperian, but I am still willing to seek calm discussion, if such a thing is possible around here. Physchim62 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As if this hadn't escalated into enough unniceties already, using the {{vandal|Hesperian}} tag in the posting above was a really, really cheap little insult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you think that this edit (summary especially) is a constructive addition to the debate. Hesperian has edited disruptively, and "people" are unwilling to see him blocked, not even fo 24 hours! Unfortunate, but about the level of "dispute resolution" that we usually see on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OIC, personally, I would support taking this to ArbCom given Physchim's ongoing bizarre behaviour despite the feedback from the community both here and on his voting page and the continued disruption and abuse of admin tools. I don't think his being a current candidate would make any difference given ArbCom accepted the case against Adam who is also a current candidate. Sarah 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom may be a good idea, but... I can understand phsychim's lack of self-control with the amazing amount of drama surrounding a bad block. Hesperian keeps coming back for more as well. If I was to give Phsychim62 any advice right now, it would be follow DENY (not that I'm personally labelling anyone a troll or anything here) in the case of Hesp and get back to working on the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Physchim62 is still maintaining that a 24-hour block was a good call. That leads me to also believe he will make similar blocks in the future. Unless I'm missing something, I completely disagree with that notion and am waiting for a retraction before agreeing that this issue is dead. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, at this point I wouldn't expect much more than a politician's apology from anyone involved in this. There's just too much drama and bad feelings to expect anyone to be calm enough to adequately reflect and realize that they did wrong and be honest about it. The Community knows it was wrong and we're all aware of the dangers of making a bold TFD without regards to the effects it will have on the templated pages and such a bold blocking, especially in light of the Durova shitstorm, I mean arbcom. It is time for us to get back to what we're here to do. Maybe we should, as a community, sanction some oversight over Phsychim for a short while (say 3 months) and review his actions again at that point? Is that plausible? Or do we really have to wait for arbcom? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is bizarre - there is no point in mediation, as it is quite clear that Hesperian is quite happy having calm, constructive discussion about the templates whenever anyone does discuss the templates rather than rudely dismiss his concerns. The issue here is not the templates, but the inappropriate block, which is unjustifiable for many reasons. JPD (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[Reset tabs] It is not at all clear that Hesperian is willing to have wider discussion about his concerns, but I think that he should be given another chance to do so, as his has not taken the many chances offered to him up until now. Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian, I fully understand that you did not see the reason for the templates, and I understand that your TfD was in good faith, and you did not mean to disrupt anything. When I voted 'speedy keep', I meant that as the opposite of 'speedy delete' -> there is no discussion needed, these should not be deleted, a discussion on how to refactor would be enough! Your response to that, IMHO, could have been 'ohoh, maybe a deletion is overdone, maybe we should just discuss how to change it'.

Your response was 'Did you actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep' .. at that point it was clear that you did want these templates deleted, as you find that these templates are utterly useless. You did not discuss with me, or with the others, why I was voting speedy keep. I am sorry, but I did not feel that response a sign of good faith to my person. I am sorry, but for me the TfD was not good faith anymore at that point.

These templates have been there for 2 years without complaint, and now you come along, and while 7 people vote keep, and maybe a suggestion to change some things, only you insist in the change.

When Physchim62 is closing it as a speedy keep, which I think is OK, see my vote, and the other votes, you choose to respond to Physchim62 with 'That is a misuse of your administrative privileges'. I am sorry, the speedy keep is in my opinion appropriate, this TfD was a mistake, and it is fine to make mistakes, but there is no reason at all to delete. As such, the administrative action (not content) was questioned by you personally at the address of Physchim62, and indirectly, also to my suggestion of speedy keep.

This situation has now completely escalated, with Physchim62 blocking Hesperian, and after the speedy close the editor who filed the Tfd makes the edits to the template himself, which is in my opinion a violation of WP:POINT (and the changes are not what is suggested by voters in the TfD, i.e. not by people who actually use the templates, which is, these templates are used right next to an actual link to the document, so having the template link is completely overdone, but the full text simply does not fit). If things are fine for two years ([51]), then first discuss it on the talkpage with people in the field (and not only (mainly) with the creator of the templates, who has said that he did not use them, he only made them), do not push your own version. The block may have been wrong, but I do think that after your response to my 'speedy keep' also you were not assuming good faith anymore, and it was not necessary, and IMHO out of line, to call the actions of Physchim62 'abuse of administrative privileges', he only closed a TfD as a speedy keep. I guess if you would not have been an administrator, the block would have been not too controversial. Therefore, return to the old situation, and finding consensus (as probably all policies and guidelines suggest) first is a good starting point, and I have suggested that as well before the roll-back.

Yet, everyone here is discussing Physchim62's actions in this. So, in short, yes, Physchim62 should not have blocked Hesperian himself, but should have brought the situation to e.g. this forum. But I also feel that with your response to my vote for 'speedy keep', with your response to Physchim62 on the close, and with your edits to the template after that, you were also out of line, Hesperian. You did not get consensus first from e.g. the 6 editors here that voted keep.

I think the involved editors should now take a step away from this subject, and try to orderly discuss how they think the template can be improved, on talk-pages only. And when both agree on changes, they can be applied. If the editors feel to excuse their remarks/actions back and forth, that may help to sooth the situation. I hope this at least expands the point of view of what we are discussing here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is talking about the consensus issue because it has been thrust into the background by a terrible block. Sorry but content disputes pale by comparison to bad blocks - that's why ArbCom doesn't even bother with content disputes. Take the content and consensus disputes to WP:DR and leave the block button in your pocket. I've had Hesperian call me out for "admin abuse" in the past and we worked through it and ended amicably. Pulling out the block tool never even crossed my mind! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks, let us wait and see what happens with the request for mediation. If it gets going, we can let this thread die. If it is rejected, one or more RfCs might be appropriate. Right now I don't expect either Hesperian or Physchim62 to be dumb enough to use their admin tools on each other or on these templates - so I don't see a need for us to kick this to ArbComm. And let's be real, if anyone filed an ArbComm case about a stalemeated active dispute between administrators that then the ArbComm would accept it very quickly. GRBerry 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the overdramatic request for mediation got to do with anything? It is about the use and content of the templates, which Hesperian is willing to discuss calmly with people who appraoch the concerns politely. This issue wasn't brought to AN/I in order to resolve the template dispute, but to raise concerns about innappropriate admin actions. It is not clear that anything more should be done about these actions, but it would definitely help if the involved parties acknowledged that fact that it is quite a separate issue to whether the templates are acceptable. We don't want to see any more of these blocks, no matter what happens to the templates. JPD (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian doesn't get to decide who he discusses with any more then I do. The TfD closure invited him to take his concerns to more appropriate fora, something which has so far failed to do. Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages and template talk pages seem like perfectly good fora to me, but that is beside the point. There is no onus on him to take his concerns anywhere unless he is continuing to advocate changes. I wouldn't blame him if he chose not to pursue the matter at all in light of the treatment he has received. Your behaviour is a more serious concern to raise. JPD (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well block him again then. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. PS62, if you are not satisfied with the result here, I suggest taking this to dispute resolution. I do not think that further discussion on this board will be productive. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't serious BTW. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you know a sense of humour or anything else which lightens or quells drama is strictly forbidden on AN/I? Orderinchaos 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCommed

I have taken this to ArbCom.

I maintain that PhysChim62 has made a great many insulting statements about me that are demonstrably not true. I believe I have succeeded in showing most of them to be false. However, I acknowledge that it was improper and unhelpful for me to refer to them as "lies" and "tripe". I apologise for PhysChim62 for this unhelpful rhetoric, and withdraw any implication that he is a liar. I choose not to refactor the discussion at this stage, as it will only make it harder for the ArbCom to follow this discussion.

Naturally the ArbCom have the option of finding me in violation of WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA.

Hesperian 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tjalling Beetstra, Criminologist1963 and COI

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Wikipedia that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Wikipedia guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Wikipedia to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Wikipedia, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into the background of this case sufficiently to comment on the nature of Crim1963's contributions, but the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands sure comes across as original research and synthesis. We could AFD the article, but that wouldn't address the COI concerns. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This whole situation seems to be related to Biaothanatoi's POV-pushing on Satanic ritual abuse and related articles. The overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists believe that "SRA" was almost entirely a myth, a moral panic in which numerous innocent people were swept up. A handful of psychiatrists disagree, and still believe that SRA is real. It is this minority POV that Biaothanatoi wants to dominate the article. An official FBI investigation in 1992 found that there was no reliable evidence of SRA; see [52]. The most definitive book on the subject, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend, also rejects SRA. All that is left is a handful of fringe therapists. With the help of Abuse truth, an apparent single-purpose account, Biaothanatoi is trying to skew these articles towards his own perspective. He has, on occasion, engaged in ad hominem attacks both on sources and on other editors while so doing. Yes, this issue should definitely be investigated more thoroughly. *** Crotalus *** 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, if you have concerns about "POV-pushing" at SRA, then please address them there. There are a number of editors engaged in developing and improving that article, and we represent a range of viewpoints on the subject. The concerns that you raise here have been addressed there by several editors, including myself, at length, in good faith, and to the satisfaction of other editors.

In contrast, to support of your own POV, you've misquoted the 1992 report, referred to a website whose authors misrepresent themselves as "consultants", pointed us to a fifteen-year-old book written by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and engaged in a fruitless ad hominem attack of your own. You might find a more up-to-date resource online at this research paper on child sexual exploitation, including ritual abuse, by Professor Liz Kelly for the European Commission in 2000. The debate on ritual abuse has moved on since your sources were written in the early 1990s.

Beetstra has a clear financial and professional interest in posting material on Wikipedia in which he declares himself an "expert" and provides links to a website advertising his services. I'd appreciate it if administratives could look into this and take some action. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I do intend to address the POV-pushing on that article when I have more free time after final exams. As for your statements above:

Please explain how I have "misquoted" Lanning. Furthermore, if you argue that Lanning's work is outdated, then please cite a case after 1992 where the FBI took a case of "satanic ritual abuse" seriously.

Why should I care if Satanic Panic was written by "a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation"? Furthermore, why is a 15-year-old book an inherently unreliable source on this subject?

Liz Kelly's paper, which you cited, does not contain the phrase "satanic ritual abuse." It does contain several discussions of sexual abuse in institutional settings, but these cases had corroborating evidence (unlike the American SRA craze) and they did not include allegations of satanic activity. If any ritual at all was involved in the abuse (which is not clear), it was probably Christian in nature (since much of it took place in Catholic group homes). If you want to make a separate page for "Institutional sexual abuse" or "Sexual abuse in Irish orphanages and group homes," go ahead. The page in question is titled "Satanic ritual abuse," and the professional consensus on that specific subject is that it is largely an urban myth.

If Beetstra's papers were published in reputable journals, and represent a mainstream view, then they may very well be reliable sources, regardless of who is adding them.

*** Crotalus *** 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, this is not the place to have a debate about SRA. Needless to say, my own opinions on SRA are a little more complex then you appear to presume - I am not simply a "believer" in the subject matter, as a perusal of my userpage makes clear.

Kelly's report contians multiople references to "ritual abuse" and I suggest you read them and consider that the evidence base on ritualistic forms of child sexual assault may have developed somewhat in the fifteen years since your sources were published.

Please head over to Satanic Ritual Abuse and I'd be happy to discuss this further. As for Beestra/Crim1963's changes, he cites himself as an "expert" and links to a commercial website in which he offers his services. That looks COI to me. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" is poor English. They're abusing satanic rituals? Neil ☎ 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree that the assemblage of words is problematic, and that is discussed in the article at the moment. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a dumb phrase, but it is the phrase that was used very prominently to describe an alleged organized network of child rapists and child murderers possibly spanning the globe. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have articles on "Ritualistic child abuse" or "Organized child abuse rings", but we also need an article on the SRA moral panic. Part of this mess may be due to conflation of the two issues. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed a NPOV tag on the page to indicate that the article was in dispute, and I also indicated on the talk page that I was looking for administrative advice on the article.

Criminologist1963 simply deleted the tag, and deleted my comments from the talk page. Not exactly a display of good faith or consensus building. Are administrators looking into this at all? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Satanic ritual abuse as a clear POV fork. Administrators are unlikely to intervene in what is clearly a content dispute, regardless of possibilities of COI. There is a COI noticeboard, not to mention normal dispute resolution processes. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across this board first, but I then found the COI board and posted there. Navigating Wiki policy is not the easiest thing in the world.

This is not a "content dispute". The fact of the matter is that Beetstra appears to be using Wikipedia to advertise his services as an "expert witness" and this involves controlling certain blocks of text in which he describes himself as an "expert" and links to a website where he offers commercial services.

Please engage with issues raised by other editors in a manner which presumes good faith. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where he has added an external link to his commercial website. He has cited the website for the line "According to criminologist Tjalling Beetstra, the similarities and differences ... United States and the Netherlands ... [affects how] societies have responded to satanic ritual abuse and other moral issues." Other citations appear to be to Beetstra published in scholarly journals, which is not necessarily illegitimate, especially given that he cited a large number of other authors. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. ((WP:NOR#Citingoneself)

One could argue that the very last line, citing Beetstra by name, fails NPOV. One would need to know how prominent is Beetstra's view in the context of Dutch SRA allegations - I certainly don't. In any case, the one line seems to make such an obvious point that I don't know why we need it to begin with. I do not see where COI guidelines have been breached, nor do I see a clear case of conflict of interest even if we grant that Criminologist and Beetstra are one and the same. Perhaps my review of the article history and Criminologist's contributions missed something. In that case, diffs might help me to find the problem. <eleland/talkedits> 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John

While looking at MfDs I noticed this very odd one: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination). (For starters, it appears to be the first nomination, not the second). User:Prester John has been getting in hot water again over his userpage. I'm guessing the users involved weren't sure on how to handle the situation, so they listed the offending userpage for deletion. I closed the MfD (for being under the wrong venue to resolve the dispute) and blanked his userpage with a message saying he should only restore the non-offending content. He's already reverted me and given me a little vandalism warning to boot, so I'm noting the situation here. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I very respectfully disagree with you Ned Scott. With all do respect I reverted your edit. I think it is a little optimistic to think Prester John will voluntarily remove offensive material. But, I do implore admins to look over the MfD [53], and his block log and edit history. Make specific note of how many times he has been warned.--Agha Nader 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that he can be blocked if he puts it back.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to his userpage seemed entirely appropriate, and his reversion as vandalism was not. It's probably best to let the MFD run, but whether the content can stay isn't necessarily dependent on its outcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If they really want to use MfD.. ok.. but I'm not sure why anyone would want to wait five days for something we can handle now. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any obligation to wait, in the sense that just removing the material was perfectly fine. But if he is intent on edit warring over the removal, which he may be, MFD permits a more decisive resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I did go through and remove the offending material; I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds in doing so. I left a note on his talk page explaining what I'd done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question: should editors remove offensive material from user pages; and who determines whether it is offensive? Some people have strident political positions on their pages, or have preserved the substance of deleted articles which they found politically to their liking in user space. We give wide latitude to users, a user even had pentagrams and swastikas on his user page and that wasn't deemed offensive to the community sufficient to remove them against the user's will. While I have great respect for FisherQueen, I think it overstepped bounds. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing when it's an occasional userbox and quite another when it's pretty much a full page dedicated to it. --WebHamster 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester John has subsequently started editing other people's user pages.^{[54] [55] [56] [57]} see contribs. ITAQALLAH 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not even being accurate. He removed a userbox from my page describing it as "racist". It was a box stating I didn't like rap music! --WebHamster 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know that only racists dislike Rap music? ;-) llywrch (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just glad I didn't mention that I dislike opera too, I dread to link what his chain of logic would make of that. :) --WebHamster 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG! You racist-communist-satanist! (Must... resist... urge... to... make... userbox... about... this...) ;) CharonX/talk 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, not liking opera would mean you hated Italians. HalfShadow (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. And during WW2 Italy had a fascist regime. Who were at war against Russia. Who were communist. Ergo he must be a Communist. But worse, he seems to hate music of all kind. And we all know(tm) all music has been created by God. So in opposing music, he opposes god, which must make him a satanist. It's perfectly clear! CharonX/talk 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget, the Taliban forbade music, so he's obviously one of them, too. (What's the CIA's phone number again?) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, how long are we going to put up with John's antics? So far he has been edited other people's userpage, did a bad-faith MfD nomination, and was pretty incivil to quite a lot of people (including an admin) CharonX/talk 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well it looks like PJ went one bad faith MfD nomination too far and Metros has blocked him for 72 hours. The next question is whether PJ will wait the 72 hours before venting his ire on us or will he use an IP/Sockpuppet to do it earlier? --WebHamster 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester causes trouble everywhere, doesn't he? Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling at strings here, trying to assume good faith; maybe if we ask him to patiently discuss the offensive material with the owner of said material in question instead of just snatching it off of their userpage, things will go more smoothly. That's certainly a better alternative than all the bad faith MfDs. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester is a long-time edit warrior and POV-pusher who has managed to stay just within the bounds of non-blockable conduct. It's time we said "enough." Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Orderinchaos 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester is not the best case to put forward to decide what should user pages not contain: there are several editors who are regularly at this page who have user pages pushing their POV on the Israel-Palestine or the Turkish-Kurdish conflicts which no doubt the other side of such conflicts would find "offensive" or "divisive" - chop away. My user page says I'm gay, Latino, ana a liberal democrat which no doubt offends all sorts of people one way or another. Too f'ing bad on that score. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship and brinksmanship don't go well together. I recommend not acting in edge cases. If you wait and watch, sooner or later an editor who deserves to be blocked will provide conclusive evidence so that you can do what's necessary without risking your reputation. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:70.173.50.153

Take a look at this page and tell me what you think. Looks like the user removed some templates back on the 10 november and received vandalism warnings for it. It doesn't look like vandalism to me, certainly not simple vandalism that requires a template. Possible test edits, possibly good faith but clueless, but no matter. That isn't what is bothering me.

The user then tries to remove the vandalism warnings from his page and receives further vandalism templates and a block for doing it. This looks like major newbie biting to me. When an IP is clearly static, and when the IP is clearly not a vandal, why do we not allow them to remove the templates. Is it plain stubborness? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. It may be that we need further discussion about this but there seem to be many who think removing warnings from one's talk page is vandalism. It is not. WP:UP#CMT makes plain that a user may remove such warnings. Of course, they still exist in the history of the page. Some users are embarrassed by the admonitions and wish to remove them. Such is not prohibited. I think there may be some confusion because that has not always been the practice. I believe we allow them to remove the warnings. We have much bigger issues to spend our time on. - JodyB _talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I have an issue with removing warnings while vandalism is in progress, as happened here. The same policy page makes clear that removing a warning implies that you read it ... to me, removing warnings and then continuing the same edit pattern is a way to try to avoid the consequences of your actions by preventing other users from seeing how many you've already gotten.

Flip edit summaries and ownership assertions like this did not help this user's case with me. Perhaps it was edit war rather than pure vandalism, but the net effect is the same, as is the remedy. Daniel Case 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, seriously? If you take a look at the time line of the entire escapade, it should be clear what has happened here. I made an edit, specifically, removing a template which User:Fogeltje felt should be there. That's fine. He then proceeds to watch my user page. I blanked the page... I get it, I read the warnings... and it stayed that way for hours. It seems more like stalking my page with an attempt to humiliate than any kind of actionable page blanking on my part.

All of my supposed vandalism and edit warring at this point comes from doing exactly what everyone says I should be able to do.. removing content from my talk page when I've read it. Does anyone really believe that this is an important part of the encyclopedia which needs protection?

Did I behave like a petulant child on occasion? Sure. Most of it came from my pure incredulity that "protecting" a page intended for talking to me was such a priority... nevertheless, I accept that I am responsibility for my poorly thought out response. 70.173.50.153 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. I don't believe anons have the right to remove warnings from Talk pages, as they are not "their" pages. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Once a vandal, always a vandal, eh? Yeah, forget reform. Forget shared IPs. Forget giving anybody a chance. We need to block this guy, he's a major threat to the encyclopedia, removing all those critical {{test1}} messages from a page no one is ever going to read. I must admit I'm at a complete loss to understand why the contents of this talk page are important. Once the page was protected, did they really need to be blocked? Seems a bit much hurry. Don't we all have better things to do than play police with things that aren't even remotely a problem for the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luna, Theresa, JodyB, and for the most part 70.173.50.153. No edits had been made in the previous week, the previous edits were all still (top) - there was no vandalism in progress. I can sometimes see the need for full protection at times like this to stop the RC patrollers edit warring on the user's talk page, but never the need for a block. 'Anons' are editors like you and me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. They can't create articles and can't move them. This was by design after those capabilities were stripped away from unregistered users. For good reasons, too.

Given that many anons are used by different users and are frequent bases for vandalism and sockpuppetry, we have every right and obligation to be less forgiving when they are used to edit in violation of policy and consensus, whatever misunderstandings are claimed later. That's why I keep the templates up ... other users who might leave messages have to be able to know what kind of user they're dealing with. And there is really no such thing as a truly static IP ... this was mine for a while but now it's not anymore. Nor do we have the reasonable certainty that the same person is behind every edit that we do with a registered user (how many times have you gotten an unblock request along the lines of "My brother started editing while I was out of the room!"?).

The blocking came first, then the protection. I was more than a bit annoyed when the page was blanked immediately after the block. That just flushes every good faith assumption I could have. Daniel Case 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor. You obviously didn't check his contributions because if you did you'd know that a) his only "vandalism" was to remove some templates back in November b) He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? If the IP changes and is no longer his why do we need the warnings? Your argument makes no sense to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor.In real life, having no prior record when I beat someone up in a bar fight (not that I would) isn't going to get me off the hook entirely for it. I believe the same principle applies here.

He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. While I agree this case may have been different from most that make this claim, the fact is we hear this one a lot. (BTW, he is also admitting that his actions were hotheaded).

Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? As I said, I very much do if it's removed when the alleged vandalism is in progress, and then the same edits that gave rise to the warning are repeated. It matters not whether the warning was for a good-faith edit or not. Just like it doesn't matter whether the police have real grounds to arrest you if you start running around and clamming up to make it harder to put the cuffs on — you are still resisting arrest under the law. Strict liability applies in that situation as long as the officers can demonstrate that they had every reason to believe they were effecting a lawful arrest. I consider this situation analogous.

The proper way to respond to a vandalism warning you believe you have received errantly is to immediately initiate talks with the other editor so that you both gain an understanding of each other and what your motivations were. It is not to begin edit warring on your talk page. And then, if the two editors have come to an understanding as people often do, then the vandalism warnings can be removed by mutual consent. That's the Wikipedia way ... this is a collaborative project, after all. In fact, I just did exactly that last weekend when I realized I'd warned the wrong IP on something.

Perhaps this wasn't vandalism, but it was definitely incivility. Daniel Case 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And here we see the inherent beauty of having a complex web of guidelines and rules which are largely known only to the enforcement community. If one charge can not be made to stick, another is right at hand. I have no doubt that I committed at least a dozen other infractions in my edits. For most of November, I largely refused to use edit summaries!

For the record, I don't claim I'm being singled out for persecution. I suspect that all so-called anonymous editors are treated with the same lack of respect with which I was. And, before anyone even starts quoting more procedure at me, I wasn't editing to make a point. Oddly enough, I was editing to make an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia which has enough respect for its readers (anybody remember these people?) to offer them a comprehensible and polished article. Yes, even if that means removing some mark-up which does nothing but encourage said readers to become editors.

I've largely given up on that quixotic quest. Instead, I've taken to hitting the random article page and cleaning up whatever I find there. Nowadays, I mostly leave the templates in place, so as not to incur the wrath of the people who somehow have time to place and "watch" templates, but not actually improve the articles.

I've learned a lot about Wikipedia in my short month of trying to contribute. I even created a user after an admin spoke to me like an actual human being. Since I had to out that user as part of this discussion, I have started yet another user. I really thought I was going to try to contribute. But my anti-authoritarian nature has kicked up.

The ploy has succeeded. You've sucked me into the morass of Wikipedia politics. I am now spending the majority of the time I've allotted for this project reading policies and writing these manifestos.

Is it clear, yet, that I've read the warnings on my page? I tried once again to clean up the page, only to have it reverted as vandalism. Imagine my shock when I discovered that it was Fogeltje's first edit of the day! He is right on the ball with keeping me in my place!

I don't want an apology. And I certainly don't want new justifications. I want the warnings off the page. In fact, I want everything off the page. 70.173.50.153 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

a complex web of guidelines and rules which are largely known only to the enforcement community. And which anyone can learn if they're patient enough.

If one charge can not be made to stick, another is right at hand. As is often the case in real life.

For most of November, I largely refused to use edit summaries! Well, why?

I suspect that all so-called anonymous editors are treated with the same lack of respect with which I was. I wouldn't call it quite a "lack of respect", but if you mean that some of us are more suspicious of anonymous edits, particularly those that come without edit summaries, you'd be right. We feel we have good reason.

But my anti-authoritarian nature has kicked up. Some people would call that an attitude problem. Yes, this project is open to all ... all who abide by the rules and policies that have been worked out and evolved from community discussion and consensus. And that inherently requires giving some people some authority to enforce those rules and policies. So if even that authority is one you're going to chafe at, you might want to reconsider how this will go for you if you don't want to accept that you are subject to that authority.

I am now spending the majority of the time I've allotted for this project reading policies and writing these manifestos. In the former case, you are hardly alone. Everyone had to learn these things, everyone who decided that they wanted to be a member of this community. As for the latter, that's entirely your choice. You could also have seen this as a learning experience, the sort of learning experience we all had at one point, and moved on and done the editing you wanted to, but for whatever reason you decided to make an issue of this. I do not judge here; I merely note that others might do differently.

I would also note that learning how things are done here is no different from what you must do anywhere you move, anytime you choose to start to become part of another community, virtually or really.

Concerning your issues with User:Fogeltje, I would note that I didn't find a single post from you to his talk page in its recent revision history. Do you honestly think you can expect him to be reasonable about this if you make no overtures to him? (And I do think he ought to be in this discussion).

I don't want an apology. And I certainly don't want new justifications. I want the warnings off the page. In fact, I want everything off the page. If you're going to use an actual account from now on, as you said on my talk page, as you said here, why would that matter? You could scarcely plead offense if someone looking this over began to think you were more interested in confrontation and settling a perceived grudge than actually contributing productively. And speaking personally, lay off the self-pity, it never does anyone any good. Daniel Case 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was the one making an issue of it. I approached him and asked if I could help as it was apparent that he was upset. Anyway enough of this. I will blank the IP talk page myself so that the matter is settled, but do ask that other users be less quick to label newbies as vandals, and more understanding when such newbies get annoyed abour being labelled as such, and start trying to deeascalate a situation rather than escalate it by adding yet more vandalism templates. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction I see that user:Luna Santin has already done it. Hopefully that is the end of the matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern for my adoptee

This edit, and the one after it on my page, lead me to think (no, believe) that my adoptee has been using sock puppets to disrupt the Wikipedia. I am now going to A) talk to him about the policy; and B)label the other accounts that I know of as sockpuppets. I just don't know if any other action needs to be taken. I am deeply concerned that User:Iamandrewrice is never going to learn how to be a positive contributer and am at my wits end. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the behavior of Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) since the initial thread on ANI. In his 3 weeks on Wikipedia, this user has managed to violate most of the core policies, including making legal threats, using sockpuppets and gross incivility to numerous editors. Jeffpw has had remarkable patience with Iamandrewrice, mentoring him and attempting to mold him into a productive user. However, this experiement has failed as the user is eithe[r unwilling or unable to follow the advice given to him by Jeff and many others. He's been blocked twice (legal threats, vandalism) and has recently implied that he's created multiple sockpuppets to evade blocks. Since there's no sign that Iamandrewrice's behavior is going to undergo a miraculous change, I'm requesting that this user be blocked indefinitely. I believe that a review of his contributions will lead other editors to the same conclusion. Chaz ^Beckett 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this carefully and yes, Jeff deserves a very large chocolate barnstar. I'd agree that an indefblock appears to be warranted. I've asked Iamandrewrice for an explanation of the edits Jeff has concerns about, so far with no response to be told that I am not the person on the account (despite the edits Jeff brought up) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I too have followed this from the sideline since being in dispute with him. That episode resulted in Jeffpw's adoption of Iamandrewrice. He has since shown significant progress as an editor and has worked hard on several articles. However, the amount of incivility towards his mentor has been astounding as has Jeffpw's patience and goodwill for which I awarded him a barnstar and some encouraging words. If this is the path that Iamandrewrice has now chosen, as it would appear, then I guess an indef block is the only solution to this. That said, it really all boils down to how much Jeffpw can continue to mentor someone who at times seem more eager to prove himself right regardless of Jeffpw's firm warnings to stop acting out. I don't think anyone would blame Jeffpw for simply deciding to back out of this arrangement. EconomicsGuy 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a fairly unambiguous statement that Jeff's done just that (and no blame to him) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thats not true! i have not purposefully vandalised as you will see! My edits were all with good faith! and I was learning very much from jeff... Iamandrewrice 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are constantly incivil to Jeff, as in these edits [58] [59] [60]. This is how you're treating someone you're "...learning very much from"". Sorry, you've been informed that this type of behavior is not acceptable, but the inappropriate behavior has continued and possibly even worsened. Chaz ^Beckett 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am basically crying now! I put my trust in you as an adoptee... and was hoping you felt the same level of care... I was, and still am trying so hard... if you look at my edits, none of them are vandalistic ... EVEN that Monkton one, as that with good faith! Iamandrewrice 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have an inability to see past yourself. Jeff took on the responsibility of adopting you when others thought you were a lost cause. He has attempted to put you on the right path. Instead of being grateful you demonstrate a selfishness that is totally out of line with the way Wikipedia works. Then when you are challenged on your behaviour you attempt to put the blame back on the one person who had faith in you. "Crying"? My ass! You are one of those kids, for whatever reason, thinks it's always someone else's fault. Your behaviour is your fault, no-one else's. --WebHamster 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick observation. Is it not more likely that User:SpidermanHero is a sock of User:Joeseth1992 - especially given User:SpidermanHero claims his name is Jose? Yes, the first message left on User:SpidermanHero was from User:iamandrewrice but that is arguably to be expected given User:iamandrewrice has claimed to know User:Joeseth1992 in real life. And User:Joeseth1992 did have his recent block extended for using socks to get around it. Also (and I haven't the diffs at the moment as I'm in a rush) User:iamandrewrice did claim User:Joeseth1992 wanted to improve the grammar on Wiki and User:SpidermanHero did make such an edit (albeit an incorrect one, capitalising a direction)[61]. I am convinced User:Joeseth1992 and User:iamandrewrice are separate people in real life (and they have left enough personal information about themselves on their user pages to make it apparent they are friends on MySpace and Bebo, for instance. My only main concern is that User:iamandrewrice has created the account to disparage the person his username suggests he is. That person does exist, and is connected to the person behind User:iamandrewrice on Bebo if nowhere else. Given all that can be obtained from the details both left (mainly email details in userboxes) is this not more likely to be a group of school friends that have got out of control, rather than socks? Whitstable 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

this diff would support that assertion. Someone came complaining that Iamandrerice had taken their name to use here. I expressed concern at that time, but it was decided Iamandrewrice could keep the name. Jeffpw 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppets are actually a very minor (and recent) part of the problem. Let's assume they're not sockpuppets, but a group of friends. Now we have a situation where Iamandrewrice is playing his usual game of creating drama and then playing the "I didn't know any better" card. This card made its first appearance when he made legal threats then, when blocked for this behavior, claimed to not know the definition of "legal action" (despite claiming on his user page that English is his native language and that he's studying English language and literature). So he's either lying about using sockpuppets or he's using sockpuppets, neither one is acceptable behavior. Chaz ^Beckett 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with that - and would also point to [this edit] to suggest that even if the two accounts are no the same person, they have been known to work together in such a way that is disruptive. I nearly filed a CU yesterday because of the amount of blocked users user:iamandrewrice had been contacting, but opted not to. But socks or not, I think the way user:Jeffpw has been treated by someone he has gone beyond the call of duty to help is so unfair that I am fuming about it, and I'm only looking at this from the outside! Whitstable 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just had a thought regarding checkuser - since the socks (or !socks) seem to admit to being pupils at the same school, isn't a checkuser likely to prove very little? The IP will be either the school's proxy or at least should be expected to be in the same IP block in any case. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He posts at times when one would normally expect a UK school to be closed, therefore it may be he logs in here from school and home. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: This | section here also makes me suspicious. And User:Christine118500 has been chasing around for adoption in a similar manner to how User:Joeseth1992 did. Whitstable 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, Whitstable. And SpidermanHero is doing the same thing now, as well. It does seem as if they are one user with split-personality disorder, or a group of school friends who have decided to make Wikipedia their target for fun and games. It will be interesting to see what the checkuser report says (I filed it a while ago). Jeffpw 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Whitstable, and this edit might be seen as ill-advised at best, under the circumstances. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) They (User:Iamandrewrice and User:Christine118500) both pass the duck test and are obvious sock/meat puppets of each other. I'm going to indef both and suggest that one of them may be unblocked only on stringent parole. — Coren ^(talk) 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The other two do not seem quite as obvious to me, however (but very likely). — Coren ^(talk) 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments above, User:Joeseth1992 and User:SpidermanHero appear to be the same person. Similar style, and the second account, created after Joeseth is blocked, claims to be named Jose? Whitstable 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Iamandrewrice has now posted an unblock request (with a rationale 873 words long!) on his talkpage, in which he admits that SpidermanHero is a meatpuppet. I strongly feel that this editor has been told often enough about policy and had it explained point-by-point where it applies to his edits without success. (Leaving aside questions of possible puppetry) I support the retention of an indefinite block. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with maintaining the indef block. There's a pattern of Iamandrewrice creating drama until blocked, then claiming it was all a misunderstanding, followed by being unblocked and then quickly returning to the inappropriate behavior. There are two possibilities here, either he's playing games seeing how much he can get away with or he's truly unable to understand how people are expected to behave here. Either one should result in an indef block. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Chaz ^Beckett 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would mention that Christine118500 has the same pattern. Tvoz |talk 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As does Joeseth1992 Whitstable 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the indef block. He had plenty of second chances and pretty much blew them all by arguing with Jeffpw rather than pay attention. There is no reason to believe that he will not simply return to his old pattern of disruption and acting out. Fact is he got a second chance that 99% of users who start out like he did never gets and he basically wasted that chance. EconomicsGuy 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary checkuser shows that the account has been socking. I need a second opinion on the Christine one, hence it's not completed, but Iamandrewrice certainly has - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As Christine118500's former adopter, and having observed Jeffpw's admirable attempts with Iamandrewrice, I endorse both blocks. I would add that Christine118500 admitted prior to being adopted that he had been blocked in the past (Christine118Maureen is clear, and others apparently); I discussed the matter with Isotope23, the admin who blocked the previous account, who said in reply that he was willing to let Christine118500 edit and try to reform. Sadly, he has not, and a block is warranted on that ground at least. I do not know whether Christine118500 and Iamandrewrice are the same individual. CU or a more detailed comparison of edit times and styles may reveal more, but it may matter little. Bencherlite^Talk 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the CU Iamandrewrice, SpidermanHero, Joeseth1992 (and, interestingly, Radiation111 and Narnia101) are confirmed. The result on Christine118500 is pending. Tonywalton   ^Talk 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Following another unblock request (which I declined) and yet more verbose "apologies" and promises, I've blanked and full-protected User talk:Iamandrewrice. Tonywalton   ^Talk 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A new one just arrived. Blackhouse123 is claiming to be friends with Christine118500. He also made this edit which isn't very helpful. IrishGuy ^talk 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another? Just seen this edit by User:Burningandrew within four minutes of account creation. Whitstable 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And another Dom58 the Second. They're kindly signing up at Petition to unblock User: Christine118500 (twice deleted). Bencherlite^Talk 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Plenty more socks now identified by checkuser. I blocked a bunch of them already and the checkuser case has now been updated - Alison ^❤ 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, by now, any illusions of good faith are reasonably ignored. Block-protect-ignore. — Coren ^(talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God. I was out seeing clients for the last few hours, so missed these latest revelations. I said to Tonywalton yesterday that I thought I had adopted Rosemary's Baby. Now it is clear I really adopted Sybil. Oh well, it was a good learning experience for my next adoptee. Thanks to everyone who gave me support throughout this. Jeffpw 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One Two Three Four,
How many More?
Five Six Seven Eight,
Well you'll just have to wait!

)

Christineandrew 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet more, it seems. User:Andrewsclone just made this edit Oh, and see above post by User:Christineandrew Whitstable 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another just created: User talk:Andrewsbaby to quote user page

you know who i am people

back from the dead? or already dead ;)

laterz yeah? yeah...

Sigh Whitstable 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

confirmed / blocked the underlying IP - Alison ^❤ 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A static IP, I hope! Tonywalton   ^Talk 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A look at suspected puppet User talk:Dom56! also suggests the following are puppets: user:Guys09, User:Toast123 and User:Dr. Reeves Thanks Whitstable 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dom56! for some more possible ones. Bencherlite^Talk 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Further from Andrewsbaby (on their talkpage, now a protected redir to the userpage):

ok people

theres just one thing i want and then this will all stop... seriously... I want you to unblock my IP address... that is my only request... then I wont bother you with these accounts anymore... but doing that is just unfair...

Tonywalton  ^Talk 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't unblock the IP address unless the sockpuppeteer reveals which IP address is being used. We also know that more than one address has been used. --Yamla 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, (and I'm not sure about "can't". Would doing so be a good idea?). If they're complaining about collateral damage (for instance, and I'm speculating here) perhaps the reason they seem so keen to have an IP unblocked is that one of the autoblocks is going to hit something like a school proxy, with ensuing awkward explanations from themselves as to how their activities got it blocked. If they're on a dynamic IP then meh? they can easily get another one (as I'd guess they are doing). I'm not sure whether this, followed immediately by this may be of interest. Someone didn't log in. Tonywalton  ^Talk 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again everyone... remember me now? ;) WiArthurWho 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... the sad thing here is that you don't seem to understand that you weren't banned (yet!) just indef blocked. You could have just started over and no one would have blocked your new account had you stuck to good faith edits. Once again you turned out to be your own worst enemy here. EconomicsGuy 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry continues, I've reopened the checkuser request. I move for a formal ban on this vandal. --Yamla 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pr this our friend Iam... is but one puppet among many and not the puppeteer (I suspected this last night). Try Wiarthurhu, I too would support a ban, of course. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Though I know I should outraged, I can't help but feel sorry for the guy. If you can believe anything he has written, his MySpace says this is his birthday. Instead of spending it celebrating with friends, he is waging a one man war against a group of strangers on the internet. That's just plain sad. I don't mean to imply he should not be banned, I just still have an element of compassion for what is obviously a very troubled young. Jeffpw (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I posted this on Tony's page, but I will post it here, too: This user, whoever he is, has emailed me with a full explanation of what has transpired. He asked me to post it here, but I refused. I did, however, promise I would forward it to any admin or other office people who might wish to read it. Jeffpw (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support the ban. This ban is the very last option - he blew the second last chance in spectacular fashion when Jeff had to give up on him. I really thought that this was the exception to the rule - that he really could be turned into a constructive good faith editor very eager to learn. I even felt really bad about having assumed bad faith about two of his uploads and really wanted the guy to succeed. Now that we know he was just a sock himself I'm really disappointed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently debating this with him on User talk:Benniguy. I support Tonywalton's indef block of that account as a preventive meassure but unless everyone else have given up on him maybe we can work out an arrangement where he is allowed back on one account with full disclosure and a strict civility parole and no arguing with people when he is told rather firmly not to do so. He needs to understand that and if he does I'm willing to assume good faith one very last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The user has repeatedly lied. See the below, for example, where Alison shows that the user falsely claimed an innocent third party was a sockpuppet account. Additionally, the user has claimed here to have a very limited number of sockpuppet accounts but elsewhere, claimed to have "thousands". --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the checkuser result when I posted this and debated with him. I agree, the lying is continuing. Full support for the community ban. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with a ban. This vandal has been at it a for months now. They've been given several "second chances" with various accounts. Ban, block, and ignore.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fettes-Additional sock

Hi, I've reverted a few actions by the self-admitted sock, on one of their comments they also confess to a few other socks; could someone please check into these and block as appropriate? Benjiboi 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I'm more than a little dubious. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey-ho. FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Iamandrewrice and Christine118500 are not the same person. The initial link between them is probably me, in this way: I decided to stand down as Christine118500's adopter after this, and told Christine118500 so. The next day, I reviewed one of Joseth1992's unblock requests and refused it. I think Iamandrewrice saw my name on Joseth1992's page, saw this message on my talk page and came across Christine118500 that way. However, as far as I'm concerned, both of them have messed around far too much and fully deserve their indef blocks. Bencherlite^Talk 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The original checkuser result explicitly indicated them as being separate but both socking - Alison ^❤ 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed - This guy is messing everyone around. Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs) = Fettes (talk · contribs) = Eastort (talk · contribs) = Orangestreetcat (talk · contribs) = Logitechfan (talk · contribs) = Donatenowkid (talk · contribs) - underlying IP blocked. Needless to say, the "confessed" accounts here ... aren't - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Smells like a community ban... MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a community ban for both. Christine118500 had his last chance some time ago when he was allowed, by kind permission of an admin, to try and edit constructively with this account. He failed to do so. Iamandrewrice's behaviour is here for all to see. Bencherlite^Talk 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I too support a community ban for both. This has burnt enough time that could have been used productively, has upset enough people (I'm not easily upset but I'm now getting paranoid about completely reasonable requests for assistance from new editors), and has just been too plain unpleasant, to be allowed to continue. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Benniguy, an admitted sock of Iamandrewrice, made an extremely verbose posting here prior to me blocking them. The posting was subsequently blanked (quite correctly IMV) and Benniguy's talkpage protected. Before this was done I made a summary from that posting of what Iamandrewrice's actions to date had been. Those considering whether a ban may or may not be appropriate may care to see the summary and their response on this revision. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A message to Iamandrewrice

The trouble is - you are now in a position where nothing you say can be trusted. Good faith efforts by both myself and (especially) Jeffpw to explain how this was going to crash down onto your head were ignored - then rebuffed and ultimately, scorned. Go back and read my posts to you on my talk page (archive 7, I believe) - you'll see that I gave you fair warning of how this would turn out - you arrogantly told me that you could create more accounts - I explained how that wouldn't work for long - and guess what? It didn't. You've lied and back-stabbed those who offered help and broken so many rules that we simply can't believe a word you say anymore...not one single word. So how can we tell that Joeseth1992 and SpidermanHero aren't really you? We have no proof of that and we certainly can't take what you are saying on trust anymore - that boat sailed away long ago. *IF* they aren't you, then you have some explaining and apologising to do to these friends of yours who are innocent victims in the war you started. There is a lesson for you here for your future life - and that is to treat others as you wish to be treated - to be kind, straightforward and truthful above all else - and to recognise when someone is trying to help you. In a way, you're lucky - you've learned your lesson in one of the gentlest ways possible. You've gotten kicked off an encyclopedia writing project - there are worse things that could have befallen you. There are other ways that lesson could have been learned that would have resulted in school expulsions or losing your job or jail time. So, take the lesson away - have a good hard think about how this came about and why it spiralled out of control - and apply that to your future life. And maybe - just maybe - if you quietly made a new account a year or so from now and were the very model of a perfect Wikipedian, we might not notice that it's you - but for now, that's definitely not a good idea. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of user Ilkali on numerous pages

This user appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the change of case is appropriate and regardless of any consensus against him. He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again. He has done this most recently on the Misotheism page, where it became clear that whether or not he had a case, he was going to reapply his edits regardless. (Witness his repeated edits and reapplication of reverted edits on November 29 and 30.) This behavior has apparently been going on for months on numerous pages, with the most egregious incident apparently being his edits to the Derren Brown page back in September, where the page had to be protected to stop his behavior. Despite clear evidence against his position presented by others, he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV. On numerous pages, "other contributors have clearly and patiently tried to talk to him" to no avail, and his content "continues to add content that is disagreeable." When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it." Full disclosure: He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action. Craig zimmerman 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these accusations have already been addressed elsewhere, but I'll provide a short response to each of them here.

1. "appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia". Only when it is a common noun, as explained in great detail on the two talk pages.
2. "He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again". I reverted User:Dbachmann's edits when he and I were the only ones involved. At this point, there was no consensus. When User:Craig_zimmerman joined, I ceased. The three of us discussed the issue (to varying degrees), mostly on the MoS talk page. During the process, three of four editors agreed that common nouns should not capitalise, with the fourth not making any clear statements in either direction. With the orthographic conventions largely cleared up, it fell to analyse the actual edits to see if the changes were appropriate. To this end, I presented arguments in support of specific edits ([62]). At this point Dbachmann and Craig_zimmerman both declared unwillingness to discuss the issue. I resumed reverting.
3. "he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV". 'Common nouns don't capitalise' isn't a POV. 'Determiners are almost exclusively used with common nouns' is not a POV. etc.
4. "When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it."". (Why did you paraphrase instead of just quoting me?) The only person to whom I responded like this is Craig_zimmerman himself, and this was because he repeatedly argued against a position that I didn't hold, ignoring what I had said elsewhere in the discussion. I was not the only editor to suggest that he didn't understand my position.
5. "He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action". I'll let the WQA itself address this one: [63].

Ilkali 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute which got a little hot. I suggest some dispute resolution, since you don't need admins to resolve this issue at this point in time. --Haemo 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like that, but it's difficult to resolve a dispute when one side of the disagreement is unwilling to do anything other than revert changes. Ilkali 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this would have been more concise as inline comments...

1. By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that his argument was soundly rebutted and summarily contradicted, but this did not stop him from continuing to cling to his POV on the subject. Those who rebutted and contradicted were deemed "unwilling to discuss."
2. Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's, and this user has strong POV's that contradict both editorial consensus and documented English-language usage conventions as provided in great gory detail.
3. The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general. This talk page section offers explicit examples of his language directed at multiple editors, including his tirade at dab in which he said "If you had any understanding of the distinction at hand, you wouldn't say that my edits were made through indiscriminate search-replacing." (Not that "the only person to whom I responded like this was..." would be any sort of excuse for such behavior in any case.) "I'm not obligated to teach you syntax just so you can talk productively about this topic but I'll explain how you're wrong" (followed by no real explanation of what was wrong with the original statement—perhaps it was he who was failing to understand?) is yet another example. Other similar texts appear in the Derren Brown disruption discussion.

Despite the fact that Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent, and despite the fact that his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed, and despite the fact that consistently he has failed to make the case that he seems to believe he has made, he continued his disruptive reversion behavior in the cases cited above. This behavior has occurred numerous times in the past with perhaps the most notorious and flagrant example being the Derren Brown article, where the issue of his behavior was apparently only resolved by protection of the page from his disruptive edits. I contend that this is a repeated pattern of deliberate disruptive behavior that warrants appropriate action. Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that

"this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation. Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised. Ilkali, you are now, by your revert-warring, indulging in WP:POINT. Review WP:DISRUPT for possible sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour.

Craig zimmerman 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that [...]" - What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page.

"Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's" - If my understanding of these terms is a POV, then presumably yours is as well? And by your own reasoning, your arguing for your favored version of the article means you are pushing your own POV?

It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue.

"The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general" - Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?

Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent" - Can you back this up?

"his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed" - Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible.

"Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that [...]" - You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest).

I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events. Ilkali 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page." There was discussion, authoritative sources were cited showing that Ilkali was wrong, there was only unwillingness to discuss the issue further beyond that point.

"It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue." According to this reasoning, all usage standards are really just POVs, I guess. And majority consensus and historical precendent on usage doesn't carry any weight in balancing which POV is right. Isn't that the ridiculous claim?

"Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?" Throughout his series of requests for clarification made to you that went unanswered. But that wasn't what the content of the comment refered to in any case. The direct quotations include remarks made to both dab and myself.

"Can you back this up?" Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun (e.g., refering to a group of people who are "Davids") in support of his opinions. When it was pointed out that this was a bad analogy to a situation in which the debate was about whether a word should be capitalized (he cited no instance of a lower case "david") he not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point.

"Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible." Yadda, yadda, yadda indeed. Does saying that another person's arguments are flawed constitute "bile?" I didn't think that was the case. In any case, let's move on.

"You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest)." Fair enough. He wasn't acting in his capacity as admin at that juncture. He was simply noting that your behavior, in his opinion, was in violation of WP:DISRUPT and that sanctions against you might be appropriate if you continued engaging in it. This is a POV shared apparently by many people about your behavior on Wikipedia. Is it just another POV, or is it one that has merit? That's the question we're trying to answer.

"I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events." I sincerely hope so. Craig zimmerman 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"There was discussion, authoritative sources were cited showing that Ilkali was wrong, there was only unwillingness to discuss the issue further beyond that point." - If you predicate your arguments on the presupposition that you were right, they're going to fall flat. I can do exactly the same thing. We all believed we were right, and we all acted accordingly.

"According to this reasoning, all usage standards are really just POVs, I guess" - My words: "This isn't a POV issue". But if you insist that my analysis of these nouns is a POV then yours is necessarily so as well. Which of our analyses is correct is a matter for another page.

""Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?" Throughout his series of requests for clarification made to you that went unanswered" - I expressed refusal without even answering? I have put more effort into resolving this dispute and building understanding of the viewpoints than anybody else ([64], [65], [66], [67]).

"Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun" - No I didn't. I showed that 'David' can function as a common noun, through widely-documented twin syntactic and semantic processes of proper->common conversion ([68], [69]), whereby it can take modifiers and a determiner (syntax) and denote a set of entities (semantics). You don't understand what this means (which of course isn't shameful - like the majority of people, you just haven't studied linguistics), but the real problem is that you don't realise you don't understand it.

"not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point" - ...while requesting that you post the same comment below my text rather than inside it. The first time you did it, I spent time extracting your replies manually and asked you not to do it again. I did the same here. I don't accept an obligation to do it every time. Ilkali (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to summarize the issues focusing on the disruptions rather than dragging the content debate here:

1. If you predicate your arguments on the presupposition that you were right, they're going to fall flat. I can do exactly the same thing.
   In fact, this is exactly what Ilkali did do. When his arguments were countered with historical precedent and common usage guidelines from authoritative sources that flatly contradicted him, he again ignored those rebuttals and claimed unilaterally that he was right, usually going back and unreverting his changes that were deemed inappropriate. This has happened in a number of places on Wikipedia over the period of several months.
2. My words: "This isn't a POV issue".
   Meaning his POV is right and everyone else's, no matter how well documented is wrong, and any effort to dissent from his POV and call it wrong is labeled a failure to understand, a dismissal of the rebutter's intellectual abilities, or a personal attack heaping "bile" upon him. This is also a repeated pattern.
3. I have put more effort into resolving this dispute and building understanding of the viewpoints than anybody else.
   If by "effort" he means deleting people's comments that contradict him, unilaterally unreverting changes in acts of blatant edit-warring, and dismissing the counterarguments of critics as personal attack, then and only then I would agree. The resolution that is the unilateral goal of this effort seems to be the foisting of his opinion on others.
4. "Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun"
   - No I didn't.
   Without dragging the actual content debate here, it was shown that his example was a poor analogy that did not accurately reflect on the "God vs. god" issue being argued, and rather than address the arguments against this failed analogy, more contempt was hurled at those who rebutted him (in this case, me).
5. You don't understand what this means (which of course isn't shameful - like the majority of people, you just haven't studied linguistics), but the real problem is that you don't realise you don't understand it.
   I must admit, here in this thread at least, Ilkali goes to great lengths to bend over backwards to appear gracious, with his parenthetical remark injected here. This has hardly been the case in the actual discussions we are refering to. No such parenthetical retreat from outright contemptuous dismissal occurred outside this thread. In any case, is it possible Ilkali doesn't realize he doesn't understand the counterarguments being addressed to him? I think not, I think he knows they are valid and just doesn't care. Whatever the truth of the matter, the edit-warring and other violations of Wikipedia behavior guidelines manifest some kind of stubborn refusal to participate rationally.
6. "not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point"
   - ...while requesting that you post the same comment below my text rather than inside it. The first time you did it, I spent time extracting your replies manually and asked you not to do it again. I did the same here. I don't accept an obligation to do it every time.
   This is simply not true. My comments (responding to individual bullet points inline to save space, taking great care to ensure that flow was preserved and that attribution was clarified) were summarily deleted, without response. Here, as with the injected parenthetical graciousness, his behavior is quite different.

Craig zimmerman (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think I need to put up a defense anymore. Ilkali (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User 83.67.73.117

• 83.67.73.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly new editor that fits the description of a WP:SPA, who has been blocked once previously for inserting misinformation. Editor is now contributing almost entirely to Talk:Bosniaks‎, where his comments are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well. Editor has been warned multiple times but persists.

Previously discussed in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:83.67.73.117, which recommended posting here to ANI. Note though that the editor has responded there [70] and on his talk page [71].

Despite the warnings, the editor appears uninterested in discussions directed at improving the article, and instead uses the talk page as a forum, where his opinions are often little more than trolling [72]. --Ronz 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. I would also like to voice my opinion that this anon's actions are totally inappropriate. Frvernchanezzz 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope an admin would consider blocking 83.67.73.117 for at least a short period. This situation is rapidly escalating toward yet another Arbcom involving long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. --Ronz 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks and related articles

Promotion of the following fringe theory has been ongoing for quite some time, but in recent weeks, a few users have been shamelessly promoting a completely baseless and racist theory about Bosniaks (The users are User talk:83.67.3.166, User talk:83.67.73.117, and User:NeutralBosnian. All three are most likely the same editor, due to the same edit patters, same writing style, similar IP addresses). The very dispute is laughable, and most level headed Bosniaks would not agree with it. No prominent Bosniak Wiki-editors, (such as Kseferovic), have ever made any such ridiculous claims, and never will, because they accept, and our proud of, the truth, which is, Bosniaks are Slavs. This is 100% factually accurate, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs.

The fringe theory that keep getting inserted suggests ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language". Basically, these editors are trying to "prove" that Bosniaks are not Slav, but are in fact the descendants of the Illyrians. People who support this view make outrageous claims, such as "Bosniaks can't be Slavs, because Serbs look like Gypsies, but Bosniaks look like Scandinavians"; this is not only completely untrue, but extremely racist/xenophobic. After the war in BiH, Bosniaks reasserted themselves as a nation; something which we can all be proud of. But, the bad side of this is, there are some people with extremist views out there who try and differentiate themselves from Serbs so much (because of all the residual hate after the war) that they resort to making such stupid claims as this. The baseless "Illyrian theory" has no support from mainstream academia, and is not even covered by mainstream academia even as a pseudoscience, as it so erroneous.

It's a fact that all peoples of the Balkans have some traces of Illyrian blood in them, but to suggest that Bosniaks are the direct descendants when they have as much Illyrian as Croats, Serbs and other Balkan people is laughable. Furthermore, ethnicity is not all about genetics anyway - it is mainly about culture and language; and Bosniaks share culture, heritage and language with the other South Slavs for the simple fact that they are Slavs.

There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Wikipedia, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. So I am requesting one or more admins step in and stop the promotion of such ridiculous fringe theories. - Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these concerns of Frvernchanezzz should be addressed separately. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ostensible breach of WP:TALK by User:Perspicacite

Our guideline WP:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages states: "The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes." Perspicacite has now removed the questions (and the comments of other editors) without providing an appropriate response or canvassing the removal of other editor's comments on the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=175534728&oldid=175532620

When I asked him on his talk page to replace the material and discuss matters in future, he removed my question with an edit summary of "No": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APerspicacite&diff=175541745&oldid=175540365

May I revert this excision and the sourced material that was removed in successive reversion(s)? Alice.S 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has repeatedly spammed the talkpages of articles where I edit. Her spam was moved to her talkpage. She has done this previously on Talk:Rhodesia, Talk:Tokelau, etc. Jose João 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

These two have been at each other like cat and dog for weeks now. Someone else needs to have a look at how best to resolve it as they have both completely ignored my advice which was to avoid interacting with each other. --John 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban her? Jose João 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if both of you leave the other person alone? That seems like a simple solution. --Haemo 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What Perspicacite alias Jose João calls "spam" are requests for editors (including himself) to comment on why he is removing sourced material. In both the cases he mentions there is no support whatever for his position on the relevant article's discussion pages. I wish he would address himself to the edits and not the editor and stop producing smokescreens. In both cases he removed comments by editors other than himself or I without their permission. Alice.S 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has never added sourced material. The only comments I have ever moved were hers. She knowingly restored an anonymous user's vandalism to ACW earlier today. Why hasnt she been banned? She does not contribute anything. Jose João 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I now assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

None of that, as usual, is true. Jose João 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have, once again, suggested a way forward at my user talk page. --John 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you by e-mail, yesterday, John. I do hope that we can improve the quality of the article that is the subject of this incident report. This is really a test case for whether content is important to admins and whether article talk pages can be allowed to be subverted and by-passed. Alice.S 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The two of you need to engage in dispute resolution and stop cluttering this noticeboard. Since talking obviously isn't working, you might consider getting a mediator. Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This board is definitely not the appropriate place for this argument, and it appears that a lot of arguing has gotten you no where. I would suggest either completely avoiding each other or getting a mediator, as Shell suggested. Natalie 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to receive an answer to my question rather than platitudes. May I restore the editors' comments from the talk page that were unilaterally removed? Yes or No and then that'll be the end of it from me. Alice.S 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question is something two adults should work out in a mature and capable fashion. We're not going to play teacher, and give either of you a mandate for continued behavior in this vein. Take some advice, and try dispute resolution, or just avoid one another entirely. And, for your information, admins are not content arbiters — they are just regular editors, with a handful of tools, and have no greater or smaller mandate to comment on content issues. Content is important to admins — but it is totally unrelated to their functioning as admins, and any content-related dispute you have should not be addressed to admins solely because they have a sysop bit. --Haemo (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try and ignore the deliberate smokescreens above. This question is not asking you to adjudicate on a content dispute; the editors of the article in question are able to do that - but not if the discussion is removed from the talk page of the article. How can content disputes be settled if the losing party to the discussion just unilaterally removes the whole discussion. Please don't try to characterise my question as asking you to decide on content. I am asking you to rule (or intervene) on the removal (and stymying) of discussion on the article's talk page. Alice.S 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is not the appropriate forum to raise concerns about unilaterally deleting policy-compliant discussions on article talk pages, please would you direct me to the appropriate place? Alice.S 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin FeloniousMonk

Resolved

 – IP is credibly identified as User:Jinxmchue, blocked as such. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FM has been violating WP:AGF and making baseless accusations against me. This started when he "discovered" that I had not been logging in to my user account to edit. (The story behind that is a long one, but to be brief, I am no longer regularly editing and have retired my username.) In not logging in, my IP address was used and, like many IP addresses, it is not static - the last three digits change from time to time - something completely out of my control. FM immediately started accusing me of sockpuppeting, ignoring AGF (which is strongly encouraged for admins here and for handling possible sockpuppets here). I have never denied I was still editing and never hid my identity for any reason. I readily admitted that I was Jinxmchue. This information, however, did not stop FM from continuing to make his accusation and claiming I was doing it do disrupt, avoid blocks, and to disassociate my edits with my username. I asked him to provide proof of his accusations, but he simply ignored my request and described it as "trolling." Of course, his sockpuppeting accusations were never officially made on WP:SSP (and it's not in the November archive, either), likely due to him knowing that the accusation lacked merit. Evidence for FM's behavior can be seen in the following links:

• [73] - smearing me (note the Wikilawyering)
• [74] - smearing both me and Crockspot (and ignoring the edit-warring of others)
• [75] - more smearing
• [76] - I've never denied my identity
• [77] - note that the page is protected despite no official report on WP:SSP

Furthermore, when admin Guettarda wrongly re-blocked me for supposedly violating an edit block (see here), I requested a block removal. FM (along with Guettarda) has been intimately involved in the issues involving editing an article which led to my initial block. Despite this gross conflict of interest, FM handled the block removal request (denying it, of course). Admins with the same agendas and POV working together like this to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed is simply astounding and should not be allowed. A neutral admin should have handled the block removal request.

FM's hostile attitude towards me is unacceptable (and I admit my hostile reactions towards his behavior were also unacceptable, but I don't have admin powers to abuse). 67.135.49.177 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not disruptive, mind telling me why you've been edit warring on Discovery Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Will ^(talk) 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I had typed out a lengthy response to you, but I'm not going to post it. This Incident report is not about me. Please keep it on topic (i.e. about FM). If you want to discuss me, look above or start your own report on me. 67.135.49.177 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By editing Wikipedia you agree to have your edits scrutinised. The same is on ANI: if you post a thread, your actions may be investigated. Will ^(talk) 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to drag this off-topic. I will not respond any further to your or anyone else's off-topic comments. There is already a section on this page for the comments about me you want to add. 67.135.49.177 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk says you are disrupting the project. You take issue with that accusation. Sceptre points out a place where you are being disruptive. How is that off-topic? Natalie 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While I note that this is resolved, I think that FeloniousMonk should be gently reminded that they should not exercise their sysop powers in matters or involving editors that they have had recent dealings in - if only for the sake of appearances. The pool of admins is not that small. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who re-blocked for block evasion. While I did not consider that a controversial actions, because of issues of this sort I posted a request for a review of my action here. I also made the point that I make no objections if someone wanted to alter my block. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the comment was that FM was the reviewer who declined the block appeal - not that I have checked, so I best do that now... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Yup, FM declined; so he was in fact actively un-using his tools in a case in which he had been involved (again, only as commented - I haven't taken the time to review the case). As mentioned, my faint concern is more to do with being seen to be acting according to regs than any complaint that the system was being abused. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, another admin has commented to me privately that FM's protection of Discovery Institute may not seem proper use of tools, as he is a major contributor to that article, apparently according to his own user page (I have not verified that). I made one edit to the article, and was reverted once by an editor that supports FM's preference for the content of that article.I made one edit and one revert, and was reverted by two editors who support FM's preference for the content of that article. I was discussing it on the talk page at the time of protection. There was no edit war at the time. - Crockspot (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Correction: Sorry, I made one edit and one revert, then discussion. The fact remains that FM was heavily involved in creating and maintaining that article, and he should have asked an uninvolved admin to make the call. - Crockspot (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you were edit warring as far as I can tell, picking up right where Jinxmchue left off, and it looks from the history like Felonious had not edited the article in a long time (since August if I read the history correctly) which makes it hard to not see him as an uninvolved editor. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at this in more detail, I don't think Crockspot meant to be edit warring and his behavior appeared to be in good faith. I do however still think that FM did constitute an uninvolved admin for this purpose although given how much of the content there was written by him, it would maybe have been prudent for him to have another admin make the call to avoid this sort of appearance of a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Jinxmchue's (31-hour) block has expired, and the user has (apparently) committed to only editing anonymously, a one month block seems a bit much. There's no policy against abandoning your account.—Random832 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. also consider that he has said he will go to great lengths to avoid even giving the appearance of concealing his identity.) —Random832 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar actions of apparently non-vandalist editor

Resolved

This editor M1ss1ontomars2k4 has a number of perfectly ordinary edits under her(?) belt; but look at the last couple of articles created (including the deleted article now a redlink). Unless there's a secret nasty Mozart I don't know about, this is some kind of wack vandalism that seems uncharacteristic, complete with a really nasty Durova quip in the edit summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's just ... odd. I've deleted the (English redirect) articles as CSD:R1, and will drop a note on the user's talk page. BLACKKITE 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Beat you to it. I've indef blocked the account as it appears to have been compromised, and left a note on both the user's talk page and by email. This way, the editor will be able to reestablish his identity, change his password, and resume editing. — Coren ^(talk) 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah - the only reason I didn't block myself was because the edit immediately after the article creations was in line with the user's normal editing interests. Still, better safe than sorry, and we'll see what they say. BLACKKITE 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a legit piece in the Mozart canon. We have an article on Leck mich im Arsch. Gimmetrow 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Don't jump to any conclusions or hasty blocks. Mozart wrote several canons with obscene lyrics for his friends. This was highlighted in a way by the Durova incident, as Durova and Guy have made baseless accusations against !! and Giano for discussing those canons. (That's what "obscene trolling, knows German" was about.)

I haven't looked into the edits thoroughly yet, but if you blocked someone just because you don't believe the thing about Mozart, you should (a) unblock immediately and (b) give the user a thorough, sincere apology lest you become the next Durova. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up by looking at the article. It was completely legit. It even had references so that you could tell it was legit. What we've seen is a prime example of What Not To Do When You're An Admin, especially the week after Durova. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support immediate unblock. This appears to be K233/382e. Gimmetrow 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article appears legit -- see the German Wikipedia Article. The edit summary may have been a little uncivil, but certainly not grounds for a block. Pastordavid 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The German version does appear to be legit, however I deleted the two English redirects because they appeared unnecessary and I think that was a correct decision (doesn't the idiom mean "Kiss my ass" anyway?. BLACKKITE 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec x3)Roughly translated, yes based on what my German friends tell me. Strictly translated: Lick me in the ass. I had to ask after I saw that one created. spryde | talk 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard multiple people refer to the piece as "Lick me in the ass nice and clean". I wouldn't be able to spell the German version if I were looking for it. There's no reason to delete the redirect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually we'd just mention the English title in the article, but I don't have any real objection to restoring the redirects (they might be a target for vandalism, though). BLACKKITE 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary looks like it was intended as a needed warning to make sure an admin wouldn't rush in and do exactly what Coren did anyway. Reading it as anything else is assuming bad faith. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren isn't responding, so I've unblocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• And I've restored the German titled article, minus the revision with the incivil edit summary. BLACKKITE 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, whatever indicated this account was compromised? I would like to know for future reference. Gimmetrow 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the original editor looked at the rather incivil edit summary involving Durova together with the titles of the English language articles, then looked at the the user's previous contributions and thought they didn't match well. I can see why they thought that, and certainly when I first looked at the user's contribs (by then, the German titled articles had been deleted, just leaving Lick me in the ass nice and clean), I was a little surprised too. BLACKKITE 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope that for you there's a difference between "a little surprised" and "reaching for the indef-block button". When a good editor does something odd, you can always ask them about it on their talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I did. By the time I'd left a note on their talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M1ss1ontomars2k4&diff=prev&oldid=175778804), though, Coren had already blocked them. I tried to contact him on IRC to say I didn't think it was compromised due to the following edit, but he wasn't responding, and by that time the legitimacy of the article had been pointed out. BLACKKITE 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • For the record, an immediate indef block is the only proper response to an account that appears compromised (and given how... uncharacteristic those edits appeard to be for an established editor, that was a reasonable conclusion). If the account wasn't compromised the editor suffers a few moments of inconvenience while things are sorted out— if it was compromised then damage gets limited and the editor's reputation doesn't suffer needlessly. You'll note the block reason makes it very clear the block was put in place not because of behavior, but because the security of the account was in doubt. At no point did I presume, or state, or act in a way consistent with my believing that M1ss1ontomars2k4 was anything but a good faith editor. Drama much? — Coren ^(talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, whatever indicated this account was compromised? I would like to know for future reference,, because I don't see it. The editor didn't go on a vandal spree. A hair trigger seems to risk offending an editor. Fortunately, the editor didn't get offended, but if he did, it would have been a lot more difficult to undo than a couple bits of vandalism. Gimmetrow 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• See [78] and User:!! for context. Although probably done completely innocently, it cannot be overstated how inappropriate an indef-block was here. Perhaps bring it to the board before a block next time? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A temporary indefblock of an account that seems to be compromised is not such a bad idea. The user can be easily unblocked if it is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the preemptive indefblock; it's much easier than reverting a bunch of articles. I've always been away for the entire time I've been blocked, seeing as people tend to unblock me before I even know I've been blocked. So I'd like to know what exactly can be edited by a blocked editor, because it wouldn't make sense if an editor couldn't explain his/her own actions in order to be unblocked. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• For exactly the reason you mention, when you're blocked you can still edit your talkpage, in order to post an unblock notice. BLACKKITE 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and undeleted the redirects and the article creation edit of Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber. I think it's important to preserve history. Before my undeletion, a non-admin could have suspected that the first sentence came from nowhere. The edit summary was uncivil but it didn't reveal any personally identifiable information - there is no reason that non-admins should not see it. Graham87 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock is fine with me

Geesh. Stay away for ten minutes and see what happens!  :-) I have no objection to the unblock. I blocked for the benefit of the editor, not to prevent him from editing.

For the record, the very nasty Durova crack screamed vandalism, but it was only normal to assume the account was compromised and not that a good editor suddenly went rogue. — Coren ^(talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...looks like you guys have figured it all out, so I won't put much explanation here. I cannot tell a lie; 'twas I who made those uncivil comments. Sorry for all the confusion, as it's mostly my fault. If you need additional proof that my account has indeed not been compromised, please feel free to ask! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry BLACKkite, I'm a guy. The m1ss1on is just that--mission. My username refers to the Spirit and Opportunity missions. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops :) BLACKKITE 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Single issue poster, multiple accounts

Rachalupa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.170.220.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These accounts appear to be used by a single issue poster publicising their dispute with Interactive Brokers by posing as them and posting derogatory information. Examples - spam links to their website interactiveBrokersSucks.com - [79], false information and vandalism (category) - [80], creating an alternate similarly named (spoof?) article [81] -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You only seem to mention one account - Rachalupa. 71.170.220.213 isn't an account, it's an IP address, otherwise known as an anon. While the edits certainly seem as if they should have been reverted (which they have been), and the link to the spoof website might be classed as defamation, I can't quite see what administrator intervention could be made here. the vandalism is the issue here and I can't see where admin interventoin is required. As far as I know there's no specific policy against a registered editor who isn't blocked editing as an anon. I've given Racahalupa a warning about placing attack links in articles. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user account. A review of the edits show it is a vandalism only account. The IP I have blocked for 72 hours. If you or anyone wishes otherwise they may make the change. - JodyB _talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you list this link for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎. Any admin there can do this for you. Otherwise, most hard-core spammers will just get other accounts as necessary to keep adding their links; blocking has little effect. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice, following/harassment

Hi, I'm a quite new user on Wikipedia.

I had some problems, with another user, from before I had even got a user-name on Wikipedia.

I was only having an ip-address, for a signature.

But even so, one user, kjetil r, knew that my usual username, for message-boards in Norway, was 'cons', and contacted me on Wikipedia, using this nick/user-name, when contacting me on Wikipedia, before I had got a user-name on Wikipedia.

(At least this is how I remember it).

And then, later, I was editing a page (grandiosa), and then another user, plased POV tags, I think they are called.

The other user and me, reach a compromise, like the other user refered to it as.

And then, seemingly from nowhere, the kjetil r user, suddently appeared, on this, the other page, and now on English Wikipedia, and not on Norwegian Wikipedia, where our first 'encounter' was.

And then the kjetil r user, placed new POV tags, almost imideatly after the first user had removed them, since consensium between me and the first user had been made.

So kjetil r wasn't involved in the discussion, but seemed to me to be surveiling me, and as soon as the first user and me had reached consius, then the kjetil r user appeared, seemingly from nowhere, and placed new tags, and disapeared again seemingly.

At least this is how it seemed to me.

I know I'm new on Wikipedia, but regardless of this, it seems to me that I have been followed and harassed in 'cyberspace' (that is, that the user must have been finding my user-name from somewhere on the internet, possibly a thread on a message-board, which I was linking in the beginning of my writing, before I understood all the things with the citations), and on two different Wikipedia editions.

This is how it seems to me.

So I was wondering what other people think of this.

And if I am on the right page, for this.

And how I should go forward regarding this.

So I hope that this is the right place to mention this, and I would be very grateful for advice on to go forward with this.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean your edits to Grandiosa such as this one, you appear to be using message boards and the like as sources - but they're clearly not acceptable sources, so it was entirely correct that this information be removed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And please learn to use the preview function - you've filled the edit history of that article with hundreds (literally) of tiny changes. Please add or remove content in one (or for complex cases, a handful, if really necessary) of edits, not a run of dozens. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the advice for the questions that I wasn't asking about.

I know I'm a new user on Wikipedia.

I'll continue to try to learn the learn the rules and the procedures.

The reason I was writing here now, was regarding possible advice on the following and harassment.

So thanks in advance for help regarding this!

Johncons (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You've not presented any evidence of following and harrassment. A review of your edits shows you've edited only one article, and repeatedly added inapproprate content to it. It's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia editors to remove that, and (as you've repeatedly added it back) to caution you and remind you of Wikipedia's rules. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the case that I'm writing about here.

I appreciate, that there are several things that can be talked about.

But I was thinking in the ways of, everything to it's time.

And now, I was thinking that it was time for the following/harassment episode.

And this was on the Norwegian message-board.

So if it's alright to focus on this case, with the user kjetil r?

Because if one mixes in to many cases, then it gets difficult to get the overview.

I'm not sure if this is making any sense?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens on the Norwegian wikipedia is none of our business - complain there. What happens on some message board is none of our business - complain there. There is no evidence that kjetil or anyone else, other than you, have behaved badly on the English Wikipedia. On looking at Talk:Grandiosa it seems everyone has been very patient with you, but you've been consistently making the same baseless claims for days, and everyone has been very patient with you. It's becoming difficult to believe you're interested in solving disputes constructively. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I don't really see what the point is, with me writing anything at all, if you don't belive what I'm writing.

Could you please confirm or not, regarding if there is any point at all that I write anything more?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to consider abandoning your current username and starting a new account here under a different name, as long as you understand the basics of editing here. Skål! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okey, that might be a good idea.

I'll try to learn more about the basic rules.

I'll also see if I can find some of the evidence, with the intitial post.

So, if it's alright then I'll just bring that later.

Since I'm a bit new to this yet, then it could maybe take me some time to find this.

So if it's alright then I'll just return later, within a day or two, with the mentioned diffs.

If thats alright.

(Skål tilbake ja, selv om jeg ikke skal påstå at jeg har så mye øl her nå, men det får jeg heller ordne senere anledning.)

And sorry if I'm a bit harsh in these post, I think I need a break from Wikipedia, and then return tomorrow or something like that.

So sorry about this, and thanks for the advice! Johncons (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by involved party User:Mayalld

This is becoming somewhat tiresome! User:Johncons has been involved in major league POV pushing (200+ edits over 3 days), which interested editors had attempted to tone down. They were faced with a stubborn insistence on adding the POV text.

I arrived as a disinterested editor, having noticed an unusual amount of activity on a single article from a new user account. Having spent a good deal of time reviewing 200 edits, to determine whether we had POV pushing or a case of established editors WP:OWNing an article, it became clear that this was POV pushing of a fringe theory. Accordingly I reverted back to the last good revision.

User:Johncons;

• Has an agenda. He believes that inconsistencies in accounts from a pizza maker as to whether they use soy protein or pork gelatin as a binder is obvious proof that they are actually using dead people.
• is convinced that the fact that a user on wiki spotted who he was from his POV pushing whilst he was editing as an IP is proof that he is being stalked
• believes that chatrooms are reliable sources
• demands that he should be able to add what he wants and that people should discuss removing the additions
• writes voluminously on talk pages, demanding that people answer his questions, and dismisses any response that tries to poinbt out that he is asking the wrong question.
• Is now engaging in wikilawyering by this vexatious report, and a similar report on WP:WQA. I believe that he hopes to drive away anybody who seeks to uphold policy against him.

Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lostinlodos

Lostinlodos (talk · contribs) did a cut and paste copy of Burma to Union of Myanmar. I reverted him and explained that 1-there was no consensus for the move, and 2-that his move was a copyright violation because the edit history was lost by his cut and paste move. He replied with several legalisms. On the Talk:Burma page, he's claiming [given that [The} Union Of Myanmar is a member of the United Nations, it opens Wikipedia's site host and administrators to international LEGAL action by the government of The Union'], and is repeatedly trying to claim on my Talk page and on his own, that the cut and paste move didn't violate international copyright law, and therefore it was perfectly legitimate. I have no intentions of getting into an edit war with him, but this is just a heads up that he'll probably try to make the move again, since he sees nothing wrong with what he did. Corvus cornix_talk 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to have the article at the right place, but there's the specter of legal threat there, and he's being uncivil, and he DID do a cut n paste. Maybe an admin do the move and redirect properly, and issue a warnign for legal jargon being unfriendly, as well as a general incivility warning? ThuranX (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But where is the "right place"? There is no consnesus to move it, that I can see. Corvus cornix_talk 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

UNtil the revolution begins, it should be at the UoM page. The Burma page can deal with the historical location, the prior nation and people, and the struggle to free it from tyranny. The UoM can deal with the torture and human rights violations, the radical politics of the Junta, and so on. In other words, 3000 years at burma, 18 years at UoM. Let each article cover the proper subject matter. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The move has been discussed to death, and there is no reason for it to spill onto ANI, aside from discussing Lostinlodos's actions. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Corvus cornix_talk 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talked to death, but ultimately, POV. Arguing that the title 'legitimizes the junta' is absurd. Wikipedia's far less a journalistic endeavor than most of the newspapers using Myanmar. Write the article using NPOV sources, and you'll find that most people will quickly figure out that it's a bullshit Junta of bullies thieves and monsters. But it is the name that that absurd mess self-identifies by. Use the Burma location for the history of the nation before that government, and solve the problem. Let the articles tell the story. That this has made it to AN/I shows that this is not settled. As for LostinLodos, his actions were wrong, and I've supported a warning against him. However, this issue needs to be addressed. I recommend that those most involved open an RfC on the matter. Wikipedia isn't a political action group to condemn or 'legitimize' the government, just to write up the facts. The fact is, there was a nation by the name Burma. That nation needs coverage. There is currently a government called the UoM, which occupies that nation currently. The occupation government (junta) needs coverage. SPlit the 125K article into a history of Burma and the occupation nation, and be done. at 125K it's too large anyways. There's a mioddle road, IAR/BOLD and be done. ThuranX (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not only talked to death, but talked to death in a 100+ kilobyte discussion involving over 50 editors (that's where I stopped counting). An RFC is unlikely to resolve anything, but neither is discussing it here. ArbCom might be the right stop for this if there is still no consensus. Bold IAR actions should be avoided when it's a given someone will revert it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In my own defence; that notation was posted on the article's talk page a full day later after reading a notice update I received by email regarding /another/ incident elsewhere. I am not threatening anyone. Honestly it really doesn't affect me where the page is and the single cut and past, as I've stated to the point, was inadvertent, and accidental; and would have been changed by myself if noticed it stuck prior to Corvus cornix reverting back. I have not now nor ever taken part in anything remotely considered an "edit war" by wikipidia's definition; on this site or any other. As for civility; if anyone is being uncivil I'd charge that it was Corvus cornix who's very first statement regarding the REDIRECT was to focus on the accidental save page click rather than show preview click, and the charge the HE/SHE made that I violated copyright law. A quick look at the raw version of my user talk page will show that I only RESPONDED to HIS/HER claims about copyright violation, not asserting the lack of violation first. You'll also note that the edit and revert to the page this user refers to came at 17:14 and 17:20. Hardly enough time given my stated intentions of the REDIRECT; which was to untangle the three dozen or so dead link multi-redirects. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes happen; to even the most seasoned editors. Had Corvus cornix simply noted something to the regard of 'hey you did a copy and paste, that's naughty' and posted a link that would have been the end of it. I would have said sorry, oops, ... and corrected the error on my own, tagged an apology to the discussion page and THANKED CC for pointing it out. Instead he/she posted this as the very first comment notice "Edit warring over a country name is a good way to get blocked. And cutting and pasting the Talk page from one name to another is a copyright violation. Please don't move the article name again without consensus": (bold added to emphasize) which to me is spiteful, uncivilized, attacking and aggressive in nature; and also factually WRONG. THAT is why I strike up the no CRA violation defence. I realise out of context my statements can be turned against me; IN CONTEXT I believe it sheds more light on the situation and shows that I was attacked rather than ignoring 'rules' and 'regulations'. User_talk:Lostinlodos#Burma Lostinlodos (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In a more stable location and more in direct line: my intentions were to:

A) correct the title and information of the page by a redirect or move (whichever was easier in the end) to the correct LEGALLY RECOGNIZED term for the plot of land under the various names (legally Union of Myanmar). Calling the country by any other name is, factually, at it's most bare level POV.

B) untangle and update the outward spread of redirects and links so that they all completed, something that desperately needs to be done. On some browsers (Opera/older Safari)and (on others, eg FireFox/Netscape) plugins/add-ons the pages fall dead after the first redirect. Others, such as the UNet browser, AOL Browser, and 'Zaa Browser the pages stop on the second redirect. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire‎

Resolved

... blocked for 12 hrs Miranda 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Robscure doing a cut and paste move to Ivory Coast trying to bypass WP:RM. Also Ivory Coast is listed in Category:Protected redirects but is apparently no longer protected. --Polaron | Talk 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He broke 3RR also. Miranda 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...and got blocked for it. - Philippe | Talk 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Ivory Coast redirect is semi protected, not fully. Since this is a one time event, I don't think full protection is warranted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think full protection is warranted, and have instituted it. Attempts to (non-consensually) get this article to "Ivory Coast" are common; the article text had already been pasted over the redirect once before. In the case that a real consensus to move the article back to "Ivory Coast" emerges, it should be an admin making the move anyways, so this protection won't get in their way. Otherwise, there's no need for edits, since it is a redirect. Any objections? Picaroon (t) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)

I noticed this very nasty personal attack made by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frisbyterianism, I also noticed a consistent basis of personal attacks from him like [82], [83]. He was warned for the last link here, but he quickly blanked it. I'm close to giving a 24 hour block for this. Any objections. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I shan't comment on the other topics, but the one "personal attack" mentioned is actually a fairly apropos play on the deletion subject at hand, and clearly intended as humor; I laughed, at least. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another, he was asked to refactor and I believe did so. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any personal attacks. The accusation of puppetry might be, if thoroughly groundless, but it looks like there's some back and forth there, so ...eh. As to the 'very nasty' one, it's funny, and clearly intended as humor. one in four is a maybe isn't much of a record of horrible incivility. I'd object to a block. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No block, I don't think any offense was intended. Neil ☎ 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies

Hello, I'd like to know if there is any way of stopping banned user User:Mmbabies. He has created a ridiculous amount of sock puppets and does not show any sign of stopping. What can we do to stop him? Thanks. This has gotten really out of hand. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI is currently the only thing we can do, given other, often more drastic, measures that have been taken (and pretty much failed). —Kurykh 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...or we could just block the /8 on those IP ranges... it's not like Houston has anything worthwhile to add to the discourse.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design sockpuppet attack?

Suddenly, a number of different editors have taken to deleting whole sections of the Intelligent Design article, all using the same language. If somebody puts the section back, a different editor appears and deletes the section again. I'm not a regular there, so I don't know who's who, and I was told to report this suspected sockpuppet attack here. If it is not a sockpuppet attack then it is an edit war. Please help. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's a mass of obvious single purpose accounts, you should try to assume good faith. There is an ongoing content dispute on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

plus the suspected sock has over 3500 edits! One of the other "puppets" has over 15000 edits! Raul654 (a 'crat) is the most recent editor... he didn't protect the page...Balloonman (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move-Protect Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt

Can I get an admin to move/rename-protect the article Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt? Another editor keeps moving it (here and here) to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to make a WP:POINT regarding a discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the use of the term "occupied" when referring to the Israeli-occupied territories.

I made the mistake of pointing out that other Occupied territories are referred to as "occupied", citing said article as an example (here). The article was promptly re-named in a "ta-da! problem solved!" kind of way (here and here), without even bothering to change the first line in the article itself, which still referred to the territories as "occupied".

I undid the move (here), only for it to be moved again as soon as it was noticed (here). I recently moved it back (here) and would like it to be protected to avoid this kind of WP:POINTish edit-warring.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:19

i agree that the page should be protected from moving, only while keeping the "rule" word insrtead of the word "occupation" - pedro here, has been extremely aggressive with his POV and i don't quite yet see why it is of higher value than the one i am advocating for. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. here is the main page where we are "bickering" on [84]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC²) Well, he's done it again (here)... I'm not really into edit-warring, so could any admin please move the name back and move-protect the article? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:50

BTW, the same type of WP:POINTynes is being used on the article Gilad Shalit by the same editor regarding the use of the term "hostage" (latest revert here). I'm not sure if this warrants admin action, but it's along the same lines... Changing one article to make a point in a discussion regarding another article. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:53

i really don't want to bring down the level of conversation by linking to diffs of how you're "negotiating" your preferred version. no normative admin would implement "his version" before protecting a page. please consider resolving disputes within' the proper channels of WP:DR rather than "POINT" fingers at a person who's challenging your POV reverts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International refers to him, in the linked source, as a hostage. What is your NPOV reasoning for not using the same language used by this commonly pro-palestinian group, Pedro? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) An admin will invariably protect the wrong version. And you're both at fault for not seeking dispute resolution, as you're both revert warring. Start a seperate discussion just about this, start an RFC, get some third opinions. There's no point making an edit you know will be reverted. Please don't let content/wording disputes spill onto ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DR is the right way to go and there is a RfC going on at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The problem is that User:Jaakobou is using edits on other pages to push a point. What does he do, exactly?

1. In the dispute regarding "occupied" vs. "disputed" I point out that many other articles, e.g. Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt (look at the nice list on List of military occupations for more examples), use the term "occupied". User:Jaakobou, in response, renames the article to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to not have to concede that point in the argument.
2. In the dispute regarding the use of the word "hostage" for Gilad Shalit, I point out that in the article Gilad Shalit the term "POW" and not "hostage" is used, as discussed on Talk:Gilad Shalit. User:Jaakobou, in response, replaces "POW" with "hostage" in Gilad Shalit adding a reference to a one-liner in a BBC article referring to all prisoners in the conflict as "hostages". A few days later, the use of the word "hostage" in the Gilad Shalit article is used as an argument for using that term.

Again, I'm all for WP:DR and we are currently involved in that process, but these edits are being used as a weapon in those discussions. Whenever I make an argument of the type "but article XY says that...", User:Jaakobou goes and changes article XY. This is not the way discussions should work. Editors should not go and modify articles with the sole purpose of pushing their line in a WP:DR.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:39

please stop "POINT"ing fingers, you have nothing that is not content based and the request tha an admin revert to your version and block the page shows a lack of understanding on core policies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

POW is not fitting. Was Gilad captured by the Palestinian Authority? No. He was captured by a gang of thugs. I reviewed that talk page and found no evidence of a discussion to use "POW" to refer to this hostage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ His status as a POW/hostage is a red herring/straw man. This is about modifying an article to make a point in a discussion elsewhere. Please stick to the topic. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:59

No, you bring something up on ANI, expect that your own behavior will be questioned. You're a party to the mess on these pages just as much as Jaakabo is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Move protected by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I added the {{pp-move}} tag. The problems with dispute resolution failure alleged above are not surprising, and I think we as an administrative community need to kick a lot of this mess up to the ArbComm, little as they will want to see yet another Israeli-Palestinian case. GRBerry 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to some of the above, I recommended starting a new RFC just on this issue, on this article's talk page. That existing RFC is a sprawling debate of "stuff," and this relatively minor debate over one word in an article's title might be better served if seperated entirely. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion thread here. I would like to insist on the point, though, that this is not a content dispute -- it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This goes pretty much in the same direction as the problems surrounding the "Allegations of XY apartheid" debate (here). Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 07:05

User:Grant Chuggle is back

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 day by Tonywalton

I would normally file a suspected sock puppet case, but since he admitted to being a banned user here: User talk:41.241.73.254, I thought I could get him blocked, again, faster this way, since he admitted being blocked and using the IP to evade the block. Thank you.IrishLass (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of Bason0

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged

Hello administrators. A new suspected sockpuppet of Bason0 was confirmed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bason0#Bason0 (7th request). As a result, I request to block following user:

• Onlyonlyrules (talk · contribs) - in-def blocked at 14:24, 3 December 2007 UTC[85]
• Heinekenbeerlover (talk · contribs)
• Coa4stusual (talk · contribs)

Onlyonlyrules has been blocked indefinitely, so above confirmed 2 accounts should be blocked as same. For Moneyisalldesune in the report, I file a WP:SSP with rational reason later. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You really don't need to report here as a RFCU clerk like me will take care of it if the CU didn't. I just blocked them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Metsguy234

Metsguy234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing" [86], as IP 99.225.28.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did [87] earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons = blocked indef. Neil ☎ 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"16:23, 27 November 2006 Metsguy234 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account" However, the contributions don't look like much; some clear vandalism is present, especially in the deleted contributions. All in all, looks like the primary reason for existing is vandalism. If the blocking admin believes he has no good contributions, why weren't his "top" contributions reverted? GRBerry 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Putting Glasscobra's "resolved" comment down here, for the record.Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Resolved|User blocked and contribs reverted.GlassCobra 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Only just noticed this. The latest is that several editors have concerns that this was one of several good-faith, if mostly misguided, responses to the story in The Register about the Durova incident. In this case by an account that was created over a year ago by someone arriving from another wiki and not really doing much here. I presume, as GRBerry points out, that Neil misread the date of the first edit as November 2007, when it was in fact November 2006. Since the story in The Register broke, there has been a steady stream of trolls, socks and good-faith editors turning up on Durov'a talk page. She's effectively been slashdotted. A more diplomatic solution than the "revert, protect, block" method has now been implemented, with a notice at the top of the talk page directing people to a village pump thread. Could I ask those admins who can be, ahem, more hasty with the banhammer, to think in future how actions like that look to outsiders?

See also here and here and here and here and here. Reposting lower down for increased visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, and for wider review, the three comments I feel best sum this up are:

"is this really the sign of an account created solely to hassle other users? What I see there is an account created by someone who edits mainly at another wiki (see here), who didn't do much for a year after registering the account here, but recently started editing. Still has a lot to learn, but obviously read about the Durova incident, got upset, posted a few things, and got hit with a banhammer. Indefinitely." - Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and

"It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring." — Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and

"Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Wikipedia account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way." - Metsguy234 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that clears up a few misunderstandings. Metsguy did post a few other comments as well, but those seem to have been made in anger, and in light of the above apology, he seems to have calmed down. Friendly advice regarding his other comments should probably be made on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes need acknowledging

No, I'm sorry, the more I look at it, the more the mistakes here need open acknowledgment and apologies. Look at the initial comments here: "Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing"" (Hu12) and "Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons" (Neil). I can accept that Neil misread the date as 2007 instead of 2006, but really, that is a basic error that shouldn't have happened. More concerning is the willingness to jump to conclusions about anyone posting a link to that story in The Register. This reeks of BADSITES culture (zomg! it's an attack story! ban the links!) and a culture of looking for socks around every corner (ironically typified by the very incident the newspaper story covered, how ever inaccurately). Come on guys. Try and think of other ways to handle things before reaching for that banhammer. Take a moment or two to dig a little deeper and check the dates and the clues in the contributions, and remember what it was like to be new around here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dug a little deeper, Clear vandalism is present. More edits to his userspace than wikipedia. Well, except for creating such works as...My Potty and I←Created page with 'I LOVE POTTES I DU' and The Berenstain Bears Cook-It!: Breakfast for Mama!←Created page with 'ME EAT ME'. and [88]"The END!!!!" [89]"Maybe you shouldn't put pro-wikipedia stuff in the anti-wikipedia article! Morons..." [90]"I am looking into your identity, so don't think you can fly under the radar."... Asks Durova, "Are the allegations in this article true? "[91], then blasts another editor who removed the comment .."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[92]. Obvious harassment/trolling.....New accounts don't behave like this.--Hu12 (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I dug a little deeper as well, and I saw all those deleted contributions. What part of "From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions" is it difficult to understand. What part of his apology is it difficult to understand? He's obviously not a new account - because he's learnt his wikimarkup at another wiki and has been lurking here. The Durova story prompted him to de-lurk to express his anger, and we confirm his misunderstandings by hitting him with a banhammer instead of trying to calm him down, educate him and correct his misunderstandings. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is capable of positive contributions. Every troll, every vandal, every sockpuppeteer, is capable of contributing positively. But they choose not to. If Metsguy234 is capable of contributing in a positive manner, perhaps he should have done so here on Wikipedia instead of sticking to a blend of vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, and trolling. However, if you wish to be his enabler, Carcharoth, feel free to unblock him, but you can take the responsibility for his actions. Neil ☎ 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What Apology??...He says on his talk page, " I wanted to know the truth.. I asked a simple question"[93]... but Metsguy234 must have forgotten he previously wrote.."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[94]. ...this part of his apology is not difficult to understand. What he does on wikihow.com has nothing to do with what he's done here. Endorse Neil's block--Hu12 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked him, as waiting for someone else to do it when I don't mind is a bit pointless. If he goes back to trolling he can be blocked again, and if he doesn't, fine. Neil ☎ 09:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I don't appreciate being called an enabler. Please retract that. I saw an obvious mistake that you made when you said in the block log "account created solely to hassle other users", and I saw someone with experience at another wiki who had the potential to become a productive user here. At the least, a second chance was warranted. An immediate indefinite block as the first block was way too excessive. If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? I may have been overly forceful about this, and I apologise for that, but I was hoping you and Hu would apologise and we could move on, rather than have you both go on the defensive like this and start clutching at straws and continuing to engage in biting behaviour. Hu, the apology was quoted in the section above. Here is a link. Neil, I wish you had waited for me to unblock if you felt you could only leave a terse unblock log reading "On Carcharoth and Wknight94's requests". I waited to give you the chance to do better than that. As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log. And finally, the idea that if you unblock someone you are responsible for their subsequent edits is false. They are still responsible for their own edits and they can still be blocked later if they misbehave. Giving someone a second chance, or unblocking and apologising for a mistake, is not "enabling" and is not taking responsibility for their subsequent edits. You may disagree about the potential there, but please have the courtesy not to call those who disagree with you enablers. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't retract describing you as his enabler - this is becoming a prevalent issue on Wikipedia; too many users who have contributed nothing of merit to Wikipedia are almost encouraged to continue to do so by admins willing to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence it will be repaid, over and over and over. That is the definition of enabler - a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it. End result: Wikipedia is overrun by trolls and users (I cannot call them editors) who are here solely to cause trouble, driving good editors away, and they are permitted to carry on by well-meaning admins. I still believe the block was correct, but am happy to respect the consensus opinion, and for Metsguy to be unblocked. I am unsure what else you are looking for here, the matter does seem to be resolved. Neil ☎ 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This works both ways, Neil. I can equally say that "a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it" could be applied to you, and I mean that in all seriousness. The problem in this case being the driving away of new editors who, with a bit of encouragement, could become productive editors. His first few edits are clearly experiments. The later deleted edits involved an abortive foray into images. He's explained the "IP outing threat". He's experimented in the sandbox. He imported his user page from another wiki. Made a mixture of minor edits and some questionable removals, and got upset over the Durova incident, but nothing (in my opinion) warranting more than a warning and guidance. I'm currently trying to engage him in dialogue to see if he can be more productive. Why can't you respect that? And no, the matter is not resolved because you have failed to respond to two of the major points I made above:

"If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? [...] As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log."

Since when did we indefinitely block an account with 7 mainspace edits and clear potential because there are "no good contributions"? As long as you continue to leave these questions about your administrative conduct unanswered, no, the matter is not resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Point one - the account may have been created in 2006 but it only really became in use a week or so ago (one edit Nov 06, one in Feb 07, the next was Nov 25 this year). I did not misread the log, I just didn't attach any relevance to it. My one error was using "created" in the block summary - it should have said "being used". I apologise for that. Point two - by all means, show me these good contributions. Not ones that might happen in the future. Now, the account was unblocked hours ago, Metsguy234 is free to begin editing positively if he chooses, and this hand-wringing is pointless. You are invited to file an RFC if you have concerns about my conduct. Neil ☎ 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the creation date goes, I interpret that as someone who is mainly active on another wiki deciding to create an account here but not being very active. My Commons account looks a lot like that. That, along with lurking, accounts, in my eyes, for the "jumping straight in" behaviour. If I jumped straight into a controversial debate at Commons and started getting emotional and asking questions, would I be labelled as an account created "solely to harass other users"? I would hope not. I would hope someone would ask me first where I'd come from and why I seemed so familiar with the issues. You might say "but your contributions are good ones", but that is tantamount to treating established users with a contribution history differently from those with a short and patchy contribution history. ie. Blocking indefinitely because they haven't contributed much. To put that another way, if I, or someone else with a long contribution history, had made the same edits that Metsguy234 did, would you have blocked me or them indefinitely? If not, why did Metsguy234 get blocked indefinitely? It looks like double standards to me. Those with a contribution history too short to reliably judge are blocked indefinitely and not given any chance to prove they can contribute meaningfully, while those with a long contribution history are given more slack as they have "proven" themselves. In other words, a user's first contributions are intensely scrutinised. If they don't meet your standards and they slip up once, it's in the indefinite bin for them. And let's just ignore WP:BITE. I won't file an RFC unless I see a pattern of such blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(the section below was in reply to a section up above before the outdenting)

I'm fine with it, Neil - your frustration is understandable. But what we all need to learn from the Durova case is that far more damage is done by blocking a good editor (User:!!) than by unblocking a bad one. Unblocking not only gives the editor a chance to prove him/herself but gives us a second chance to see if the block was warranted or not. If it was warranted and the editor is truly a troll, we'll simply revert and re-block. No harm done except someone has to click a couple rollback buttons. I'll even check from time to time to see if I should re-block him myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a chasm of difference between Special:Contributions/!! and Special:Contributions/Metsguy234, but I agree with your point on "we can always re-block" (I said as much myself just above). Neil ☎ 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Will there be so much of a chasm a year from now, though? You can't say what his contributions list will look like in the future, unless you have a crystal ball; and a user who has wiki experience from another site has a very blindingly obvious legitimate reason to be upset about the Durova thing - more reason, even, than most of those of us who have wasted many more bytes on it. And as for the "I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were" comment - to a lot of the people who really DO have fears caused by this issue, some of the actions that have been taken in the aftermath have done nothing less than prove them right; and that comment is clearly stating that. If you express a fear of retaliation and ask about coverups, and the reaction is to (in effect) retaliate and cover things up, what would _you_ think?—Random832 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mid-scale puppetry - second opinion requested

Hey, I was hoping someone could give this a quick look, I think I'm dealing with around 20 socks but would appreciate some fresh eyes on the deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Windsor, Canada - Persistent vandalism after 5 previous blocks

137.207.238.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) More vandalism. 5 previous blocks have failed to prevent vandalism/disruption. Please block indefinitely. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't block IP addresses indefinitely. This one seems to be associated with the University of Windsor. It was previously subject to a one month schoolblock. There have been two recent unhelpful edits, as well as a number of good edits. My impression is that the IP is shared by many students. This should not be blocked unless there is a stronger sequence of bad edits. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)To get some perspective on this, the 5 previous blocks were between April 2006 and April 2007 (a 1 month block). No blocks since. Sporadic vandalism does occur, but given that this appears to be a proxy with, potentially, hundreds or even thousands of users behind it the level of vandalism seems quite low. Between November 1st to date there were 10 edits, only three of which appear to be vandalism. I would not support an indef block or in fact any block at this time. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, long-term blocks are only really a good idea if the significant majority of edits coming through are vandalism. If recent editing has been mostly good, a block is only going to keep out good editors. Short blocks (an hour or two) can be very effective if one bloke gets bored at a lab terminal. Appreciate your bringing it up here for review, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive Sock Problem

We have a major sock problem on our hands, Peter zhou/JackyAustine has a stock pile of prebaked sock accounts lying around. I had a private ckeckuser done yesterday and I thought I had them all til now when it turns out there are more...

These are the following that have been confirmed by the private checkuser last night (EST):

• Peter Zhou = Ie9ue7o8 = E oa4ai3 = Quagliu = Ui9eo u0 = Crau = Ua0oe6
• Faeprao = Bievuigrei = Sibuikroiwia = Tlutrao = Lin7ba = Traoprerao
• Wreegau = Eiionoeoie = Eauiaeoe = Sliucrei
• Dliekruazia = Ie4 = O5ia5iu3
• Seajion = A2ao1 = Ue7ui5u4a3 = Io4 = Ai3eo0ia7 = Ea ei2u9oi6 = Oi4au2ao5 = I8ai9ea0oe =

Ei0ai1 = Dlu4mua4klea5 = Dre6biu7 = Ciepiuhu = Wiabiejiutlion = Paobroe

• Didopad is also confirmed

The following the most recent diffs of PZ/JA socks on the article China and Names of China:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=175947122
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=prev&oldid=175947445
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175724885&oldid=175656488
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175651025&oldid=175565800
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175174495&oldid=175170392
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175151960&oldid=175149277
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175147697&oldid=175132895
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175114548&oldid=175100945
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=175097011&oldid=174985729
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=prev&oldid=175177135

Now, compare them to Peter zhou's contribution:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_China&diff=171221339&oldid=170839366

We need to deal with this as its causing much disruption on these two articles. nat.utoronto 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter zhou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been blocked indefinitely. Are you requesting a community ban? - Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That and consensus for a temp. range block. nat.utoronto 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the format of your results. Are these all Peter Zhou, or is each line a different sockmaster? —Random832 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They are all PZ socks...that's how the checkuser's email message was formated. nat.utoronto 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support ban from wiki. Ask the CU that did the check to do the block of the IP. Why wasn't this at RFCU? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a followup to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou which was only just completed. The guy returned almost immediately, created another bunch of socks and got back to doing the exact same thing again. All of the above accounts are confirmed as being PZ. Indeed, it looks from this morning's edits that there are yet more still. Note that the underlying IP addresses are now also blocked. - Alison ^❤ 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A ban seems appropriate now that we have confirmation from checkuser. If no admin objects by the time this thread closes, we should add User:Peter zhou to Wikipedia:List of banned users as banned by the community. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone collect up the latest socks and file a report over on RFCU? There are quite a number of new socks already making their presence felt and it would be best to avoid confusion and log the case. Problem is, there are so many of them and it's happening so often - Alison ^❤ 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Both User:Funeral and User:Scarian, but mostly Funeral have been harassing me. They keep putting a template on my page saying I am a sockpuppet of another user. They all keep arguing on my page and i'm sick of it! I just want them to all leave me alone. I don't know if they should be punished, or how that works, but I just want to be left alone from their dispute. They obviously have serious problems with each other. Funeral also broke 3RR on my talk page. Deathbringer from the Sky (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over user/talkpages isn't a very good idea. If someone feels you are a sockpuppet, a request for checkuser or sock investigation request would be more appropriate. In the interim, try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Deathbringer from the Sky, or I predict your time editing here will be short.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:82.33.153.39 please block

Resolved

The anonomus use is tehre for no other purpose that to be a vandal no constructuve edts can reasonably be found. Most recent edits have been vandalism only. [95] [96] --Lucy-marie (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be blocked for the death threat if nothing else. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "death threat"; it is just a misplaced angry rant of a person who confuses wikipedia with message boards. `'Míkka>t 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no indications that the handful of edits are coming from the same user. No reason to block itih IP yet. In such cases you have to post a warning it user's talk page (User talk:82.33.153.39); please take a look how it is done and please do it yourself next time. `'Míkka>t 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassing username

Resolved

 – blocked account per WP:USER and as a WP:SPA used for harassment only - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This person apparently doesn't like me and thinks, well, see the user name User:BetterThanIrishLass. Comments harassing me were removed earlier from an anonymous IP address that he claims to be his. Regardless, his username is harassment and his only post was on my talk page harassing me. Thank you for your speedy attention to this. IrishLass (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, reported this in wrong place. I moved the report to the proper section (I think). IrishLass (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - account blocked - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Greece vandalism by User:3rdAlcove

3rdAlcove (talk · contribs) deletes all sourced mentions of Greek-related information, such as:

• deleting quotations from Homer or Pliny the Elder: [97], [98], [99], etc.
• deleting Greece: [100], [101], [102], etc.
• deleting "Illyrian" (replaced with non-equivalent "Albanian") [103], [104], etc.
• deleting sourced info about Bulgaria: [105], etc.
• deleting requested ((fact)): [106], etc.

Most of his vandalism use no edit summary, or the deceptive one "better source" while deleting paragraphs wholesale. He's already been warned against deleting sourced material and has refused to discuss[107], [108]. A quick stroll through his history shows a long pattern of unchecked abuse and vandalism going back four months. Apparently, it's an Albanian nationalist. 62.147.39.117 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at some of the most recent edits by the user don't seem to be disruptive or removing of information, or supportive of an "anti-greek" pov. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baruch Lanner

User:IZAK recently posted some comments on this article including sources. I removed part of the comments because I believe that per WP:LIBEL they are potentially defamatory and the sources involved are not reliable for these types of claims. Since I am involved in the article and interact with this editor, would appreciate it if another admin could double-check and either restore the edits or OK permanently deleting. Thanks, Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the Oprah video, and the woman he was talking about did actually claim to have killed babies as part of devil worship. She also claims to have mutliple personality disorder and to have "not recovered all of [her] memories." The rest of what you deleted was completely unsupported by his links, as far as I could see, and the links were not reliable in any event. So while much of that was a BLP violation, it was not entirely without merit. As to the Oprah video itself, I don't see a problem with. It's just a primary source, straight from her own mouth. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The person is identified on the Oprah video as "Rachel". The edit cites certain other sources who claim that "Rachel" is actually another person in real life. The question is whether these other sources are sufficiently reliable to support a claim about "Rachel"'s identity. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, oops? I looked at the title of the video, and it never really clicked. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Shirahadasha's action. I'm an involved party as I created the article and have participated in the thread. There is no need to repeat poorly sourced derogatory information about living people, even when it is in the context of disparaging them as reliable or noteworthy commentators. While critical analysis of sources is sometimes necessary we should try to avoid making it personal, gossipy, or hurtful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the deletion. they were used for impeaching a source, but it seems to be agreed on the talk page that the source is not really needed or appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible stalker?

The IP 71.194.213.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made two edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation today, insinuating that he or she stalks an underage girl, presumably from the same general area. I haven't done a WHOIS to determine the IP's location, but I'd like to ask the community to keep an eye on this, as it may require contacting local authorities at some point. Edits in question are here and here (they're identical, it was reposted after I reverted the first time). Thanks very much. GlassCobra 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:ArielGold has requested that these edits be Oversighted, which is a good call; however, I would still appreciate more eyes on this IP's activities. Thanks! GlassCobra 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a fixed ComCast IP address, probably just a kid messing around, but it's best we keep an eye on it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a serious privacy violation - although it looks like it's been oversighted so you'll have to take my word for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. It was correctly oversighted. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

good non-inflammatory block summary. I saw it before the oversight, and nobody could possibly have disagreed with doing that. I agree with the Cavalry that it is probably a stupid joke only, and overreaction might not be appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the opinions, and while the information perhaps did not fall under the strict letter of the oversighting policy, the content was inappropriate, even as a joke, which is why I requested it be removed. I would like to thank the oversighters for their swift action in removing both of the edits from view. I too, think it is most likely a kid messing around, but as there is no way to know, I think the short block is an appropriate action, given the situation. Ariel♥Gold 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did anyone ensure that there is some form of information that can be provided to police in case this *is* a serious stalker incident? I'm all in favour of oversighting, but there are a lot of stalkers who've been written off as "just kids" that turned out to be quite serious. Risker (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If needed, the admin who oversighted it can view the info. And yes, there was enough information given that it would be possible to at least narrow down the town, if necessary. Ariel♥Gold 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rock Soldier keeps adding personnel sections to album articles, and without the consultation of those who wrote them

Resolved

 – content dispute

This specific editor above keeps insisting that personnel sections are added to album articles, just because WP:ALBUM has a guideline. This guideline has not been voted on by Wikipedia at large, yet he insists to invoke it as though it is official policy. I am not aware of any WikiProject guidelines having any official authority.

He has added personnel sections to three FAs I have written, and one GA, and plenty of other album articles. He does not major contributors to the articles, no nothing. Despite the fact the three FAs passed FAC without personnel sections, he still insists on adding them to FAs I have written. I am frankly fed up of having to revert him, and want this to stop. He needs to stop adding personnel sections to articles others are major contributors to, and without consulting them. These articles he is adding personnel sections to he doesn't contribute to whatsoever. He is being a disruption. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we fully protect once it becomes an FA? I don't really have an opinion on the content dispute, but there definitely appears to be some ownership issues here. --Onorem♠Dil 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issues? There is absolutely no ownership issues whatsoever, for the record. If you would like to insinuate as such though, then feel free to say. I take such false accusations very seriously. Some of these articles passed FAC without personnel sections, so they need none now. Also, when this "editor" is adding these sections he isn't even consulting the contributors. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement to consult people before making changes. Would it have been appropriate? Absolutely. Is this appropriate as your first attempt at discussion with him? How about your second attempt? Absolutely not. And yes, without question your comments here and some of your recent edit summaries lead me to believe you have ownership issues. --Onorem♠Dil 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note on his page. For future reference, dispute resolution is a more appropriate venue than WP:ANI for content disputes. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't more appropriate, actually. I have no time for that, and no time to deal with disruptive editors like Rock Soldier. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not "disruptive" — he disagrees with you over a content issue, and it's only "disruptive" because it consumes your time disagreeing with him. He appears to be acting fully in good faith. Admins are not necessary here. --Haemo (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He isn't acting in good faith. This is utter rubbish. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How are Rock Soldier's edits any more or any less disruptive than your edits, LuciferMorgan? Remember that there are always at least two people involved in an edit war. What SomeGuy1221 has told Rock Soldier applies to you as well: "Revert warring over edits that don't obviously violate official policy is never an acceptable behavior (even in such cases where you feel it is appropriate ..." This is a content dispute, and both sides should use talk pages and perhaps the help of a relevant WikiProject to come to a consensus, but there's nothing that requires admin intervention (yet?). Aecis^Brievenbus 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing my edits of being disruptive? That's an utterly disgusting accusation, and I don't welcome it in any way whatsoever. Also, your suggestion to use the help of a "relevant WikiProject" is rather silly. WikiProjects are mostly inactive, and it was me who wrote those three FAs, who researched them and so on, not some WikiProject. It's replies like yours that are disruptive. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan, I understand it can be frustrating when someone makes changes you disagree with, but you are in fact bringing this problem to the wrong board. There is no policy requiring other editors to check with you before editing any article including articles you've worked on extensively. You have licensed your contributions under the GFDL, which gives other people the right to edit them. It's also the basic foundation of Wikipedia. Because Rock Soldier is not doing anything patently against the rules, there is no need for administrator action here. You need to pursue on the steps listed at dispute resolution. I'd suggest you try to talk to the other user about his changes first, if you haven't already. If you have and have gotten no where, mediation might be helpful.

Administrators do not have any special authority to arbitrate content disputes or determine whose changes are worthwhile and whose aren't. All we have are a handful of tools that are not available to other users, and the use of any of those tools in this situation would be inappropriate. Natalie (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot finds vandalism ... and threatens to delete vandalized image

I'm not sure whether it's the result of a bug or a feature, but the ever-popular BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) left me a message today that a fair-use image I uploaded several months ago was about to be deleted for not having a link on its image page to the article in which it is authorized to appear. I am usually pretty rigorous with my fair-use uploads, so I wondered what I had done wrong.

Nothing, it seems. This is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:SFPD_Patch.gif&oldid=176015981.

An IP vandal had "modified" the image page back in August and broke the wikilink back to the image's assigned article. Sure, it was nice of Betacommand's bot to indirectly inform me of the vandalism, but I wonder what might be happening to other images with vandalized image pages elsewhere, whose uploaders are no longer active or whose log-in frequencies are less than once every seven days. This also raises the possibility that vandals could be taking advantage of BetacommandBot's notoriously strict criteria for tossing things into the deletion queue. I'm going to leave a message for at the bot's Talk page, but I wanted to let everyone know that this might be something to watch out for in the future. --Dynaflow babble 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that administrators ALREADY watch out for this kind of vandalism. Chances are if admins don't already watch out for this kind of vandalism many innocent images have been deleted thanks to vandals. FunPika 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but, I look at the "File links" before I delete a page... I'd have fixed the image, instead of deleting it, without question, in this case. I think most admins would have, as well. SQL^{Query me!} 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with me; I check to make sure it is actually used. However, if there is an image that was deleted under this issue, let me or others know that we can restore it without having to deal with Deletion Review. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As modern wonders of technology go, BetacommandBot falls into the same category as the cone of silence and recall (email). Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to make random insults at other editor's work. Take it somewhere else, please. SQL^{Query me!} 09:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

_{The following was copied from WP:AIV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)}

Anonymous Users (IP addresses):

• IP address (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) brief reason for listing (keep it short) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC) -->
• Nergaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -Repeated copyright violator. He keeps copying and pasting articles from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/ into wikipedia texts. The texts on www.ici.ro are NOT tagged as free to reuse/copy. Sorry if I don't know the proper reporting format but i have to bring this up. Please don't be too harsh on him, he might mean well but the crux of the matter is that those texts are not published with an explicit free-to-copy/reuse license. For example:
  

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bran_Castle&diff=175932409&oldid=175913851
is the same text from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/turism/c_bran.html complete with the original typos in that text
b) - page created by him: Trei_Ierarhi_Monastery
is the same text from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/orase/manastiri/trei_i11.html
c) - another page created by him: Suceviţa_Monastery
is the same text from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/turism/m_sucevita.html and so on... Galaad2 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Gave him a warning about this. It really is better handled at WP:AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Subgen (talk · contribs)

I need some help with him. He's continuing to make personal attacks and fails to assume good faith over at Talk:Universal Life Church. GJ (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I came here to report subgen (talk · contribs) WP:SPA for the sole purpose of making is employer look good [[109]] JDBlues (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we get some help please? I feel like this problem is being ignored. GJ (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistently disruptive editor

This is a somewhat unusual case. User:Marxus (talk, contributions) has a history of disruptive edits. In the past he has created hoax articles (by his own admission on his talk page), and has been blocked for this. He has also created at least 12 articles that have been deleted, not for totally spurious content, but because the subjects clearly fail to meet the requirements of notability. According to other comments on his talk page he has on several occasions made edits to existing articles that were factually incorrect. He apparently never uses edit summary comments. In light of this history, and because some of his edits to an article I watch seemed questionable I recently undid these edits of his. I left a note on his talk page insisting that he provide comments and references for future edits; see here. He persisted, simply replacing edits I had removed, still without comments or references, and without responding to me on his talk page. I repeated my warning to him, again with no response.

It seems to me that this editor is still deliberately being disruptive, though now he's doing his best to stay within the letter of the law; making edits that don't break any rules, but which he hopes will cause annoyance and wasted time.

RedSpruce (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states that edit summaries are absolutely required? Surely if they were absolutely required the software would make it impossible to make edits without a summary (which I am 99% sure is possible). None of his edits since your second warning appear to have been disruptive (with the exception of violating Wikipedia:You must use an edit summary). I don't think all of your edits fully abide by Wikipedia rules either. [110] FunPika 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better clarify why that linked diff is wrong...fast. WP:RPA states "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.". And the "f***tard" in that summary could be interpreted as a PA. FunPika 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FunPika, you didn't read what I wrote, with the result that your first response is irrelevant. Your second response is off-topic. "Fucktard" is most assuredly a personal attack (duh), but it was directed at a different user, not a part of this discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean it is irrelevant that part of the reason you are reporting him appears to be a violation of a non-existent rule (at least no rule I have seen) involving edit summary comments? FunPika 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant that you didn't read (and still haven't read) what I wrote, with the result that your responses are irrelevant. Clue: Pay particular attention to (i.e., read) the last paragraph of my original entry. RedSpruce (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Keepscases

For one reason or another, I was directed to the activities of Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:RFA, which is described in some detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 110#Keepscases disrupting with nonsense questions. I then I saw User talk:Keepscases#RfA question?, where a particularly inappropriate question was raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heidianddick. I reviewed Keepscases edits and found other inappropriate questions, and I stated on his talk page that "If you continue to disrupt RFAs by asking inane questions, you will be blocked from Wikipedia."

Then this question was brought up to my talk page. And another inquiry into his edits brought up this. For the continued disruption of RFA as well as the extremely inappropriate comment to Sarah, I have indefinitely blocked Keepscases. It has also been suggested that this block be commuted to 48 hours long, but that is why I am bringing this here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Consensus both at RFA talk and at Keepscases' talk page was that his behavior at RFA is not disruptive. —Random832 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand how asking someone if they "Edit in the nude", or if they like looking at pictures of men, or asking completely inane questions, is considered "not disruptive". Regardless, I saw that edit to Sarah, and that is unacceptable, in my small opinion. Ariel♥Gold 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor reducing the block to 48 hours. We cannot judge on the basis of his comments whether this fellow is a troll or has merely had a lapse in judgment. If he continues to be a pest, certainly he should be blocked again and for longer. — Dan | talk 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought his comment on my page was quite trollish but I wasn't offended and his RfA questions seem trollish, too, but I think indefinite might be too much for a first block. I agree with Dan and would reduce it to 48 hours and then escalate the blocks if he continues. Sarah 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request denied. We do not condone acts of immaturity. —Kurykh 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do -- or, rather, if an act is merely one of immaturity, we give a second chance. What we do not condone are acts of trolling. Again, it is not clear yet which this is. — Dan | talk 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page were quite unacceptable. They constitute sexual harassment in most jurisdictions. Whether Sarah was offended is beside the point - if we tolerate this type of thing, we will drive away female editors. I'm happy with a reduced block, but only if understood as a final warning before a ban. Zero tolerance here.--Doc^g 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree entirely, Doc. Sarah 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a block length reduction; A lot of his recent questions are bizarre, but I don't think there was sufficient feedback to tell him to stop making them more inappropriate before he was blocked. My inclination is to reduce to 48 hrs and give him a strict laying down of the law on harrassment versus sillyness. Further "questions" and comments like the last few including Sarah's talk page after warning would warrant further longer blocks. But not indef, now. The size of the hammer is disproportionate to the actions or how they've been percieved by those he directed them at. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Doc and George above. Reduce the block to a week but make it clear that it is a final warning before a total ban. Dreadstar † 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: reduce the block to 48/72/120 hours, give an only/final warning that any more comments like the ones to Sarah will result in an indefinite block and community ban, and politely ask him to engage in discussion at WT:RFA about whether his questions are acceptable or not. Daniel 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this user may be a sock of a banned user. He first appeared making those comments on Dereks1x sockpuppet's RFA. Miranda 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's reason to think this is not his first account, yes, but how do you make the jump from "sock" to "sock of banned user"? Picaroon (t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...might ask a checkuser? I am not a person who has access to any sekrit list. He appeared on a banned user's RFA. Miranda 05:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to 48h. When it expires I will keep an eye on his contributions for a while. — Dan | talk 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that should he either date another lesbian or leave the toilet seat up then the block should be extended to indefinite? ;) --WebHamster 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the wink-smiley is meant to suggest that's humor, but I don't think the joke is particularly funny. Please refactor. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So don't laugh. One can't please all the people all the time.--WebHamster 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page, asking if one edits in the nude or looking at images of men is sexual harassment. It doesn't belong here and it's unfair to ask any editor male or female editor to tolerate it. This isn't exactly a long time editor having only approximately 165 edits but in fairness , would support shortening block to one week , one final warning before indef block and ban.--Sandahl 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the block 1-week, final-warning, then indefinate ban idea.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Keepscases. This fellow is adamant that there was absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with his comments, going so far as to say "shame on anyone who was offended." I'm tempted to take this as prima facie evidence that the user is ineducable, but will defer to the consensus that he be given one last chance. That's one last chance, not several last last last last last last last chances as is so often the case here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to my post at his talk page, before his block. His question at The Transhumanist's RfA was IMHO inappropriately personal... and (what I didn't say at the talk page) inappropriately trolly, as it seemed to me to be baiting. The Transhumanist did well not to rise to the bait. I think this is a newbie who's not got the hang of what is and isn't appropriate here - this is quite an unusual site for anyone used to, say, BBs, and our tolerance for humour is bounded. However, if he continually ignores warnings and worse, argues the case that he was in the right, there's no hope for him. Therefore, I support a block lift, but on condition he understands that at the next similar offense, I would propose a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous block. Keepscases is actually, IMO, a positive influence on RfA; being given an unpredictable and apparently random question, rather than the formulaic "what is your interpretation of BLP/IAR?", is actually a good basis on which to judge a candidate's character, as they are forced to come up with a genuinely individual response. Plus, if a candidate believes one of his questions to be "inappropriately personal" then they have every right to refuse to answer it, and it's unlikely that they'd lose support for doing so. The comments to Sarah could be interpreted vaguely as sexual harassment, but if Sarah herself has not complained, then they should be interpreted (as they were no doubt intended) as a joke; at most, they merit a warning to be more careful with comments in future. This block is yet another example of why sysops should not be trigger-happy with indef blocks, and I only hope that Ryulong hasn't driven another user away through overzealous blocking (it wouldn't be the first time). Walton^One 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fmatmi's user page

I would like some additional input on a dispute over whether or not User:Fmatmi should be allowed to state "The internet is to the Mormon Church what the printing press was to the Catholic Church" on his user page. This statement seems to me to be a violation of WP:SOAP: It is a confrontational statement of opinion unrelated to internal Wikipedia operations. I removed the sentence twice and said that it could be reinstated if it were reworded to be less divisive and confrontational.

Fmatmi has reverted my changes twice, stating that "Indepent third parties do not think it is an attack, it is an attack in your opinion only because you are an apologist. Move to your talk page or requrest arbitration."

So, what do you think? Is it a violation of WP:SOAP or not? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say for sure (I personally think it's soapboxing), but given what is stated above, someone needs to give him a bit of clue on civility here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's just one line, then no. If it's part of a major section of his/her page then yes. Either way I would have thought it more appropos of the Scientologists rather than the Mormons! ;) --WebHamster 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

His entire user page consisted of "The internet is to the Mormon Church what the printing press was to the Catholic Church" followed by his signature. He later added slightly more content, but this statement was still the main thing that people would have read. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Most modern scholars point to the printing press as the midwife of the Reformation and hence the downfall of the Catholic Church not its base of power. Just clarifying. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let this one go. I don't see any significant harm. - Philippe | Talk 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott Keeler

Resolved

 – User blocked by krimpet

This user seems to have some questions [111] [112] and [113] so far. Can anyone help him with an answer? Franamax (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a suitable answer. --krimpet⟲ 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DrDelos

This user has has never assumed good faith and persists in personal attacks agaisnt myself when warned about adding unsourced original research material to an article. User refuses to take part in a civil discussion about this article and has taken his personal attacks to the Afd page. Examples [114] [115] [116] and [117] --Neon white (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Salty Walrus

Resolved

MONGO has tagged this article for G1 (patent nonsense) three times, and has reverted [118] [119] when two administrators (including me) have declined it and also removed my post to his talk page telling him to take it to AFD or prod [120]. I am reluctant to edit war over tagging, so I'm forwarding it here. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another admin declined and the matter has been forwarded to AFD, where MONGO has commented on it. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request ban

Hi, I'd like to propose we ban PWeeHurman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has used over 40 sock puppets (1, 2) to vandalize and harass users. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of his contribs here, and there's a long term abuse report here. -Goodshoped 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the ban policy. If no admin is considering to unblock them considered on their behavior...then they are considered banned. IMHO, I think time is better spent writing than proposing to ban people. Miranda 05:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And if one has time on their hands and sees a trouble-making user to be dealt with? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He's considered banned anyway. Why codify it? Banning is not a process. —Kurykh 05:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that's having him come back are his repeated IP recycling. How do we stop that? Also we don't know his ISP, because if we did, that would be really helpful. -Goodshoped 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU Mr.Z-man 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) And apparently, he's thinking of attacking Jimbo Wales' talk. [121] and been there, done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage from the Durova incident

There may have been collateral damage in the initial response to editors posting to User talk:Durova after the story in The Register about the Durova incident. At least one case (metsguy234) is discussed above. Since the (fairly inaccurate) story in The Register broke, there has been a steady stream of trolls, socks and possibly good-faith editors turning up on Durova's talk page. She's effectively been slashdotted. A more diplomatic solution than the "revert, protect, block" method has now been implemented, with a notice at the top of the talk page directing people to a village pump thread. Could I ask those admins who can be, ahem, more hasty with the banhammer, to think in future how actions like that look to outsiders? It is perfectly reasonable to expect that some people are registering new accounts because they want to express their opinions. Rather than frighten them all away, maybe some of them can be persuaded to stick around and contribute (no publicity is ever bad publicity). If the behaviour is not acceptable, a warning or short block is preferable to locking people up and throwing away the key (an indefinite block). For an example of a block that was undone, see here. There may be other blocks that haven't been undone or shortened yet. Could people please check?

See also here and here and here and here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, before the Kim Bruning solution was implemented (notice on top of Durova's talk page), a total of 10 separate accounts and IPs posted there. (examples removed for now) Please remember that in cases like this people reading the story might register an account in good-faith and want to find out for themselves what has happened. ie. Not all new accounts created at this time will be socks and trolls. Carcharoth (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, when someone is at the center of media attention like this, the important thing is to try not to make things worse. Anyone wanting information from Durova can e-mail her using the link on her user page. Any legitimate issues that ought to be discussed in public can wait, and can be talked about in general terms. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the examples, but I do intend to analyse them for the contrasting and inconsistent reactions depending on who dealt with the post. Can I ask you, as one of the people that was reverting and protecting Durova's talk page, whether you think the link at the top of her talk page would have been a better way to handle it? And also whether the "revert, protect, block" strategy was making things worse? Is it not possible that Kim (who made the change) and me (who started this discussion) are also trying to ensure things don't get worse? Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, people who don't know any better should know better, requests for public accountability can be dealt with (or not) via private communications, and we can talk about it all at some unspecified future time when people aren't paying so much attention, but only vaguely. Is this all policy, or are we just workshopping? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 11:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is now a newspaper article in The Guardian. Seth Finkelstein, who has a history of writing about Wikipedia, and a dispute over an article, if I remember correctly. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES and sock-hunting culture

Please see here. I'm concerned that the link to the Durova story in The Register has been jumped on in BADSITES-style, and that we still haven't learnt how damaging it is to suspect socks lurking around every corner. Open discussions and assuming good faith of new editors. Those should still be among our core principles. Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other side of the coin, after seeing all the drama I'm sure as hell not going to ever block an account that I think is a sock, even if I'm 99.99999999999% certain that it's an airtight case against a malicious troll. I don't need a 0.00000000001% chance of being the object of the schadenfreude that goes on here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Durova's refusal to discuss the block didn't help. I guess that's a lesson to take away; be prepared to explain, and if you can't explain in public make sure you've explained to people who'll back you up. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Raymond: that's an unhelpful attitude to take. A block can be undone with an apology if you missed something. It's the initial mindset of sock-presumption that leads to such mistakes that needs correcting. Plus the mindset of tenaciously defending a block to the death. It's not the end of the world for an admin to admit they got something wrong, to apologise, and to unblock. If it looks like a block was wrong, just unblock and wait and see what the account does next. If nothing happens, no harm done. If they start up again (and that doesn't include people lashing out because they were upset at the block), then you (or others) can reblock with a clear conscience. If they calm down, apologise and start learning to do things better, well, Wikipedia has another productive editor-in-the-making. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, color me unhelpful. There's an increasing unwillingness here to accept the possibility that an admin can make a good-faith mistake. I'm not interested in becoming a target drone. Somebody else can do it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See the MatthewHoffman arbitration case. There is a difference between assume good faith and assume good judgment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Raymond, if that's your attitude, I suggest you rethink your decision to be an admin here. Like it or not, blocking socks is part of your job. I work as a nurse, and I can't pick and choose which aspects of care I give to patients. I have to do what is in my job description. I see no difference here. Please reconsider your stance. It doesn't help the project, and signals a fragmentation in the community. Jeffpw (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are plenty of obvious sock cases that need attention. I suggest administrators use tools against obvious socks and socks proven by checkuser. When you find an edge case, rather than engaging in brinksmanship, simply watch and wait. If it is a troll, they will provide solid evidence against themselves sooner or later. Raymond Arritt, if a sock determination is later shown to be wrong, but you had reasonable evidence and you provided that evidence when asked to explain, I do not think anybody will complain. Carcharoth, ANI is not a chatroom. Please reserve use of this board for actual incidents. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• This would have been better at WP:AN, you are right. I left it here because I originally created it as a subsection of incident above, and it was closely related. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• The difference is that this is a voluntary position. No administrator is ever obliged to make any block. If you don't want to block sockpuppets, don't. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Correct. Jeff, this is not a job. We are not paid to be Wikipedia sysops. We volunteer our time, and castigating Raymond for deciding not to carry out one element of this voluntary role is unfair. Neil ☎ 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an Admin but I am a user who was (incorrectly) blocked as a sock shortly after I joined Wikipedia, so I hope I'm not out of line giving my views on this. In my case although I was annoyed at the time by the block I was prepared to put it behind me and accept it as a simple error once the block was lifted. However I have since had problems on here with a small number of editors (none of them Admins as far as I know) who've seen that I've been blocked for sock puppetry and therefore Assume Bad Faith where I am concerned. I think an apology from the blocking Admin might have gone a long way to stop these problems (though his last comment on the matter was that he still thinks I am a sock!). In summary I think if there is evidence that an account is a sock its OK to block so long as you are open minded when the victim presents evidence he is not and apologise if you are proven wrong. Kelpin (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  Kelpin, you are not out of line at all. Far from it! Thank-you for stepping forward and giving us this valuable feedback. I've made my views clear on this already, so I'll let others say more if it is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry; Removal of Speedy deletion tags; re-creation of content already deleted;

Emperor13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See this and this history. Suspected sock puppetry reported here. User continuously removes Speedy tags without following procedure even after warnings. This almost looks like a child "playing" on Wikipedia with his "club." I've given up trying to replace the speedy delete tag as the user just keeps removing it. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gurch's conduct

There's nothing to be resolved here that needs administrator assistance. White Cat, don't assume bad faith with the humor and Gurch, stop teasing him, it will make for a less drahma-free enviornment. — Save_Us_229 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which begs the question: why do we want an environment free of drahmas? – Gurch 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a free project. I think you made your WP:POINT. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith at all. The fact that this image was placed on some 'random' userpage during the arbcom election is a mere coincidence, it could not possibly have any other motive like maybe trolling! The timing must be a coincidence as well. I am sorry people for bringing something completely innocent to your attention. Think of the bright side! You all had a very good belly laugh! -- Cat ^chi? 12:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

---

I am quite concerned with an edit like this. Gurch (talk · contribs) had added an image with the title "WhiteCat busy editing Wikipedia" on the userpage of User:WhiteCat who has less than 500 edits. The image (Image:Needs-moar-drama.jpg) was uploaded to commons with the summary "TROLL KITTEH NEEDS MOAR DRAMA" on 27 November 2007 by Commons:User:Thebainer. This is the only contribution by Thebainer since 7 September 2007. Image is being used on three pages:

• User:Thebainer (Added by the uploader User:Thebainer to his own userpage on 27 November 2007)
• User:WhiteCat (Added by User:Gurch on 1 December 2007)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan (Added by User:Miranda on 5 December 2007)

Gurch later uploaded Image:Lolwhitecat.jpg per this thread and Image:Lolraul.jpg a few minutes prior. I am having difficulty making sense of this.

Important disclaimer #1: User:WhiteCat is someone completely unrelated to me, User:White Cat.

Important disclaimer #2: I was pointed to this userpage by Miranda on IRC on 6 December 2007.

-- Cat ^chi? 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if I'd addded it to your userpage I'd have been banned – Gurch 09:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you randomly targeting a wikipedia user? I'd like to know the productive nature of this. -- Cat ^chi? 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the following image sums up this situation:

File:Lolwhitecat.jpg

– Gurch 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sums what up? Please elaborate. -- Cat ^chi? 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you appear to be stalking my contributions, I'll make it easier for you. Would you like me banned for a year, or indefinitely? – Gurch 10:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please save me the drama. I had more than enough of that. Your contributions link exists for a reason. Had I been stalking you, this post would be here on 1 December now wouldn't it? I would not be aware of it had Miranda not pointed it out on IRC. -- Cat ^chi? 10:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{undent) I'm struggling to see what the issue is here....? What harm has been caused that needs a thread at ANI? Pedro :  Chat  10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah Gurch NO, White Cat, please takes this in Good humour rather than making this into an personal conflict..I know the joke was a bit rude but Gurch didn't mean no harm :)..--Cometstyles 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image macros in AN/I discussions are not the way forward, then? Meh – Gurch 10:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Have we not got quite enough shit to deal with at this silly time of year, without making snipey images attacking each other? ~ Riana ⁂ 11:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to ask people on commons to delete these images just because it's a white cat with text on it. And, you think that's a personal attack? Wow...can we please now close this worthless thread before more people leave the encyclopedia over stupid shit? Miranda 11:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: I see where White Cat is coming from. He thinks that a person bought a white cat from the pet store. The person placed the cat strategically near the computer, as to mocking him editing the encyclopedia. And, then that person took a picture in order to attack him. Wow...just wow...I wonder if he ever heard of lolcats? Correct, right? Miranda 11:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This thread is absolutely enthralling. Now, seriously guys, making a Wikipedia-themed lolcat macro featuring a white cat is one thing. Making such a macro alluding to the "white cat" being a troll and wanting drama is another thing. Posting that macro to the user page of a user called "WhiteCat", when everybody knows that there is another user "White Cat" who indeed has a history of being involved in drama incidents and what some people may regard as trolling? Well, that does cross the line somehow.

But, damn it, it was funny. So, Gurch, please stop it now, and Cat, show a sense of humor, and let's end this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

liek this one better. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled the word like. El_C 12:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And what, no capitalization? What is this inter or intra net/s nonchalantneses? Kitty 12:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right "pride of you," what's it to you? El_C 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Again. Kitty 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know we're done here, but.....I lolled heartily at the pics. I can editz Wiki now? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've blocked Dbuckner (talk · contribs) indefinitely as he's made a legal threat against FT2 by stating that he's contacted animal welfare officials about his conduct on Wikipedia[122]. I've made it clear to him that the minute he retracts this, I am willing to unblock his account. I hope this is just a momentary lapse of judgement and he'll soon be back to editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he is willing to retract the threat. — Save_Us_229 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if he makes it clear that he no longer plans to take this off wiki in any context, then I'll unblock right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear. — Save_Us_229 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And I unblocked just after he stated it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He quit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup - [123]. Neil ☎ 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He seemed to have made this intention clear before the block. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder why he was so keen to be unblocked. If I was leaving the wikipedia, I wouldn't worry so much about whether I got blocked. He also seemed to claim he was editing from an IP on WP:IP [124]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

← His blog that was linked says he's taking a break. So he may or may not be back. He probably wants the unblock so that he can come back if he is so inclined. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Dbuckner indefinitely. In an email to me he makes it clear that he has in fact carried out the threat he purported to withdrawn and has posted what interpret as a vicious personal attack with serious legal consequences to a number of what he termed "activist websites". Given that this has gone beyond what can be dealt with on-wiki, I am emailing the Foundation with a summary of events for their review. WjBscribe 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I received a similar email last night. I support leaving this situation in WJBscribe's hands unless the Foundation staff takes it over from him. My assessment is that well intended but poorly judged comments yesterday pushed the dispute off-site, and we may well have lost one or more productive editors here. I think the damage is likely to be most limited if only one person manages the situation than if several of us are getting in each others way. GRBerry 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Megan Meier suicide controversy‎

Several editors -- User:Jeeny and User:Haemo -- are engaging in moralistic brow-beating of of other editors with whom they disagree on Talk:Megan Meier suicide controversy‎. I have repeatedly asked that the focus be on matters of content and have just had one of their sympathizers complain that these request border on incivility. And I admit that at this point I'm pretty annoyed that the parties in question won't cut it out. Can someone take a look? --Pleasantville (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am far from being a "sympathizer"; I share the same concerns that the article is beginning to look like an attack on some of the article subjects. My comment to you on your talk page was that you were bordering on incivility in your edit summaries and comments, and to take it down a notch. As this seems more a content dispute than anything else, may I suggest you open an Rfc on the issues? Jeffpw (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. My concern is that the possibility of discussing content is being disrupted by User:Jeeny and User:Haemo. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandal (sock of someone?)

Can someone help me revert the page-moves of

• Anne Vonkinski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Not sure how to clean that up. This user is blocked, but it looks like someone's sock, as it attacks a userpage with templates. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• The page moves have been cleanup up. It's a sock of this user, though I don't know who that is.
  • 125.24.36.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 125.24.59.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 125.24.178.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 125.24.179.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 125.25.58.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion?

I wouldn't mind a second opinion on a speedy I did, though it's not a review. I deleted Chris Hunter (author) as nn-bio, now I've since had User:Lynseydalladay leave a message on my talk page here saying she is this authors publisher, and having pointed her to WP:NOTABLE and WP:COI which she claims isn't an issue I've now seen she now created another author, I presume in her stable Sheridan Simove. Is it COI, Spam, nn do I delete the new one (which has now been speedy tagged), warn or am I not AGF here?. Cheers ^Khukri 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I note his sole "published work" is not yet released (release date 11 Feb 2008). I would AFD, as notability is asserted so it's not a viable A7 speedy. Neil ☎ 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)