Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Uncivil language by Wiki San Roze

Repeated personal attacks were made by Wikiality123. In spite of request to stop them an uncivil comment is made as follows on discussion page of Hogenakkal Falls article.

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs)

Without spending a long time wading through the contribs, this report (posted by User:Naadapriya) seems to be an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute on Talk:Hogenakkal_Falls. I note that the page is now protected, and hope that dispute resolution will resolve the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to get a'upper hand'. I am just reporting an abusive language by an editor. Admn opinions are requested about above improper language.Naadapriya (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper page moves by Husond

User:Husond has once again started engaging in improper, undiscussed page moves, moving Mihai Suba to Mihai Şuba in this edit. He tries to justify it by attacking me and my motives in moving it to align page name with the cited sources,[1] rather than addressing the issues involved.

The Mihai Suba spelling is not only the one in the cited reference here; is is also the spelling in both external links in the article and in the book he wrote with the ISBN 0-08-037141-8 citation in the article. It is quite reasonable to think that these spellings are accurate and correct spellings, the way this British resident for the past 20 years or so (since before he wrote his book, the main reason why he is notable) in generally known in English.

Husond's move is an improper, unreferenced move of this article to a name not supported by the cited sources. Furthermore, it is contrary to the spelling of his name as the author of his book mentioned in the text.

That the move Husond made was undiscussed is especially improper and inappropriate given that there already was a talk page discussion before his move. His move was clearly much more inappropriate than the original creation of the page under an unreferenced spelling contrary to that of the sources by User:Krakatoa, who—unlike Husond—hadn't then had it specifically pointed out to him/her that the spelling was contrary to that in all the sources.

Note further that even if he can and does find some sources supporting the spelling in the move he made, that would be sufficient to list the alternative spelling in the article. It is not by any means determinative of the spelling of this English resident's name in the article's name under Wikipedia:naming conventions. But so far, we have absolutely no evidence from any reliable source, nor even from any unreliable source, that the "Mihai Şuba" spelling has ever been correct at any time in any language whatsoever.

Note in particular that Husond did not change my correction of my spelling of the name of the author of Dynamic Chess Strategy from "Şuba" to "Suba", the name of the author as it appears in that English-language book he wrote. He knows better than to deliberately change that to a spelling different from that used in the book itself (LCCC listing, which is reachable by following the ISBN link already cited in article and clicking on the appropriate "find this book" link), yet he thinks it is okay to improperly move the article containing it contrary to Wikipedia's naming conventions, without even discussing the points which had already been made on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and you are discussing many issues of the content dispute here. Please spend more time looking for resolution on the article talk page or the user's talk page. You are far away from needing to bring this issue to A/NI. Husond should engage in a talk page discussion over the correct name of the page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an outside view, I noticed Gene that you made no attempt (at least that I can see) to resolve this name dispute with Husond. This feels like tattling. Do you have some sort of history with this particular editor to bring you to AN/I so quickly. This seems like a simple dispute that could be fixed on article talk, user talk, even WP:RM. Why the AN/I drama? This isn't traditionally a first stop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The valid core of this complaint is that Husond should have brought the move to WP:RM. He knows, better than most, that all diacritical moves are likely to be controversial. Instead, he argued in the edit summaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond has been notified of this thread. Rudget 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Husond revert a prior move that wasn't brought to WP:RM? He has the page named the same way the original author had it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would gladly welcome such a rule, Gwynand. Will you stand behind me, supporting a carte blanche right to revert badly made moves? There are thousands of them on Wikipedia now; somebody needs to address that issue. And if everyone can agree that reverting the first move is always okay, it will be much more easily fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And contrary to the spelling of the sources (see the links in the article). Husond disagrees with WP:UE, and has every right to campaign for his minority view; but the way to do so is to discuss and poll to see whether he has gathered support, not by move warring. Gene at least discussed his move on the talk page; Husond did nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would not regard this (as it stands) as warranting sanctions, in either direction; but is this not a reasonable place to ask for a third opinion? It may require adminship to act on a move war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, this isn't the place. (Read the header). It's a dispute. We have Dispute resolution. We have third opinions. But before those even get going, we have talk pages. Nobody even went to Husond's talkpage. Calling the article talk page a "discussion" is rather laughable. It's a one liner by Gene Nygaard "telling it like it is". That's not a discussion, that's an order. I wouldn't have replied to that either. This thread should be closed. Husond and Gene are disagreeing on something, outsight eyes need to be on it, I agree, before it gets ridiculous over something rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to. I'll try to make this brief. First, Gene strangely failed to mention that right after I reverted his move, I reminded him on his talk page that he is under community probation and may not move articles in order to remove diacritics without going through WP:RM first. Second, Gene seized the opportunity to move this article under the grounds that the only source refers to this person without the diacritic. Any search on Google with most adequate regard for Romanian sources will clearly show that this Romanian citizen's name is clearly and naturally written with a diacritic [2] and that all the other sources are lacking this diacritic simply because most non-Romanian keyboards don't have it. But this, in case someone forgot, is an encyclopedia and accuracy is imperative. English speakers who know how "Ş" is pronounced don't have to be mislead into reading the name wrong simply because most English speakers don't know how to read it. Those will likely read it as "S" anyway, while the ones aware of the correct pronunciation would read "SH". In my view it is thus logical that in an encyclopedia readers be provided with an accurate and clear presentation of the subject, starting with its correct pronunciation. Gene Nygaard and Septentrionalis think otherwise, they defend that everyone has the right to be dumb, stay dumb, and make everyone else dumb. But that's not for here. I am surprised that Gene brought this issue here without contacting me or User:Krakatoa, the creator of the article. But I see that Gene has just declared on his talk page that the probation does not exist, which is false: Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log is marked as inactive but as one can clearly read there, his probation is still active (and for good reasons). Gene has once again moved the article, which I will revert once again and block Gene Nygaard per his probation if he attempts to move the article once more without going to WP:RM. Húsönd 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to ...

Husond, please stop the mud slinging. Gene tried to discuss this twice - on the article talk page and on his user page - and your reply was to threaten blocking. Enough already, quit stirring up trouble. --Duk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Move protected for one week. Tiptoety ^talk 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(i) Husond is an admin, and party to what is apparently a two person dispute where one user is an admin and one is not and (ii) I'm not sure that protection is necessary, particularly if Gene Nygaard ends up blocked for edit warring and violating a community probation. Also, Husond, it would be a bad idea for you to block Gene yourself. Avruch ^T 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested protection because a user who often teams with Gene Nygaard joined in and moved the article again. Didn't want this to go on forever. As for blocking Gene Nygaard, I understand your concern but I don't view this as a situation where I'd be using the block tool to have advantage over a dispute. Gene's probation is very clear and whenever I monitor his recent contributions I always find violations. He has been warned many times and I could've blocked him right away for persistent violations. And perhaps I should have, because I'm always lenient and explain to him over and over what he is not supposed to do, but then he always attacks me and this time came up with this unnecessary thread. The fact that Gene and I have a long history of disagreements does not mean that I may not enforce a clear community probation when it is blatantly violated. Húsönd 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment If a clear community probation is blatantly violated then there is likely to be another uninvolved admin willing to block, so to avoid the inevitable filing of a complaint why don't you let that happen? Indeed, if you are insistent on performing the block it may become the view of some that you appear more willing to act on matters where you have some interest than with keeping as much drama out of Wikipedia as possilbe. It may even be considered that acting in such a manner is disruptive. If there is a blatant violation of community probation then why not contact me and request me - or any other uninvolved admin - to perform the block (once satisfied)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Husond. I wouldn't recommend you blocking GN, regardless of the probation. Even though you may "technically" be within your rights to do as much, the perception of admin abuse, and inevitable drama to follow, would not be in anybody's best interests. I recommend letting the community handle any potential blocks (and at this point, I don't believe any blocks or other sanctions are warranted). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, your argument is sound- drama would be inevitable indeed. Okay, I won't block Gene if I see further violations, but I may be reporting them here if they do occur. Húsönd 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I appear to have quite accidentally ignited World War III. I was the original author of the article in question. Husond notified me on my talk page of the resulting controversy. In case anyone cares about my views and the genesis of my use of "Şuba" rather than "Suba," this is what happened. I wrote the article First move advantage in chess and cited therein a book by Mr. _uba. I have a copy of that book, "Dynamic Chess Strategy" by Mihai Suba (that's how it's spelled on the title and cover page). I accordingly spelled the name "Suba" in First move advantage in chess. Upon seeing a redlink in the article, I searched Wikipedia for "Mihai Suba" and found that there was no article on him, but that he was mentioned (as "Mihai Şuba") in the article on the Romanian Chess Championship. Knowing how obsessive people are about proper punctuation of names and not wanting to offend anyone (Hah! Silly me!) , I wrote the article on "Mihai Şuba" and went back and changed my spelling of the name in First move advantage in chess. Gene Nygaard promptly went ballistic and moved the article from Mihai Şuba to Mihai Suba; evidently Husong went counter-ballistic and changed it back. FWIW, all the sources I saw, other than the Romanian Chess Championship article here on Wikipedia, used "Suba" rather than "Şuba." I don't really give a @#$%, myself, about the resolution of this tempest in a teapot. Krakatoa (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's really magnanimous of you, Husond. You won't block me in a content dispute in which you were involved! Great! But what ever made you think that was an option in the first place? What made you think you could make changes not only without providing any evidence or reasoning for them, but that you could also stifle any discussion by coming to my talk page and threatening to block me for it? That's part of the core problem here. Krakjatoa's characterization of my actions is a little off; when I fixed it on 14 April, I wasn't upset at all, and I explained why I was fixing it on the talk page. It was only after Husond on 18 April started edit-warring without any explanation, and came to my talk page threatening to block me, that I came anywhere near what Krakatoa characterizes as "went ballistic".

By the way, Krakatoa, that's one reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source; it isn't as bad here as in other articles in which invented-for-Wikipedia names are used, tainting results from sites all across the web. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Krakatoa, you caused quite an eruption. ;-) Do you mind if I copy some of your comment to the article's talk page? It seems to me reliance on the sources will be the best way to resolution of this. Jonathunder (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond has skirted the three-revert rule by making his third revert in six hours,[3] [4] [5] and then in the very same minute as his last reversion going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and requesting that his version be protected[6] (gaming the system to his advantage what he knows from handing such requests on a regular basis, taking advantage of "The Wrong Version" opinion page often cited there).

Even that has some appearances of collusion beforehand. Within five minutes of his request, there were two different editors who protected the page (one of them three times)—one of them before Husond decided to amend the request he had just written, four minutes later. There might, of course, be a perfectly innocent explanation, but that is not the norm for the time frame for handling those requests for protection, and there wasn't much time for any editor granting the protection to make an independent investigation of the circumstances. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a short page protection is a good idea in this case. Gene, would you consider removing the 3RR/gaming complaint from Talk:Mihai Şuba since you've already noted it here? --Duk 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the gaming of 3RR that's the biggest problem; it's the gaming of the page protection rules. There ought to be a rule that when a self-identified edit warrior requests page protection because of his edit warring (note that in this case, there is only one editor who has reverted anything more than once in the article—that being Husond, also the page-protection requestor, who reverted three times) it is first reverted to the version before that last edit by the one requesting protection and only then protected. Any requests for protection by any third-party not involved in the editing would not be affected by this. That would eliminate a lot of the gaming of the rules for page protection, of simultaneous edits accompanied by page protection requests at the same instant as Husond did here. But in any case, it is much more relevant at the article's talk page than it is here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I too am bothered by the implications of a blind following of WRONG VERSION. Since the harmful edit is the one usually followed by the complaint, it is not just the possibility, but the practical certainty that the truly wrong version will in fact be preferentially protected. The version to protect is the stable version before the edit war, just as we would protect the unvandalized version in a case of outright vandalism. DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed Husond's threat on Gene Nygaard's talk page. I've supported Gene Nygaard in the past, and noted the good work he does. I've also noticed that Husond and Nygaard come into conflict too much over these issues. I think what is needed here is for Husond to be placed under a similar restriction to that placed on Gene Nygaard. That should take a lot of the heat out of the issues and force Husond to discuss things and listen to others instead of edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• An alternative, since I see from his talk page that Gene contests the rather old restriction, is to formally lift the restriction (and review all the restrictions at that old page) and acknowledge the good work that Gene Nygaard has been doing. Of course, both he and Husond would still have to discuss controversial moves, just like any other editor does. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond already tried to make that claim here last November, and was rejected, without me saying a word about it (he had deliberately timed his claim to bring it up knowing that I was then blocked for unrelated reasons, and it was already rejected and archived when I got back). That "currently inactive and is retained for historical archive" (emphasis in original) log page means what it says, and in any case, the underlining historical restriction was based on moving pages because they didn't have redirects they should have, using it as a shortcut for that purpose, not on moves based on our naming conventions. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I must be confusing things a bit. Sorry. In any case, I would be happy to see a formal lifting of that very old (18 months) restriction, if needed, and for it to be replaced by something asking both you and Husond to adhere to community norms over page moves and diacritics (and for Husond not to use his admin tools in such disputes). I think you already follow norms. Husond may disagree, but then his stance is not exactly in line with consensus or guidelines either. The real problem is the "until further notice" bit. That should never be done, really, as that allows the community to conveniently forget about things, and leaves the person under sanctions having to appeal to get them lifted, rather than having them expire naturally. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

another Pinoybandwagon's sockpuppet

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [7][8] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [9]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. Check out his latest contributions. Also, his user page is very similar to one of the sockpuppets of Pinoybandwagon (User:Bad false). -Danngarcia (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sock case and he other things are no proof that Martindanza is a sock. All that proves is that this Pioybandwagon created loads of sockpuppets.--Phoenix-wiki 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to open *another* sockpuppet case for what is an obvious sock just like the ones blocked at that case? The behaviour of this account is totally online with Pinoybandwagon's socks, up to the recreation of the same hoax article that got recreated several times with the exact same text by several different socks already blocked, addition to the same templates, re-naming of the same articles to the same names, exact same wording of some comments, exact same lenghty additions to the same articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I requested block on WP:AIV and got declined for his edits not being actual vandalism (notice I had got confused with another user, hence the re-block request instead of simple block) [10] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This user already has *two* resolved sock cases against him here and here and has even edited the first archived case to blame his blocked User:Map_inc account for some of the socks and salvage some of his accounts --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking at probable sockpuppets and there's any dispute on it, best to just create a new case at the top of the old RFCU. Some RFCU's I've seen have 11 or 12 instances over a period of time within the same report. Unless it's a clear WP:DUCK case and you can prove it, it's safest just to add it. On looking at the guy's edits, though, I must admit he has a good point re the naming, it wouldn't be a violation if Philippine stations are generally known by name as they are here in Australia. Orderinchaos 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a WP:DUCK case, with his user page being identical to other socks and identical edits. I will prove it tomorrow here with damning evidence, I can't do it today --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his characteristic addiction to the use of ALL CAPS to ORDER other editors to LEAVE HIS EDITS ALONE and NEVER CHANGE THEM BACK! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for this user being a Pinoybandwagon's sock:

• user page almost identical to blocked socks, and follows the same layout patterns, compare User:martindanza with 3 differents sock's user pages before being indef blocked [11], [12] and [13]
• same answer to block warnings on talk pages, with emphasis on same words and CAPS use, compare his anwer "There is NO NEED to block me."[14] with blocked user anwer "THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK ME."[15]
• Tries to move DYCL-FM to 96.3_WRock three times [16] [17] [18]. Pinoy also tried the same move [19] and so did Bf2 (a Pinoy's sock) [20]
• edits a template edited by Pinoy's socks and Map inc's socks template history, and make the same noming changes. Compare his name changes at [21] [22].
• same pattern of not following WP:Naming conventions#Broadcasting by not using the callsign as name of the article despite all stations having a callsign. See changes on templates here, here and here, all of them on templates where only socks of Pinoybandwagon have made that type of changes, like [23]. Creating AU_Radio_104.1 instead of DWAU, 107.1 Dwee FM instead of DWEE (I intend to move those articles later), as well as placing the frequency in front of the name. Also moving from the callsign name to that sort of names [24][25][26]. There are dozens of examples of this on the sock contributions, I'll pick some of the most recent ones: creating 98.3_One_FM instead of DZLT, moving from DWKX to 103.5_Max_FM [27].
• Making the same redirect as blocked socks, from 99.5 Campus FM to DWRT-FM here and here again. Admins can look at the deleted pages on 99.5 Campus FM and see the blocked socks trying to create the same page there.
• Recreation of deleted hoax article 99.9 Hot FM (admins can look at the deleted pages and see how it was re-created by at least one blocked sock with the exact same wording on the page creation). See the link reinclusion on a template by martindanza [28].
• similar contribution patterns to socks, like editing always on philippine radio stations and even on the same articles, and not editing on any other topic ever. Also, as explained above, re-creating the same redirects, performing the same page moves, creating article with the same non-compliant names, restoring the same deleted article,

Editor testimonial: I'm sure that User:Orangemike and User:Danngarcia will be happy to confirm that there are lots of evidence pointing unambiguously that he is a Pinoybandwagon's sock --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

need an admin to look at the evidence for the sock status, and make the block if he is convinced. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

still need an admin to look at martindanza and block him as a sock of Pinoybandwagon (see evidence above). Today he has started editing again, keeping the same behaviour as the blocked socks, moving articles to the name he prefers against Wikipedia:Naming conventions [29] [30], and creating unsourced articles about closed stations instead of simply listing the old names under the current name [31], thus causing the philippine radio stations templates to be overloaded with articles about non-notable articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

JzG's recent deletions

JzG has gone through and deleted a large number of subpages in other peoples userspace under the heading "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". The problem being that he 1. failed to notify the pages authors of the deletions in any way shape or form or even ask them if they wanted to keep the pages and 2. speedy deleted them, circumventing the MfD process used for this kind of deletion and completely misapplied "non controversial housekeeping" which is actually "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, or performing uncontroversial page moves." - to include deleting someones subpages under this heading has stretched the term "non-controversial housekeeping" to beyond breaking point. To make matters worse, he then proceeded to refuse to overturn such deletions [32][33]. And accused me of wheel warring when I complied with a very reasonable request from one of the editors to have his page back [34]. Now I am apparently banned from his talk page so someone else might like to go and point out the deletion policy again. Viridae^Talk 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you reverse his deletion without discussion with him BEFORE? Don't do that. There's seldom a rush to undelete, and if you disagree it is better to get a consensus of admins than to start wheel warring.--Doc^g 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? He had alrady shown himself unwilling to overturn his supposedly uncpontroversial deletions (clearly not by the way) at the request of the authors. So why the hell shouldnt I undelete a userpsace copy of an uncontroversial article on author request when they have been improperly deleted? Viridae^Talk 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether something is "improperly deleted" is always something to discuss. If we all just undeleted anything we thought "improperly deleted" then we might as well wind up WP:DRV now. That's not the way we work. Always discuss BEFORE jumping in with tools (unless there's urgency). You can't complain that JzG unilaterally used tools without discussion, and then do the same yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right.--Doc^g 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No way can you be considered uninvolved. It would be extremely inappropriate for you to undo any of Guys actions without having a consensus behind you and frankly we have enough admins that you shouldn't get involved. DRV is thataway... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was discussion - see WP:AN where there is consensus that there is no reason for pages sismilar to that one Guy has complained about to be deleted. I like how Guy suddenly has carte blanche to flout the CSD policy, claiming clearly controversial deletions are uncontroversial housekeeping, stonewall those people who complain about such deletions and refuse to undo them at the authors request (which, if they were uncontroversial would be the obvious thing to do...) Viridae^Talk 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You of all people are not qualified to judge a consensus on an admin action of Guy's. I get the impression that the only views you judge significant are the anti brigade. This was a shocking decision. For someone as wedded to doing the right thing as you purport to be I'm amazed that you didn't do the right thing here and take it to DRV. Be warned your own behaviour is as disruptive as you claim Guy's to have been and righting wrongs can cut both ways. I strongly advise you to completely avoid using your admin tools in any issue even tangentially related to Guy. You can't say you haven't been warned if you wheelwar again and we know how the arbcom voiew wheelwarring don't we! Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, it is wholly unacceptable to reverse the admin actions of another administrator with whom you are in long-standing dispute. Wholly, utterly, completely, unambiguously wrong. Never ever do that again, please. Second, you undeleted one of these pages without giving me time to discuss it with the user at all, which is doubly unacceptable. Third, you have not looked at the overall context. Most of these pages were userspace copies of articles made while the articles themselves were protected, and have been edited a handful of times at most. The main editor on most of them is maintenance bots. Removing something that's been moved to userspace and forgotten, is not controversial. What is controversial is maintaining POV-forks in userspace, which some of these editors were doing, but that's another matter. I found I think six separate copies of human with varying numbers of edits serving different POVs; long experience indicates that POV-forking an article into userspace is an atrocious way of handling a content dispute.

I am staggered by your chutzpah, coming here and drawing attention tot he fact that you are reversing the deletion of abandoned POV-forks by an admin with whom you are in dispute, while those deletions are already being debated in another venue with uninvolved admins looking on. I am now making a formal request, as I have made several informal ones: unwatch my talk page, never post there again, never revert another of my admin actions. You have declared an agenda against me, and your continued harassment is not appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop flouting policy and you wont hear a peep from me Guy... Viridae^Talk 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, what declared vendetta against you Guy? Oh and why are you objecting so loudly to me overturning a deletion you marked as "non-controversial housekeeping" - if its so non-controversial, surely when the author requests it back you should give it to them asap... Viridae^Talk 11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, there are means for you to pursue any complaints against Guy. Do not use your tools in a dispute. If there's a pressing need for things to be undone without DRV, there are plenty of others to do it. If you continue down this line, desysopping is the likely outcome.--Doc^g 11:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a pressing need to placate those who have been wronged as quickly as possible WP:EM Viridae^Talk 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, actions like these are already on RfC for guy, and he clearly hasnt learnt. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So take it to arbcom, do not use your tools in a dispute. It is quite unjustifiable.--Doc^g 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, you are confusing policy with process. Policy says we don't have POV forks (WP:NPOV), we don't allow users to indefinitely keep deleted content in userspace, and we don't use unreliable sources. Oh, and we don't wheel-war. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of these massively contentious deletions:

• User:Sherurcij/cars (edit | [[Talk:User:Sherurcij/cars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | [[Talk:User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both copies of List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was deleted by robust consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers. Neither was being actively worked on, the latter was copied to userspace by request in December last year and not touched since. I don't think there is anything in the least controversial about removing userspace copies of resoundingly deleted content which are not actively being worked on (as in: not touched other than by bots for at least six months). Maybe I'm wrong about that.
• User:Jaakobou/Temp2 (edit | [[Talk:User:Jaakobou/Temp2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin (edit | [[Talk:User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), two copies of the same article in the userspace of an Arbcom-sanctioned editor who has apparently begun to mend his ways. Kudos to him for that, but what's the purpose for having two separate forks of the same article, when the main article is still editable?
• User:W1k13rh3nry/Human (edit | [[Talk:User:W1k13rh3nry/Human|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Human8 (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Human8|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Homo sapiens (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Homo sapiens|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Human7 (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Human7|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and various other forks of human
• User:Huysman/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:Huysman/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Huysman/Sandbox1 (edit | [[Talk:User:Huysman/Sandbox1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) two forks of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda not touched since September 2006 in either case.

But you know something? Part of the reason was, and I will freely admit this, laziness. I was removing citations to Free Republic, which is an unreliable source and riddled with copyright violations, and yes, I admit it, I could not be bothered to fix the links in these abandoned userspace forks rather than simply getting rid of them. The staggering assumptions of ill-faith from Viridae are amusing, but simply wrong: I could not see the point in fixing articles which have been lying around in userpsace untouched by anything but bots for months or in some cases years. Still, why even ask for the truth when an assumption of bad faith is so much more satisfying? I think I made around 1,500 edits to get rid of the links and bogus "citations" to Freeper threads or copyvios of mainstream sources (see L. A. Times v. Free Republic) and yes, I really was getting thorughly fed up with it and lost a bit of patience when I found these abandoned forks. On the plus side, we no longer have contentious facts about living individuals supported by reference to Freeper rants about their evil pinko commie subversive ways, so some good at least has come of all those hours of effort. I'm sure Viridae did something to improve the encyclopaedia in that time as well, besides shit-stirring and wheel-warring with an admin with whom he is in dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current policy does not lay down how long archived article material may be kept in userspace, if it isn't being worked on. I do think we need a clearer and more specific guideline on this, to avoid such conflicts occurring in the future. I do think that JzG was wrong to originally delete these pages under CSD G6, since that criterion is expressly for routine and non-controversial deletions, and these are self-evidently controversial; however, I applaud the fact that he has now sent them to MfD, which is entirely appropriate. Depending on the consensus which arises in those MfDs, we may be able to add a paragraph to WP:U detailing precise rules for these types of pages (maybe allowing the deletion of such pages if they haven't been worked on for three months, or something like that). Walton^One 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current practice, however, has it that it is not acceptable to leave deleted material hanging around in userspace forever without being worked on, as an end-run around WP:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do see the sense in that argument, and I have seen such material put up for MfD many times in the past, it has never (for good reason) been eligible for speedy. The problem is, it's often hard to tell whether someone is trying to store their own preferred POV fork of an article, or simply intended to work on the material and hasn't got round to it yet. I don't think speedy was appropriate in such a case, but we'll see what consensus develops on the MfDs. Walton^One 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...two admins attacking each other over some silly user-sub-page deletions. Shame on you both, I would have expected more from admins. JzG, really you should have notified before deleting, and Viridae, just don't undo his actions, take it to his talkpage first.--Phoenix-wiki 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Normally if I see abandoned userspace forks and the user is still active, I WP:PROD them. If the user is gone, and they are obviously left-overs form some long-dead dispute, then deleting them quietly is not usually controversial. I have found that in some cases trying to delete "backup" or "safety" copies of material that was copied to userspace without history during AfDs, causes stpid drama and ends with the same result. In this case, though, see my comment above: I was trying to get rid of well over a thousand links to an inapppropriate source and really did not see any point fixing userspace content forks that had not been touched for months other than by bots. When such pages are MfDd, in my experience they get deleted. I fixed any userspace pages that had current or near-current edits to them. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting sources

I wonder how can someone unilaterally decide that certain source (say Free Republic) is "unreliable" and then remove it from all articles and user spaces? Was it officially "blacklisted" somewhere?Biophys (talk) O'K, I see it here: [35]. All these sources, including YouTube seem to be unilaterally blacklisted. But on what grounds? Was it a proper procedure? This way one can eliminate a lot of sources. For example, if a site (say YouTube) has occasional copyright violations, should we exclude all links to this site, including those which are not copyright violations? I do not think this is right.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. See, for example Little Tich for an example of a YouTube video that's free of copyright. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. No one should blacklist sources simply because they are deemed unreliable. For example, even if Free Republic is an unreliable source (which is debatable), it still may be appropriate in the article about Free Republic itself. Therefore, the blacklisting and such edits [36] are inappropriate. Especially when the blacklisting was justified by simply telling "Fuck no" (see here [37]).Biophys (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In case it hasn't been brought up (didn't read the above section, just noticed this), in the case of a site that's being widely misused (no idea if Free Republic is or is not), but, is still valid in one or two articles, specific links may be whitelisted... SQL^{Query me!} 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sites he blacklisted were used in too many articles. I am arguing about a proper procedure. If a source is simply "unreliable" (which may be disputed at any time), it should not be blacklisted simply because it is unreliable. Just to clarify, a racist blog like "stormfront" might be eliminated like that, but blacklisting of a good educational site "Spatakus" ([38]) has no justification whatsoever.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic is undoubtedly an unreliable source as far as WP:RS goes, and shouldn't be used to back up claims of fact. However, it might well be a relevant source/external link in articles about Free Republic itself. I do understand, though, that we have to avoid linking to potential copyvios; I'm not an expert on copyright law, so I defer to the judgment of the community on this one. Walton^One 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Free Republic was discussed on WP:RSN and the consensus was that it was unreliable.[39] Aside from being copyright violations, the materials posted there are edited and followed by large amounts of highly POV commentary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting a site simply because a few editors find it unreliable is a very, very bad idea. The purpose of the blacklist is to prevent links to spam sites, sites that might be hosting viruses, etc. It is not there to enforce WP:RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Please note that not only "Free Republic" has been blacklisted here [40], so the argument about "Free Republic" discussion is not relevant. Did anyone discussed "Spartacus" and YouTube? I used this these sites many times. This is not spam. We must follow the existing policies for sources.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

← There is a discussion on the blacklist talk page, and it was absolutely not just my call. The problems with Free Republic include: polemical content about living individuals; egregious copyright violation; lack of editorial policy and oversight. It is simply not a reliable source. Not even slightly. But the major problem was citations to sources flagged as "subscription required (subscription free copy at freerepublic.com) kind of stuff. Simply not appropriate. I removed links to YouTube a long time back (and a few more recently) mainly due to copyright concerns. Spartacus Educational is an odd one; there are a lot of links, and my original research shoewd that a very large number of them had eben added ot the site owner. The content looks good, but there is no evidence of editorial oversight or to support the incredibly wide ranging expertise that would be required of the site owner if all the content is genuinely his own work. I seem to recall some copyvios (from newspapers) as well. This is not really the place to discuss editorial actions, though, since neither YouTube removal nor the few Spartacus links I've removed involved any admin tools, only blacklisting Freep required that, and that was a perfectly routine blacklist following discussion in the relevant places. There has never been any assertion or evidence that Free Republic satisfies our sourcing requirements. My personal page on unreliabel sources is just that: a personal page. It's a work list, of no particular relevance other than that it allowed me to give an edit summary that explained in some detail the multiple reasons why I was removing citations to Free Republic; this was a response to several questions on my talk page. Very few came up after I started linking that in the edit summaries. It's a user subpage, so obviously not asserted as any kind of policy in and of itself, though I reference policy for the Frrep case since that's what I was doing at the time. You'll notice that I also identify Stormfront as an unreliable source; I removed most of the links to that a long time ago and there was no dispute about that. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is not a good idea to blacklist any source simply because it is deemed unreliable by several people. As about "Spatacus", you admit you are not sure if it is reliable or not, but you still deleted some links. This would be better done by users who edit the corresponding articles, after an appropriate discussion, rather than as an administrative action.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that FreeRepublic.com was blacklisted simply because it is an unreliable source, it started out that way as my original question on the Blacklist page shows[41], but my request to have it blacklisted was because it was being used primarly for linking to for its unauthorized reprints of copyrighted material which is in violation of WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted material.[42] Prior to JzG going through and removing a vast majority of the links, there were over a thousand links to Free Republic that were clearly reprints of copyrighted material that was being reprinted without permission of the owner of that material, something Free Republic has gotten in trouble with before.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am sure people would not even have suggested blacklisting if the site was not being linked to excess and in breach of policy. But it was - widely, systematically and in some cases quite blatantly, with link summaries that made it abundantly clear that the material was a copyright violation. Free Republic asserted at trial that hosting copyright violations was protected under the First Amendment; they lost. It's not clear to me what is lost to the encyclopaedia here. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if you can't find an alternative source then I'd suggest the information was pretty fishy in the first place. We wouldn't need to pblacklist it is people didn't use sources that breached our fundamental values and ethos.Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Associated content as an example of using the blacklist for enforce WP:RS. I dont see too many copyvios there. It's not something I would use as a source, but its possible one day I might want to link to it from the WP:EL section, which has looser requirements and allows some self-published material. Having AC on the blacklist interferes with that. P.S. I didn't notice Youtube on either the WP or the global blacklist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Viridae and JzG

This really has been going on too long. I'm sure everyone is by now aware of the contempt that Viridae clearly holds for JzG's judgment. His longterm habit of reversing admin actions by Guy that he disagrees with without discussion is totally inappropriate. This is far from the first time this board has wasted time dealing with the fallout. If Viridae thinks JzG has made the wrong decision, there are processes he could use to challenge them. But simply undoing everything is overtly antagonistic. There are over 1,500 admins, I see no reason why it always seems to be Viridae reverting JzG's actions. I think the time has come to ask Viridae to agree never to undo Guy's action however strongly he feels about them - he is clearly not sufficiently neutral to do so dispassionately. WjBscribe 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the Viridae-Guy beef is as well known on Wikipedia as Tupac and Biggie (though my rap knowledge is wanting). Neither should be reversing each others actions. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be productive if both were to agree to not revert or otherwise edit each others contributions - certainly not undo eithers sysop actions. I would point out, to be impartial, that the disrespect between the two parties appears mutual (I am certainly aware of it) and that it isn't only the one who instigates derogatory comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Viridae was clearly in the right as far as reversing the original deletions goes (since it was self-evidently inappropriate to cite CSD G6, a criterion which relates only to non-controversial housekeeping, in making deletions which were likely to be controversial). However, I do agree that, given that he and JzG clearly have an ongoing feud, it might have been better if he had sought a second opinion from another administrator before undeleting, or taken it to DRV as per normal procedure; there was no urgent need to undelete straight away. But the pages are now at MfD - which, IMO, is the correct forum for resolving this - so I think we should leave it be, and close this thread. No harm done overall. Walton^One 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that I only undeleted them after discussion on the subject in which Guy had refused to overturn his own deletions and only undeleted those pages for which the original author/subpages owner had requested undeletion. I didn't go through and undelete all of those to which the speedy had been misapplied. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No other admin seems prepared to point out Guy's questionable actions. -- Naerii 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing them out would be different then undoing them without discussion. John Reaves 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy doesn't really do discussion, though. It is true that he does sometimes listen, but generally only to those people whose point of view he has sympathy with (and vice versa) while anyone else is fair game for his pretty individual interpretations of not quite in violation of WP:CIVIL responses. Discussing Guys actions with anybody else just brings out the "valuable contributor with refreshing bluntness" vs. "rude prat who uses the tools inappropriately" cycle (jerk) responses. Generally, it is best that sysops do what they are supposed to - act in what is believed to be the best interest of the encyclopedia. Afterward we can discuss the whys and wherefores. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say. But as it turns out I've had quite a productive and civil dialogue with Jaakobou. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I am pleased to have been proven wrong. I hope I continue to be shown up as being mistaken; it's good for the encyclopedia, and something that I have been used to (on occasion) over the years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you initially flatly refused to undelete, and despite saying you would provide the info by email at a later stage you didn't offer that upfront, meaning the editor was unaware of that option. Viridae^Talk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And you wheel-warred, forestalling any resolution of that discussion. Just as you undeleted another userspace page which (has now been re-deleted after a very short slam-dunk MfD) without my even having seen it, let alone responded. But that's really beside the point: as noted in several places, and last time you undid one of my admin actions, and the time before that, you are the very last person who should be undoing my admin actions. There are 1,500 admins, leave it to one who is a neutral third party. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voicing in as Jaakobou's mentor, I'd like to respectfully request a strikethrough of the pages from Jaakobou's userspace from this discussion. The recent thread about those deletions was a chain of maybe-not-the-best-decisions by several people that got resolved pretty quickly once they began communicating. Wikipedians have little miscommunications all the time; as long as everyone is reasonable that's not a big deal. So let's pass over this bit instead of letting it plague us. Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Jaakobou agrees with me or not on this; it's a major holiday for him and the middle of the night in his part of the world. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing to clarify: Jaakobou was not singled out for any sanction by the arbcom; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute articles are under general parole. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing more and more admins deleting things outside of the deletion policy. Guy is one of them, WJB is another. Often times these deletions are slipped in there, and if you try to challenge them you're either ignored or written off as a troll. Especially when you already know, from experience, how these editors tend to respond when you question their admin actions. While Viridae's actions were not ideal, I can hardly fault him for correcting an obvious policy violation. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that JzG and Viridae are "involved" with respect to each other. Neither should use sysop tools against the other, nor use tools to undo something that the other has done. To both of you: if you have a problem with the other's actions, get help from an uninvolved admin. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • as I have equal problems with some of the admin actions of both of these editors, does that make me a suitable neutral party? or am i just looking for trouble? DGG (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• You're a militant inclusionist, of course you're looking for trouble :-) Incidentally, can anyone point to occasions where I've reversed Viridae's admin actions? Anything in the last six months should be fine. I'd like to check, because I don't think I have, my policy with respect to Viridae is to leave well alone, the issue is entirely in the opposite direction as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not one for defending JzG, but in this case, I believe he is correct - I have never seen him revert Viridae's admin actions. I have asked Viridae before to just leave Guy's stuff alone, as there's some unfortunate antagonism between the two. I really do wish he would. If he is concerned, post the concerns here and let one of our many admins less antagonistic to Guy (which is {{numberofadmins - JzG - Viridae}} admins, pretty much) respond to it. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil's right. Guy, go <-- way. Viridae, go --> way. Both look away from each other. Now you can't see what the other is doing, and you're all the better for it. Let the people between you, who can see both of you in a neutral light, sort it out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request: please remove the Jaakobou examples from the list of putative problems. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

я вам пишу, чего же боле

Resolved

 – No longer occuring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen many many IPs adding "я вам пишу, чего же боле" to various articles (reversions:[43],[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. And those are just a few of my reversions. User:Thingg and Cluebot get a lot as well.) "я вам пишу, чего же боле" is Russian. It means (per google translator) "I am writing to you, what pain". It appears that the vandal is using a proxy server, and he is mainly targeting random pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and articles related to visas and passports in the article space. What I am asking is, may users file reports to AIV with the first vandalism, and can admins block the vandals for a week the first time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been blocking those accounts like mad today. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's slowed down now, maybe he ran out of IPs finally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting the spambots on m:User:Drini/daylog for blocking on other wikis as well. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs that change that much will continue to do so, especially if the editor is using a service such as AOL. I have a feeling that it will continue despite the blocks. Not to get ahead of ourselves, or myself, but could a range block be entertained at one point? Also, Z, the editing didn't seem to be done in rapid fire succession, how can you be sure it was a spambot? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Targeted based on article title, nonsense in edit summaries, and adding random nonsense in Russian. Very likely that it is coordinated to some degree and not just random vandalism. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One correction: not "what pain", but "what else". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? (I see it does appear on Google in its Latinised form, and has several thousand hits in Cyrillic.) Orderinchaos 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I used Google's automatic translator, and came up with "I am writing to you, what pain?" MasSem (who I assume actually knows some Russian, unlike me) said above that it means "I am writing to you, what else?". Either way, I know one word in Russian, and I do not know how to write that one word in its Latinised form, let alone in Cyrillic. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton

Resolved

 – Blocked for sockpuppetry after making same edits with User:221.106.246.159. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User has been making numerous unexplained edits, and seems especially keen on changing arena infoboxes to stadium infoboxes [50]. User has been asked for explanation without reply, warned and final warned, but there has still been no response. I'm near the 3RR on Stansbury Hall (West Virginia University), so I can't do anything more to fix that article if and when he comes back. Because of the final warning, I reported user to AIV, and I was directed here. DarkAudit (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User continues to edit war, and has removed warnings from their talk page. From this point, the arena/stadium edits without explanation will be considered vandalism. I only warned him, and he followed up by blanking the page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User and IP have been blocked for 48 hours, and in the interim I reverted a large number of other arena articles where this user changed the infobox to stadium. The IP showed up only editing to revert back reversions I had made until it was blocked. There was no response to my or other editors' requests for comments, except for a summary blanking of the talk page. I made note of this discussion, which apparently was ignored. I fully expect a rash of unexplained reversions by one or both when the block is up. DarkAudit (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

C.Fred, please familiarize yourself with what a sockpuppet is before blocking users based on that rationale. These edits are not vandalism. Holy crap guys, are any of you paying attention tonight? -- Ned Scott 07:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the behavior as a whole. There was no explanation for the edits. Even when warned, the only reply was to blank his talk page. Then he apparently switched to an IP to continue along as if nothing ever happened. I was not the only editor who tried to get a response out of this user. There was none. At one point he chopped the Pauley Pavilion article in half. Still no edit summary oe explanation for these actions. If he had spoken up at some point to let someone know why here was doing this, this whole sorry mess could have been averted. But he didn't. That made it harder and harder to assume good faith as the behavior escalated. DarkAudit (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Kanabekobaton's edit history, there has been virtually no use of edit summaries. From 2005-2007, I think I found one that wasn't automatically provided. Evidence suggests that the user is not a native English speaker. Someone who speaks Japanese should try to get in touch to find out why Kanabekobaton either will not or cannot use edit summaries. Apologies may be in order here. DarkAudit (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick bit of input from me, regarding his edits in a different topic. Whilst some of his edits are constructive, the majority of them are not and some I have encountered are just downright vandalism and he has enaged in edit warring. Worse, in my opinion (other than the lack of edit summaries) is that when people call him on what he is doing (even twice) he simply ignores it and removes the messages. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A minority of Web forum users planning vandalism

Over at WP:AIV someone recently reported this:

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to reports it (sorry, I'm new to this how editting wiki thing), but a webforum I use has launched a series of vandalism against a selection of articles in an attampt to play a game. Details here: http://www.altnation.com/forums/junk-talk/134411-wikipedia-jenga.html

Might be worth watching. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing the forum pages, I notice that the vandalism has been quickly reverted and has resulted in some blocks. I suspect that the handful of vandalism edits the forum will generate will not survive recent changes patrol for long. Keep up the good work, gang! —Travis^talk 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd the articles being used as the latest post is telling users how to evade their IP blocks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to watch out for them changing articles about or relating to Neil Gaimen. There is a meme about him on said forum --86.163.79.85 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Said article is now semi'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted at Neil Gaiman. Can I suggest a permanent block for Bikuki (talk · contribs) for being a vandalism only account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite comical actually. Where else can you get a running commentary on what they're going to do next? Look out for the next instalment: creating the Alternative Nation article (currently a redirect) -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd all the targeted articles (including the Alternative Nation redirect). I'm just about ready to register an account and explain my case over there. I'm going to deal with Bikuki in a moment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave Bikuki the Ace of Spades. Iff (s)he wants to contribute freely instead of participating in such a retarded "game" I'd be more than happy to take it back. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bikukis ace of spades - 'if she wants to I'll take it back' - I can't bloody well explain myself! There are no email addresses, no forum, no way of editting the pages myself... It looks a bit like censure guys. - endless psych (talk)

Also I've altered the title because its not as if the whole of alt nation is planning to vandalise wikipedia. endles psych (talk)

The pages were semi-protected because of this. With the exception of the Alternative Nation redirect (which I will unprotect now), the semi-protection will expire in a few more days. Please note that, if your account is at least four days old, you can edit semiprotected pages. Further, if you are Bikuki, you can still edit your talk page as Bikuki in order to make an unblock request with {{unblock}}. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From AltNation - This is meant to be a bit of playful fun, not malicious, furrowed-browed vandalism. I can assure you that no bad feeling or malice towards wikipedia was or is intended. I think this has been taken a bit too seriously to be honest. - lesmts

Why don't you continue playing with each other and leave Wikipedia out of it? ... discospinster _talk 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Les, it isn't a bit of fun and you know it. For the record, the forum user who reported this wasn't me, I do use that forum and have reverted many similar edits by AltNation vandals, many of whom have also targetted my user page and ridiculed me in public for taking Wikipedia seriously. It's ridiculous, so just stop it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (AKA Addy from AltNation, yes I'll admit that)

I would also like to apologise for the vandalism on behalf of Alternative Nation itself; while a minority of users there have decided to have fun at Wikipedia's expense, I hope that it is recognised that these activities are in no way sanctioned by the website or the infinite majority of its users, and that said majority greatly respects Wikipedia and everything related to it. I have no interest in sticking up for my friends there who have committed acts of vandalism here, especially since I've become the scapegoat there for the - entirely appropriate and reasoned - response of the admins here, but at the same time I would hope that the name of AltNation itself not be sullied by the actions of the inconsiderate few recently. If I see anymore instances of vandalism by them, I'll be sure to revert and report accordingly.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should anyone who would use the phrase ″infinite majority" be editing an encyclopaedia?Potatojunkie (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "a bit of fun" is this: Sure, it's clever the first time. The problem is, the millionth person to do it still thinks they're being clever, when really it's gotten old. Every time someone watches a rerun of that episode of the Colbert Report, there's a chance they'll be inspired to change the "Elephant" article to say that the population has tripled. And every time, they'll think it's funny, and that they're the first ones to actually do it, etc. But in the end, it's just yet another lame vandalism. --Random832 (contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or that Librarians are hiding something. v^_^v -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of Bikuki

I've gone over and presented my case over at the forum, and per discussion there, I have unblocked Bikuki, as (s)he has stated (s)he's not going to vandalize again. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this case now be marked as resolved? I think they've had their fun and with the existing set up of blocks I don't think anything further is going to be done (though I will certainly be watching the forum for further vandalism)Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake New Messages

Resolved

 – nothing much left to do here Neıl ☎ 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If you look at User:Jeanenawhitney, you should see a new messages notice at the top. If you click on it, it leads you to this article. Is this really necessary/appropriate to have?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a policy that states that if you copy the real MediaWiki message, then that's against policy, but if you change the wording, then it is allowed as long as it stays on a user page. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While i don't mind the joke banners, this seems a little to far. I also find it concerning that their talk page is automatically archived after one hour.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But is it approriate if it leads to this article?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The user archives their talk page that often because they are retired and "don't want to be bothered". That's my assumption. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is hardly retired. The user is, in fact, quite active, using AWB to make a lot of minor changes to infoboxes without regard to the consequences of the reformatting, and then ignoring messages left on their talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Over 500 edits in the past week - I wouldn't call that "retired" or even "semi-retired". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been countless lengthy debates over this, and the consensus is that it's very much discouraged, but wouldn't merit something like a block. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the user is semi-retired, that would also mean that less people will visit their user page, so it's really less of a problem. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But my concern is that it leads here. I understand that the notice says "You may have new messages". But what about where it leads to?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It leads to the word "fuck," what is the problem? It's not as though it redirects to Goatse.cx or tubgirl! George The Dragon (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the policy states, but my personal opinion is that it does not bother me. If there were disgusting images there, then that would be a different story... Gary King (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think this discussion is resolved, agree?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. But, if someone can come up with the policy (which I saw just a few days ago!) then please post it. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved? The user in question puts a "semi-retired" banner on her talk page, but is clearly active, using AWB to make minor changes to infoboxes without regard to the consquences of the reformatting, has over 1500 edits in the past 8 days, ignores messages to the talk page without responding to them, and has the page set to archive every 24 hours, and on top of it has a "new messages" banner which sends you to the article on "Fuck." Doesn't anyone think that adds up to something? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I do still have concerns that the link leads to the Fuck article. I suggest telling the user to remove it.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? George The Dragon (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask, but you need to realize that you have absolutely no grounds on which to protest. We're not censored, and unless someone is placing links to profane articles on your userpage, you're going to have to just ignore it. It shouldn't be hard; you know where the link goes, so just don't click it. Easy breezy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any of what you just mentioned is relevant to the topic being discussed, which is the new messages bar. If someone says they're semi-retired but they aren't, so what? Perhaps they just have a different definition of "semi-retired" than you do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but do you think that over 4500 edits in the past 10 days is a reasonable definition of "semi-retired"? Or is the "semi-retired" tag and the 24-hour archiving and the "fuck" banner simply a way of ducking responsibility for their editing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then take it up with him. Seriously. There's nothing the administrators, as a whole, can do about someone that wants to have a semiretired tag on their userpage, and it's not a particularly big deal. I never once thought that he was trying to duck out of responsibility for his edits; though I think it often gets abused, WP:AGF is perfect here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored nor is it a family site. Stop being offended about something pretty harmless. If you want do do something, concentrate on his/her policy-breaking (or at least bending) edits. Tan | 39 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I don't see anyone expressing offense. My impression was that people are wondering about the civility of redirecting unsuspecting visitors to a page that says "fuck". That's certainly my concern, and I was one of those fooled in that manner. It would have been an OK joke, but when combined with the other factors I mentioned, it seemed more like disdain than humor. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, but there's a general practice here of not surprising users by needlessly leading them to distracting content. I've removed the link as mild, unintended disruption, revert me if you like though. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the reversion. What is unnecessary is this entire ANI debate on some suprise link to Fuck and a dubious claim of a state of retiredness. Tan | 39 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you simply asked/told her to change it? When I had a sig with a blink effect, someone simply told me it was discouraged, asked me to change it, and I changed it. Merkin's mum 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The user's talk page is being archived every hour, so it's not really an effective means of communication with this user. Gary King (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've told the user of this discussion. If they want to play "semi-retired", continue editing heavily, and having the bot archive almost instantly, that's their choice. If it is found that they cannot be worked with, they could be blocked if their edits are disruptive. I don't care about the message as I just feel that anyone who is actually offended can complain if they wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to remove the archiving on their talk page for now, because it is automated, and 1 hour archival is a very strange interval. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting looking at the history of the discussion page (which is the only way to really see what's posted there, because of the 1 hour archiving), this diff [51] indicates that the user is willing to edit war and doesn't care if they get blocked for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I wouldn't read too much into that; at the time s/he and I, and others, were dealing with an editor who persistently want to insert Martha Stewart's non-notable dog into Deaths in 2008 against consensus. The editor clearly would prefer an encyclopedia to be, er, encyclopedic,as would I; however, I wasn't prepared to break the 3RR rule over it. If s/he had, s/he was clearly prepared to take the consequences. Commendable in one way, though not in another. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, I realize a single diff can be misconstrued without context. Problem is, the user has eliminated the context by archiving every hour! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A 1-hour archiving interval already implies that a user wishes to hide any messages that gets posted to their talk page, anyhow, and should generally be inspected. Gary King (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's their choice. If they get blocked, they can't play the "I didn't know" card. In fact, they are going to have to disable the archiving if they want to put an unblock request out there. What the hell, I'll ask User:Misza13 about setting more rules for the bot. That's a completely separate point though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, the links have now been removed so I think this is really resolved now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, sorta. They restored the "new messages" banner but disabled the links, so the poor random user will go crazy trying to make the link work and get their new message! Another joke that's midly funny but just a bit mean, which seems in line with this user's general attitude. Nothing much to be done about that, I guess. De gustibus Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless her edits start going astray I'd want to skirt stirring things up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, she added a message on my talk page. She does read the messages so I'm just going to leave it for an actual dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Otherwise it is don't bother me with your pettiness" At least this person is consistent in their attitude. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I'd leave it alone. She is doing her thing and it really doesn't seem to be a problem overall. Besides, there are plenty of more unusual users around here anyway. Variety is the spice of life, I say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have no intention of doing anything further. C'est la vie! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, as I think this has run its course. Quick note - it doesn't matter if the user has a 1 hour interval on the MiszaBot III archiving, the bot only archives once per day (look at the talk page history - it doesn't archive every hour, it archives everything older than an hour, once a day). Neıl ☎ 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, but that still means that messages can potentially be archived an hour after they're posted, depending on when the bot shows up. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edokter

Edokter (talk · contribs) is removing my image tagging from Image:Rosetyler2.jpg. This image is missing the source and I have tried several times to explain to this admin that he should not remove the no-source tag until he has provided a source for the image. I'm clearly failing in my attempts, could someone else please explain this? Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You caught me in the middle of trying to repair a bad upload; I asumed you tagged the wrong image. I tried to explain that and reverted, after which you blocked me imediately. Now PLEASE let me try and repair the damage! — Edokter • Talk • 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Edokter has clearly done more than I ever have to bring the Doctor Who-related articles up to high quality. Additionally, it is entirely possible that he had every intention of adding a source and we just ended up edit-warring. I have already agreed to leave that image alone for a reasonable period of time, so maybe that alone will resolve the issue. Still, I do not believe anyone should remove the no-source tag from an image until the source has been provided, and I was apparently unable to make this clear to Edokter. --Yamla (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What set me off hitting rollback was you removing the rationales while placing the tags. — Edokter • Talk • 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was removing rationales from the image page because the image was not being used on those pages. If (as seems likely) it was always your intention to add the source to the image page and to readd the image to those pages whose rationale I had removed, you have my unconditional and sincere apologies. I am aware that I am phrasing this conditionally, but I freely admit that our timing seems to have been bad wrt this image and the fault most likely lies with me. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad timing indeed. And sorry for coming off so strong. — Edokter • Talk • 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose

Tangentally, if we have to use a non-free image in this article, shouldn't it be actually be one that actively shows the Rose Tyler character in action in the series? That particular photo might as well just be a photo of Billie Piper, and thus, I would argue, technically fails WP:NFCC. Black Kite 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is Rose in character; Billy would not look so seriously. — Edokter • Talk • 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you know that, and I know that, but would an average reader? There must be a better image out there somewhere. Black Kite 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC have a gallery of images of her: [52]. Either [53] or [54] seem more obviously related to her on the series. Just my 2p. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a cropped publicity shot from a BBC news page. I'd rather not use a screenshot or wallpaper for this, as the wallpaper explicitly states they are for personal use only... which opens up another can of worms. — Edokter • Talk • 10:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey

Hi there. So, on a Site which Shall Not be Named, two users who appear to be Wikipedia admins agreed that it was a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia, and that something should be done about that. Neither of them, however, was available to do anything about it. User:Jayneofthejungle registered to try to do something about it, and was rather firmly slapped down for it. Of course, she did also create an obvious nonsense page, but that's not related to the issue at hand, which is: should something be done about it? I present the question to the Council of Administrative Wisdom for judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Jon Awbrey refrained for a reasonable amount of time from editing Wikipedia and/or setting up sockpuppet accounts? We could certainly extend the badly named "Right" to Vanish, but not unless he has shown he will never again edit the Wikipedia. This does not currently seem to be the case. --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of editors who use their own names and then get into trouble is complex. However it is the case that the current #1 google hit for Awbrey is an announcement that he is banned from editing wikipedia. I don't advocate deleting the page, but how does blanking it interfere with tracking and blocking his socks, assuming he is still trying to edit? Thatcher 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we blank the page, how can we readily determine that the community ban is still in place? —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The page history and the block log. I said blanked, not deleted. Thatcher 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why is it "a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia"? Should unrepentent vandals really expect that all record of their misbehaviour should disappear down the memory hole after a while? How "fair" is it that the 2nd-placed link on Google for Usama bin Laden is an FBI "most wanted" notice? This isn't a Daniel Brandt-style BLP situation; the prominence of Awbrey's ban is entirely a situation of his own making, resulting from his own actions. Also, I note that WP:RTV applies specifically to users "in good standing", which Awbrey plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing RTV, I'm saying that it is nice to be nice to people even if they aren't always nice to us. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

bin Laden? Really? Come on. That kind of analogy is beyond tasteless and offensive, and not in any way okay. Please don't do it again. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bin Laden's name is linked to bad things because he has done bad things in the real world. Awbrey's sin is that he dicks around with a website that he has a disagreement with. Hardly a fair comparison, and a sign that Wikipedians take themselves way too seriously. Thatcher 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, obviously, that misconduct brings notoriety; and the author of the misconduct has nobody to blame but themselves for that notoriety. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Awbrey has stated the he intends to continue to make socks here to cause trouble (of which he has already created a very generous number) ad nauseum. I fail to see why we should extend a page-blanking courtesy to him until he at the very least shows courtesy to us by making a committment to cease that disruption. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request, I think, although I would be willing to blank the page first and see what happens. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances is this user to be unblocked. Nor should his user page be cleared. He continues to use sockpuppets, creating much work for me (and other checkusers) in blocking his user accounts and ranges. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Nobody was discussing an unblock, and what does the work involved in blocking have to do with his userpage? Is it just "don't screw with us", some sort of incentive, or what?

If he has a problem with the results on his name, he can write OTRS himself, I think, and then we can have this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that we have to have somebody write an email, which may or may not be answered or actioned, in order to do the ethical thing. Blanking the page does not in the least interfere with the work of our checkusers; I am certain every last one of them is well aware of who Jon Awbrey is and what his patterns are. Nobody is suggesting he be unblocked, simply that the #1 Google-hit on his name not be a ban notice from Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have toddled over to the Board of Outer Darkness Where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth myself, and checked whether Awbrey has asked for it himself. He hasn't, not even there, which is why I make the statemen above. (At least I think not, his posts are relatively incomprehensible). I do think that he should at the very least make that much effort. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I won't abbreviate that for fear of creating a post that vaguely resembles what he writes. It doesn't change my position. It's either the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, regardless of who asks for it (and I would think that Newyorkbrad asking for it should count for something) or the way that it is requested. Since so far the main argument is "he deserves it", I think we can do better than that. Risker (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Sometimes the right thing to do is conditional on the expressed preference of the person it most affects. In this case, if he doesn't give a damn, I don't think that it should be necessary to make an exception. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This question of renaming Awbery came up awhile ago, before I knew of his involvement "there". My position was that it would be a humanitarian gesture to rename such accounts. However, I later discovered on "that" site, that he only wished to be renamed if we renamed several other accounts, some of which have nothing to do with living people's names. So since he is opposed to the rename, and clearing his page would make the ban less obvious to uninvolved admins or non-admins working at SSP/AIV, I think we should just leave this the way it is. In the past, I have worked with users who are banned and who have link-able names to communicate with the crats and invoke their RTV via rename, and it seems to have worked well. But if the subject is still abusing the 'pedia, I don't see why we should help them hide that abuse. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, MBisanz. It still comes back to one point: it is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do for another banned user, it is the right thing for JA, regardless of from whom the request originates. How many people at SSP don't know who he is? And how will having a "banned user" banner change that? He is still on our list of banned users, is he not? Risker (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah jeez. Didn't see this here. I went ahead and blanked the user pages because I think they're a BLP problem. It doesn't really matter what he wants done with this or any other account; they can remain where they are, and they must remain blocked. We can simply move the category to a name that has less impact on the google results of a living person. "Do no harm" and all. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid your unilateral decision to ignore our guidelines for dealing with sockpuppeteers - we tag their userpages, and collect lists of their sockpupppet accounts and IPs, to assist in future damage control. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note - BLP is an article space policy, not a user space policy. If a user wants to register under his real name and act like a dick, he has no reasonable expectation that we will treat him any differently than we treat any other misbehaving account. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet guideline that you referred to, Raul, would it be this one: "Sockpuppeteer - The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely." (from WP:SOCK) I note the use of the word "may" instead of "must". I also note that the tag has not been removed, only the page blanked. As to acting like a dick, well, we are back to the "he deserves it" argument. Is that the way we want to operate here? Risker (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, BLP applies in all namespaces. It's been that way for years.

As for the account, that's not the issue. They should all remain blocked. But there's no need for them to have content. They're blocked and full protected—and they should stay that way. If you're really concerned that the check users will forget that the account is blocked and forget how to use the history tab, we could at least move the account elsewhere. See Risker. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the username policy from December 2005, when Awbrey registered, says nothing about, "If you register your real name and then screw with us, it will follow you on google forever." People who do bad things in the real world find their name attached to those bad things, and justifiably so. This is just a website with aspirations of grandeur. Thatcher 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Raul and KC here. There is no BLP issue here, "Jon Awbrey is banned from editing Wikipedia" is a simple, accurate, and trivially easy to verify statement. I was afraid of this with BLP, but we were all assured "This will never happen." Well, folks, it's happening. BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing. Awbrey was well aware of the consequences of his actions (such as, well, an editing ban) when he chose to take them. If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place, and then, and only then, ask for some consideration in return, such as removal of the ban notice. Notices that a user is banned is important for tracking purposes, and if Awbrey chose to create an account under his name, and then chose to take actions which he knew would be in public view forever, and still chooses to continue those actions to this day, he cannot then choose whether or not that page has a ban notice, because we need that notice to prevent the very harm he chooses to continue to cause. If he wants to show us good faith first, by leaving us alone and respecting the fact that he is not welcome here, then perhaps after he has done so for some period of time we can reciprocate that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't blank or change the message on his page. The whole spirit behind BLP is doing no harm on marginally notable people. Why would we relax that spirit for people who are not notible at all? Seems backward...you don't have to be the subject of an article to be harmed by Wikipedia you know. This feels like we're insisting on punishing someone...RxS (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing." WP:UNDUE. --Random832 (contribs) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I think differently because of the Daniel Brandt redirect DRV (which is, incidentally, blanked as a courtesy). The Brandt redirect had very slight encyclopedic value, but helped dominate google results for "Daniel Brandt." We deleted the redirect almost solely because of its impact on google, and it really didn't matter how despicable Brandt might be considered. This is an analogous situation; a hated commentator with a barely-useful user page, which is #1 on google. I really doubt that check users will forget about this user, and many of these comments suggest that we think the notices are some sort of punishment ("If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place"). That's perverse, and wholly out of line with BLP.

I'm not going to edit war on the point though; really, the site should just edit robots.txt so that user pages are not indexed. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that his page should be blanked. Not so much BLP as a basic issue of ethics. No one has actually provided a reason for keeping the notice on his page yet. -- Naerii 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has yet given a substantive reason for giving special treatment to a persistent, unrepentant vandal. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't _be_ "special treatment" - we should treat _everyone_ the way we're proposing. "We don't treat everyone this way, so why should we treat anyone this way" is not a sensible response to a proposal to give everyone some benefit. --Random832 (contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if we're going to be nothing but policy wonks then Wikipedia policy would be more important than preventing doing RL harm to someone. But surely the spirit of BLP is more important than whatever text happens to be there at the moment. Real life punishment is not part of our banning policy...RxS (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is part of real life, and the person editing on Wikipedia is living in the real world. If a real person edits under their real name and screws up and there are consequences to it, how is it that we are doing that person harm in the "real world" by having a record of those actions? They brought the harm on themselves, we are only recording it. There's no conceivable "ethical" reason to remove that record. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I am the first contributor to this discussion who uses his full name as user name, but it's completely incomprehensible for me why this even needs discussing. Is it really necessary to put it the other way round to get consensus for a tiny gesture of generosity? So be it then: wikiversity:WV:SHRINE. I think that speaks for itself, although it refers to vandals, not trolls. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. KC told me when I blanked the page that user "considers it a 'badge of pride' to have been banned." In my opinion, that makes the case for blanking even stronger, not weaker. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the templates off and left the link to the blocking discussion, maybe that's an acceptable compromise. I don't understand how potentially harming someone in real life is part of our blocking/banning policy. Please don't revert unless you have a real answer to that question...RxS (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about don't continue to edit war on protected pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One compromise attempt is not edit warring...WTF, unbelievable. You're the one who reverted a protected page....is it less "protected" when you edit? Unbelievable...RxS (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is still protected. As I stated, I returned the protected page to the status it was when it was protected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer if he unprotected it, reverted, and then protected it? Seems senselessly formal. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The usual process is you figure out what to do with it while it is protected, and then go on from there. I haven't seen that issue come up here as being "We're gonna do this" and everyone agreeing with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "usual process" is that the protecting admin does not revert before protecting the page. But that's unfair. The "usual process" simply has no meaning for editing a banned user page. Do you have an actual reason for reverting? Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply redirect his page to one his socks and add the ban banner there ? Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually WP:DGAF what Jon Awbrey or just about anyone else on WR wants done here, with a few exceptions, like for instance Newyorkbrad, ( a sitting arbitrator, remember? ) who asked that this be corrected, and Alison (a CU and Oversighter, remember? ) who said it would be. WP:DENY has been used many many times to deny recognition to sockpuppeteers who seem to want it, and Jon Awbrey seems proud of being badged this way. So let's deny it to him. Also, I don't see how having this page blanked (not deleted, just blanked) is going to impede operations of CUs ( I'm a CU here and elsewhere, remember? ) in the slightest. BLP applies throughout the entire project, not just in articlespace. This page needs to be blanked. If it requires first getting consensus to unprotect, to satisfy the policy wonks standing on "it's protected, you can't change it", then so be it. But blank the damn thing and move on. Stop with the revenge bit and the "you were a dick so tough noogies" bit... that's so middleschool it's not funny. We should follow the principle of doing what is right, what is good and proper, even for people who are big weenies, as I have said before. I leave it as an academic exercise who is the bigger weenie... ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A forceful statement, but, frankly, I don't understand why that is the "right" thing to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

People need to just tell these chumps to buzz off. Really, OTRS needs to just be a recording that says "go away" or "fix your entry if you don't like it." I think it is totally ridiculous just how much the 'pedia has gotten into busybody meta about how things affect real world people. How can we be NPOV if we are trying to make everyone happy? It's impossible and a recipe for certain disaster. It shouldn't be our job or our goal to be protectors of the world. This is getting to the point of being disruptive with nonsense like the suggestion of mass deleting our biographies of living people because we don't have enough eyes to cover them all. Again, it isn't our job to make people feel good. It isn't that hard, you know. At some point, the foot needs to be put down about these grievers who go whining to board every time something they don't like shows up here. Sorry, but enough is enough. Much too much navel gazing and unneeded bureaucracy is being put in place to deal with problems that don't exist. In fact, we have all sorts of absurd policy proposals coming from the BLP extremists. In this case, we have a request made by someone who continues to be a malicious sock puppeteer, as Raul has pointed out. WHY THE F**K ARE WE GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?! This is a no-brainer, people. Tell the bozo to shove off and accept responsibility for his actions. You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not such a no-brainer. One the one hand, we have 'He made his bed, he lays in it', which some will interpret as either cold and hard, or vindictive and malicious. On the other, we have 'Let's do what's right, even if he doesn't want it', which can look Big Brotherish, or 'the state knows what's best for you', a heavy handed authoritarian reaction. Neither makes us look good, and both are guaranteed to get us criticized at WR and other sites. Neither has the 'right' outcome for us, and neither will get him to stop attacking WP and its' editors. Short of unblocking him and letting him run amuck here, nothing we can do, be it action or inaction, gets WP any positive ground, and everything gets us negative ground. The best we can hope is that by following our policies, we can look consistent. However, we don't have good policy and precedent for this, so we really need to work it out now, before we have to double back on ourselves (Again, given that one admin tried already to change the status quo), and look like bigger fools. We need sokme seriously well thought out logical arguments on both sides of this before we do anything. This situation has existed for months, and JA doesn't really seem to find anything urgent in us resolving this. (That alone ought to be our best guide in this matter, that he doesn't care that it's the top google hit) Let's take the time to really build community consensus for a guideline or policy, instead of just rushign to mark this as resolved. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Dragon695, I certainly feel all foolish now. I missed the part about this being a war, I thought it was a peaceful project, one with high standards where doing the right thing mattered more than getting revenge, one where we were trying to build an encyclopedia. "GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?!" you say? Why stop at keeping his user page (the number one return) all vindictive and stuff.. heck, let us write a bio on him that points out what a weenie he is... that way we all can feel better about ourselves. Would that be better? Don't forget to kick Newyorkbrad while he's down, ok, for being foolish enough to make an honest and sincere request that the right thing be done? That isn't the project I signed up for. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe you are, and this actually IS more like the project I think it is (and want it to be) than a schoolyard pissing contest. Get a grip man, you are racing to the bottom and fast. Maybe this matter needs to go to ArbCom now so they can remind us again that BLP applies everywhere and trumps lesser policies. I'm not saying there aren't nuances to this matter, that some thought isn't required, but a clear cut "F**K OFF" probably isn't the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't have edited the page per my earlier statements, but does this appear to be a good midpoint?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I arrived late to this debacle - I was off teh intarwebz. I've modified Ryulong's edit to remove the 'banned' tags. Folks - this is someone's RL name here we're bandying around. It doesn't matter whether they're banned or not; it's just not right. I see a lot of the comments above and all I can get from them is vengeance and punishment. This is not what we're about here and the sole purpose for tagging a userpage like that is for tracking banned editors. No more. It's not a brand of shame. Frankly, just about every admin know's Mr. Awbrey's modus operandi at this stage, and every checkuser his account signature, so that whole issue is moot anyway. I've recently had my own RL name bandied about by Mr. Brandt and I didn't appreciate it either, especially given the ensuing issues it brought. This is more of the same. Let's move on and leave the man's name out of it. This isn't an appeal to BLP (because it's not a BLP issue), nor is it an appeal to whatever policy documents which could be pointed to (there are a number); I'm simply asking us to do what's right here. JA came to the site here in good faith, from what I can determine and contributed a vast amount of good work. It's all in the contrib history. What's happening now just smacks of punishment and that's not what we're about. Of all people, I have a huge amount of respect for NewYorkBrad and, once again, he's right on this one - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts on this myself: personally, I do think that Jon made his own bed on this, but yes, the "banned" notice is a bit strong. I think the current solution works as well. As for the sockpuppet category... is there any use for these categories? Abusive account is abusive account, whether it's banned or not. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no use for them. Are we keeping count on the socks? Why? I've deleted enough of those categories in the past per WP:DENY anyway and these ones serve no purpose. Some people even use them for bragging - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just delete all the pages. The accounts remain blocked, it remains noted in the block log. I see the question being asked "why should we blank the page a banned user?" I would ask, "why shouldn't we?" It doesn't help us to have Jon Awbrey's #1 hit on Google to be "this user is banned on Wikipedia". Nor does it particularly harm us. Given that, the presumption should be towards getting rid of such stuff. Neıl ☎ 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, delete it. If we have a choice between doing harm to a real person, and doing no harm, and neither choice actually benefits us much...let's go with the do no harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will repeat my earlier suggestion: that we rename the master account to something innocuous and then carry on as usual. I would hope that removing the Google bomb would de-escalate the situation anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure forcibly renaming a user's account (yes, even a banned user) without their assent - effectively disappearing their attribution - would violate GFDL in some way or other. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't vanish their attribution, it merely changes the name. I was happy to reassign the socks to a different category (dummy account) but people thought it was a bit much keeping some stuff attributed to a named individual, while listing all the problems they caused somewhere else. I would, in a heartbeat, run AWB and rename every instance of Jon Awbrey outside article and talk, to something else, but I don't think it would go down well. I remain convinced that seeing his name immortalised as a vandal is provocative for Jon, who is I think inclined to be somewhat obsessive anyway. He said, as I recall, that he'd be OK with this along as the same remedy was available to anyone else, as of course it should be. I don't see him emailing OTRS to request it, though, due to all the bad blood. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I would support such a complete renaming. This isn't in mainspace so it doesn't damage the project at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having the socks in a category that collects them together as being related is useful, I think. The category doesn't necesarily have to exist, it can be a redlink, going to the page shows you the socks anyway. It also doesn't have to have his name on it. I think a redlinked category won't show up in searches but I could be wrong. So I'd hate to see the socks decategorised. Changed to a different category, sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful and persistent comments on R&I Talk page

Reference is made to the "Race and intelligence" Talk page: Talk:Race and intelligence. I have mentioned unhelpful and persistent edits by User:Slrubenstein like those shown below to administrator Moonriddengirl:

"Also, please note these more recent edits by user Slrubenstein that seem aimed at preventing an amicable resolution over the sentence discussed above. He seems to be encouraging his buddies not to participate in the discussion or am I supposed to assume that these edits were well intentioned?[55][56] --Jagz (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely not assuming good faith with those. I will address it with him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"

Moonriddengirl asked him to refrain from making edits like that but he has continued anyway: [57] He is not participating in those discussions on the Talk page and seems to be encouraging others not to participate as well. Is there a way to get this to cease? --Jagz (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion [58] identified the problem editor on R&I. It was not Slrubenstein. 131.111.24.97 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that so far, it is User:Jagz who has exhausted the community's supply of good faith on the R&I article, by repeated edit-warring, unhelpful comments on the talk page, and repeatedly bringing the same complaint to different forums in hopes of a different resolution. I'm wondering if a topic ban might not be appropriate at this point? If anyone wants diffs to support these, I'll supply them, but the Race and Intelligence article and associated talk page are a good place to start, in addition to the revision history of Jagz' talk page.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit [59]

I take it that you are LGBT?

is quite uncalled for. Editors are often blocked for such personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only one example of Jagz' wit. This edit is no more brilliant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz has already been warned twice at the beginning of this month for disruptive comments on Slrubenstein's talkspace[60][61]. It is clear that he has chosen to ignore proper warning and continue to behave disruptively--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:God Save the South blocked

His second (2nd) edit after coming off a three-day block was to call OrangeMarlin a fascist.[62] I can see no benefit to Wikipedia from his continued participation and have blocked him indefinitely. Reviews and discussion are of course welcome as always. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. We give these people far too much leeway. Entirely agree with indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, I'm not sure you were here for the incredibly prolonged discussion(s) on this user previously. He was severely warned not to do that again, and apparently missed the memo. Multiple times. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block, especially considering the previous warning. Someone should tell OrangeMarlin to not respond with more personal attacks though, regardless. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold; I read everything and didn't make my comments in a vacuum of ignorance. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand, my impression is that Hersfold misread Rod's comments. I read the "so much for WP:AGF" as exasperation that GSTS abused our extension of good faith, not as an objection to the block. (Rod, correct me if that's wrong.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did. My apologies. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's sometimes easy to forget that AGF is supposed to work both ways. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I will assume good block here, since my every interaction with that user has led me to believe that he is no net gain to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Just a quick one - this article is on ArbCom probation. I managed to help them get sorted out without having to resort to the ArbCom provisions earlier this year (January-February), but right now I'm unavoidably busy offline and won't even be on Wiki for the next 4-5 days, and a new dispute of some form seems to have arisen. I have not had time to look in to see what the dispute is about, but it seems to be over the same minor wording and heading issues that dogged parts of the last dispute, although now with different participants. Can someone with a gentle manner have a look and see if the latest blowup can be resolved amicably? Thanks. Orderinchaos 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go. It is over something very minor indeed (should it say "critical links" or "other links"?) Neıl ☎ 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

John Oliver (comedian) just challenged his audience to change entries

Moments ago, on his new Comedy Central special, in the last five minutes of the special, he gave specific, Colbert-like instructions as to specific entries to vandalize. BusterD (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do you recommend protection, then? Is there any specific course of action that should be taken? —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which entries? --Elonka 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Charles Schumer - basketball court halfway toss
• Nancy Pelosi - firestarting gaze
• Karl Rove - Gloria Gaynor tattoo
• Dick Lugar - soluble in water
• George W. Bush - performance artist

These are the "lies" Oliver listed, he said wished to get on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Already seeing some action at Charles Schumer. BusterD (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Schumer's article is protected now. Pelosi's and Rove's too. Bush's article has been protected, and now I'm protecting Lugar's article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Replays in two hours. Unless CC plans on re-running this heavily, 24 hours should be fine. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, these things tend to go on for a while. Maybe preventing them from editing in general will disuade such vandalism in general.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate: Lead pipe. Comatose. HalfShadow (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Better to beat them with quick eyes and disciplined reaction, like we just accomplished. Damage by ips is minimized, echos are very small. He did say some rather authentically nice things about the project (then encouraged everyone to spoil it). BusterD (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nnno, he said nothing nice, but many TRUE things about 'Wikiality', and the ability of any jackass to rewrite history. He got to teh heart of a LOT of the problems with this project. ThuranX (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I just watched that and came by to mention it. He also said that his own bio listed his middle name as "Cornelius", and somebody has already tried that. Might as well protect his entry if you're doing the rest. Probably worth keeping an eye on Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Colbert's favorite targets, too. William Pietri (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Was about to mention that but got a edit conflict(thats like the 8th tonight) БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• This may flush out some sleeper socks; I've already reverted one on Chuck Schumer; first edit, though he has been registered since 2006. Horologium (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Twothreebreak is another such editor. Also ,requesting MOVE protection on the page, cause... well, idiots are idiots. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Okto8's mess at Oliver has been cleared as well (I left the idiotic redirect). I wish a comedian would get out there and made fun of the people who jump and vandalize whenever they tell everyone to. That would be really funny. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up a bit more stuff. I still think his bit was funny, and encourage others to watch the show. I think it's great that we're important and interesting enough to get discussed like this. William Pietri (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all very well, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't want hordes of newbies' first experience of wikipedia to be "this page is protected from editing". And I'm pretty sure Dick Lugar is soluble in water. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Roving vandals adding BLP threats to random pages, please zap these

Resolved

 – Looks fine now --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just had an IP add some obscene messages to my userpage. This appears to be an ongoing issue regarding a BLP article (per discussion on the AFD page), and the IP is making profane and threatening messages against this person[63]. Can someone range-block this IP, and can someone please zap (as in delete, not revert) those versions of my userpage, as I don't wish to retain defamatory statements in my page history. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:Jeffmichaud

This user has consistently been unable to discuss policy, but insists on theological discussion laced with continual personal attacks.

• "your finite understanding of this particular subject"
• "You've taken it upon yourself to interpret Explicit Writings"
• "You're making uneducated assumptions without all the facts"
• "Your assertion … irresponsibly concludes"

[64]

• "Pointing out that you're uneducated about "this particular subject" is not a personal attack;"
• "You seem to be suffering from a delusion that your limited understanding of this subject"

[65]

• "you made it up and shamelessly attempted to pass it off as authentic"
• "In fact no reference exists that … are there Mr. Smarty?

[66]

When warned on his user page, these are struck with deliberately insulting edit sums: [67] [68]

Some admin help would be of help. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody, a religious content dispute, with escalating warnings, warnign blankings, and increasingly arrogant tones... whee! but not AN/I material. You've got some ridiculously pontificating content disputes here about the relevancy of Judaic theory to Ba'hai theologies. YOu probably want WP:3O. or WP:DR, but not AN/I, unless you're asking for somethign specific? ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has a long history of being warned and asked to stop insulting his interlocutors directly — passing beyond the pale of WP:CIVIL. I can understand strong language directed at the opposing POV and arguments, but I thought WP:NPA was clear that points directed at the other party are out-of-bounds. Wikiquette alerts are cute, but have no teeth. (Been there. Done that.) There's no dispute to resolve as the editor has caved under WP:UNDUE. Frankly, even a simple {{subst:uw-npa1}} from an admin might get him to argue the topic and not personalities. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted this response below on MARussell's talk page in response to the warning he left on my talk page, but he has deleted it there. I have archived his warnings, but he insists on restoring them onto my talk page and "escalating the warnings"; I guess his talk page is above this policy? This response entails all I have to say on the matter. I feel if this is to be considered that a reply is in order to provide a holistic view as he is here attempting to isolate statements from their context and accuse me of engaging in things we've both indulged in.

"Thanks for the hearty laugh. The funniest being the double standard that you lavishly bestow upon your fellow editors. I'm sure the Incident Review Board will find it compelling that you believe you can snidely reply to my challenge for a reference with sarcasm, but me calling you Mr. Smarty in response is a personal attack. You think you have the right to call my reasoning puerile (you're spelling that wrong,btw), and turn around and extol me to be civil for how I respond? Saying you made something up is an attack? YOU DID MAKE IT UP!!! I didn't realize that was a valid debating technique, or that I wasn't allowed to point it out.

"Mike, you're hardly living up to these lofty ideals you expect from the rest of us, so spare me the lectures. You have the nerve to respond to me in a discussion with snide sarcasm, and turn around and issue threats and warnings on my talk page for my equally sarcastic reply? You're being absolutely hypocritical about this. If you squint your eyes and look closer at these last few discussions we've had together, you might notice that the exchanges are always confrontational from both sides; yet your sarcasm is justified, while mine is uncivil? What a farce.

"Look Mike, my primary interest, namely seeing that our views aren't entirely sanitize from Wikipedia, are increasingly being chipped away and vanishing. After more than two years of revert-warring with Cunado, and being challenged and spoken down to by the likes of you, who could be expected to assume good faith? A better question is why should I care, when you don't extend the courtesies you demand from others? If you intend on dealing with my concerns by intentionally mis-characterizing them in your responses, ignoring and not responding to direct challenges to your reasoning, and consistently speaking down to me with an heir of superiority, then you can expect more of the same from me.

"If you really want to make a case to have me blocked on how I choose to call you out for being disingenuous by making things up, then you have my blessing. I find it utterly amusing what you choose to define as a personal attack; I define them as stating facts. By all means go to the Alert board with me describing your repeated unfounded "warnings" as whining in my talk page edit summaries, and with me calling you a "smarty-pants" while responding to your demeaning sarcasm. Oh the humanity! I'm sure the damage I've done to the Wiki-community has been irreversible. I'm sure to be banned for life. If nothing else I do want to thank you for the hearty laughs your "warnings" have brought me. Cheers." _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This has escalated to harrasment on my talk page with bogus warning tags and reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]

Jeff has deleted warnings off of his talk page, but I apparently don't have the right to police my own talk page? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I was mistaken about removing content from your own talk page, and I apologize. I was only aware of this policy (which is what I assumed was motivating his restorations on my page), and wasn't aware that the talk page policies state you can remove whatever you want. I however have been archiving these warnings, and not deleting them, as I stated in the edit summaries when moving them. I think it's a slight exaggeration to call restoring my comments on his page harassment as they accompanied explanations, and were identical in nature to what has been perpetrated repeatedly upon my talk page by Mr. Russell in recent days ([72], [73]). He himself was restoring his "warnings" to my talk page over and over (after I'd moved them to Archive 2) while "escalating" his warnings. I wasn't in fact removing anything, rather moving them, but he took it upon himself to restore the comments again and again. Not sure how what I did is harassment if what he did wasn't? The actual difference being that I archived his comments, whereas he has been completely excising my reply to what he himself initiated on my page.

Based upon this recent comment to my page, I now understand this crossroads we're at, as he believes his sarcasm is warranted so long as it's only directed at my reasoning, and not at me personally. I get it now. I'm absolutely guilty as charged, as I have indulged beyond this limit to where sarcasm is appropriate. I'm profoundly sorry for the trouble this has wrought. I'm truly sorry that this has devolved into this , and am embarrassed for being responsible for arousing this sheer absurdity. I can commit myself at this moment to vow not to participate, initiate, or react to any sarcastic or snide comments in the future. I can't believe I bothered to participate to any extent as it is. Sorry for the trouble. Cheers. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Attention

Resolved

 – no action required at this time

Dear Admins,

Due to my approach to balance articles, I have been subjected to harassment, especially by members of Sahaja, here are two examples. First one is from User:Marathi_mulgaa, [74], this is a case of Stalking, second one [75], is from User:Sfacets, [76], Requesting intervention, We cannot do much with IP's though.. --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the three diffs you give, the first two are expressing a concern that you may be a sockpuppet of a banned user (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cult_free_world). I don't think this could be characterised as stalking or harrassment, although if the checkuser comes out negative, then drop me a note on my talk page and I'll remove the notes Marathi_mulgaa and Sfacets added in good faith. The third is an IP blanking their talk page, which is allowed. Neıl ☎ 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came back negative due to stale data (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cult free world). I will remove the template from your userpage and the accusations. Note Sfacets is already blocked for other things. I will keep an eye on Marathi_mulgaa. There's nothing else that can be done at this point so I have marked this as resolved. Neıl ☎ 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the sock puppet case is still active here (based on difs, language and other characteristics). Renee (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly NONE of the links (diff's) you all (members of Sahaja Marg) provided, works!!, as it is blocked by spam filter... even MfD [77] didn't worked, what else is remaining ? neither sock case, nor various notices at almost all notice boards worked !! may be its time to re-think that due to your WP:COI you fail to see that there is nothing against any policy that I am doing, all i am doing to starting an article, this is what wikipedia is for... not to delete all articles and become blank !!--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment

• User:Jsn9333 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA previously blocked for WP:SOCK violations, this guy has gotten into it with a slew of respected editors as well as admins. Many editors (and admins) have pointed out that incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive behavior will get him blocked, yet he moves ahead full tilt & boogie. I don't have time to dig up all the diffs, but I'm sure pulling a few random diffs from his contribution history over the last few weeks should provide more than enough evidence of trolling and persistent harassment. Don't be tempted to write this off as a content dispute, for it surely is not. I'll leave a notice on some other editors' and admins' talkpages to comment here as well. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Currently I am ignoring all posts by Jsn, so I don't really have much to add to what Blaxthos has previously written. My only interaction with the user was him leaving an innaccurate post on my talk page requesting my comment since there was a new consensus regarding the lede at the Fox News article. When I got to the article talk page it was quickly apparent that the post on my talk page was a lie. After I made an edit in error, I was accused of favoritism, and bias. Even after I explained the error, and apologized for it, he still kept harping on it and saying that I did not show good faith towards him. At that point, I realized this user was simply an agitator single purpose account and very like a troll. So after one day of interaction, I have ignored all his further posts. Although there is a content dispute aspect to the discussion, the behavior of certain editors there has made movement towards consensus almost impossible. I am not sure if ANI can help the situation but if it can, please do so. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I hope other administrators choose to look into this matter. Jsn is a single-issue editor determined to be combative with everyone in sight. This is an article that is obviously controversial but the editors there have largely managed to work harmoniously until the arrival of Jsn. I have no problem with him being a strong advocate, but he should be asked to work on his interactions with other users. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Late to the party, but like Ramsquire, I began ignoring any posts made by Jsn several days ago. Almost every post he makes is an attempt to discredit other editors (specifically blaxthos) and their motives. He/she is a disruptive SPA and hasn't taken well to nudges in the right direction. He's quite the disruptive force in a discussion that, while heated, has always been quite civil. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Account summary by R. Baley (unsolicited and uninvolved)
• Jsn9333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

account created: 14 March 2008

Interiot's tool (wannabeKate) results link.

• At FoxNews talk page (SPA?):

312 edits (out of 441 edits total, run at Mon Apr 21 17:03:13 2008 GMT)

Diff showing that the editor knows good deal about wikipedia at 15 days (however, this could have an innocent explanation), to quote from the previous diff, "If discussion with the other party seeking to bias the entry does not solve the problem then we'll have to turn to another request for comment or a survey (most likely even arbitration since supposedly a consensus was already built. . ."

Virtually all 441 edits concern Fox News or Jeremiah Wright, however, the editor states in an unblock request, "I'm not a conservative; I'm not a liberal. I'm someone who spots bias when I see it. . ."

• Other relevant information:

Jsn9333's Block log "19:23, 5 April 2008 Gb (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jsn9333 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ? (Abusing multiple accounts) (Unblock)"

SSP case, related RFCU

Talk page revision showing discussion related to the block before it was removed.

Oblique ref to wp:bite:

"I'm fairly new here.

". . .but rather am seeking to understand this process better."

Other:

FNC indefinitely protected

Conclusions: My check leads me to believe this might be a reincarnated account, whose user has probably run into trouble before through POV-pushing, but has learned enough to at least push the boundaries of our policies this time around. Also the last edit seems to be on April 17 (correction: edits are continuing. 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)) Since I can't be around much right now (for following-up) -I would like input from others. But I think this is worth keeping an eye on at the very least. BTW, has anyone notified the editor of this discussion? R. Baley (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this isn't his first rodeo. No, I did not post a notice of this discussion on Jsn9333's talk page. At the time I was running out the door (hence no diffs), and at this point I'm hesitant because I know the megabytes of trolling that will surely follow. Many thanks to R. Baley for doing some of the legwork here. I would note that his actions continue daily and didn't end on the 17th. Any suggestions or oversight is welcome and appreciated. Thanks again. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification complete. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

jsn9333's response

Please, admins, look at what users have said about Blaxthos civility on the same page. The discussion is hot and heavy at the Fox News talk page, and a lot of users have sometimes accused others of civility problems, Blazthos included:

• ... you are attempting to end the discussion... and you continue to do so by insulting me by accusing me of some sort of plot. Bytebear (directed to Blaxthos)
• Blaxthos, you should be ashamed of yourself... this was a simple of issue of if it should be mentioned, yet you turned it into a huge bash against me. Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)
• Hey Blaxthos. I normally try to stay civil, but may I direct your attention to WP:DICK? Once your done reading that, try to realize that if there's one thing that can be clearly established at this point, it's that there is no consensus on this matter. There may have been once, there is none now. TheNobleSith (directed to Blaxthos after Blaxthos was very uncivil to me because I edited the Fox News article he has assumed ownership of)
• Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. Arnabdas (directed to Blaxthos on his talk page)
• ...instead of responding civily to my comments, Blaxthos show just what kind of person he is by making a huge rant against me. Just what the heck is your problem? Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)

There are more references, and a lot more if you'll look at other pages Blaxthos has been involved in. I'm not going to waste my time posting them all here, as that is exactly what Blaxthos is attempting to do here... waste time. Plus, practically every user has had such accusations tossed at them by each other on the FNC page because it is such a divisive topic. If you'll take time to look at the FNC entry, you'll see generally users who want the entry kept unchanged and those who do not have, at times, accused each other of "incivility".

Please hear me out. I am not a "reincarnated account." It is impossible for there to be any evidence of that, because I know it isn't true. I started editing wikipedia when I created this account. I think that is very obvious if one looks at my history in the Fox News entry... I didn't even know how to start a Request for Comments and the admin had to help me. If I have caught on quick it is because I jumped in head first and have spent a ton of time here in the last couple of weeks (my studies suffering for it!). Plus I have a lot of experience in discussion forums, just not WP. The majority of the admins involved in my "sockketpuppetry" case said they believed it was actually a case of meatpuppetry, a violation that is very easy for a newbie to make. Essentially I talked to a friend of mine at school about the debate Fox News entry, and he created an account to get involved. I was not aware that was a violation, was told to stop, and I have. I also had a warning for edit warring, because, as a new user, I did not know to mark an edit as minor during editing in the process of trying to form a consensus. Other users at FNC have engaged in as many consecutive edits as I have while discussing throughout a day, if not more, and that is the reason we are trying to reach consensus on that page.

What Blaxthos is doing here is hypocritical, by definition, as he has had as many "uncivil" accusations lashed at him as I have at me. A look at the pages he has been involved in shows that his account is where the true POV pushing occurs. Have a look at "Fox News Controversies" where he did the "NPOV" work and you'll see what I mean. While supposedly trying to work towards WP:NPOV Blaxthos has lashed out at other users with comments like, "you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!" I am attempting to actually balance POV's on pages he "owns", and he would love to get rid of me for it. However, I am not a single purpose account. I have edited other pages besides Fox News pages. I have not been around muchyet, and Fox News has taken a ton of time, so therefore Fox News edits have so far dominated my history. But I can assure you once consensus is reached there, which you'll see in the discussion for the last week I have been diligently working toward and involved in, then I will move on. The topic is divisive, Blaxthos does not like my position, he doesn't like the fact that an RfC I began ended up getting the wording he has guarded and "owned" for so long changed, and now he is trying to get you to get rid of me. Don't be deceived, Blaxthos is here to waste your time and mine. I hope you will put an end to this as quickly as Blaxthos has started it.

Again, if you have any evidence at all that I am a re-incarnated account, please let me see it because I know for a fact I am not. What Blaxthos is doing here is deceptive, hypocritical, and is truly a shame. He is not only one who bites newcomers (you can easily find where Bytebear said to him, on the FNC entry page, "you bite the newbee" while asking him to stop), he is attempting to eat this one alive. Please don't allow him to use you to do it. Jsn9333 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy fulfilled. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems accusing users of "POV pushing" is something you have a habit of doing. As Arnabdas says on your talk page, "Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people." I reiterate what he says... why can't you just move on? Jsn9333 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake, Jsn9333; give me a break. Blaxthos move on? Every single post you make has some dig at blaxthos. You constantly direct everything at him, repeat things he says, quote him, and do everything but pretend to be him. If anybody needs to "move on" I'd say it's you. Your obsession with Blaxthos is freaky. Stop trying to discredit those who disagree with you, don't make personal attacks, and discuss content (not editors). - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos has repeatedly attacked me on the FNC talk page an other users have noted it, as referenced above. How is my responding to attacks a "freaky obsession", but him taking it to the even more extreme point of trying to get me kicked out of wikipedia with this hypocritical complaint not? I guess you apply one standard to him, but a different to me. Plus I haven't even been attacking him. I have asked him to examine if his own very strong POV about Fox, made clear in comments like the one I quote above, might be influencing his editing. He, in return, has called me a "POV pusher". Yet again, you say I "attack" and don't mention anything about him. You obviously seem to be giving him some preferential treatment. Perhaps your being one of the only administrator's hanging around the Fox News entry has something to do with how screwed up that page is right now. Maybe if you actually acted as a neutral administrator things would settle down over there. Jsn9333 (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem being, you've violated more policies than I can remember, and instead of focusing on the article content, you focus on the motives of the editors. Your behavior has caused several editors to completely ignore your comments. Does that not indicate to you that something is wrong with your approach? Me being an admin has nothing to do with the situation, as I haven't protected the page, blocked any editors, or deleted any content. I have not performed any admin tasks related to that article. It's not my job as an administrator to play referee in content disputes or remain neutral in those disputes; I still get to have an opinion. - auburnpilot talk 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos has called me a "POV pusher", and I'm the one you say focuses on motives. I have had more posts related to content on the talk page then probably any other editor in the last couple of weeks. I have been working hard to try to get a consensus version going. Yet you ignore all of that. Instead, since I have asked Blaxthos to consider whether or not his strongly expressed POV regarding Fox may be effecting his editing (after he accused me of being a POV pusher), you accuse me of "focusing on motives instead of content." One of the only differences between Blaxthos and I is that you seem to agree with his POV on the entry, and you seem to disagree with mine. I'm just saying it like it is. Because if I have "attacked" Blaxthos, he sure as hell has attacked me also... but you only reprimand me. And as shown above, if some have had misunderstandings with me concerning civility, then others have had such misunderstandings with me. You have a double standard. Sure you haven't performed any admin related tasks... except now and again warning certain people, as admin, (most often those whose POV Blaxthos disagrees with) about civility while ignoring the exact same behavior in others. Discuss content all you want, I'll support that all day long even if I disagree with you. But the fact is, your double standards with regards to policy pronouncements are obvious even in this discussion. If you can't see that, then open your eyes. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here too. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by political pressure group

See wikilobby campaign for discussion. No timestamp. Kwsn (Ni!)

Blocked user contextflexed outing editor and driving him away; threatening attack article in print venue

If you read User talk:Irishguy, you will see that he has decided to quit editing here, in hopes that the aforementioned contextflexed will cut back on his attacks on Wikipedia. The idea, while noble, is futile: contextflexed has continued to attack Irishguy and I (he seems to think we're best buds or something) elsewhere, and says he's offering a US$50 reward to the first person to "out" Irishguy; and now he says that an article is coming up in a print source in my home town, attacking me for my Wikipedia editing, my clothing choices, and my fanzine(s)! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The account has already been blocked, back in February. While this behavior is unacceptable and I support the block, I'm not sure what else we can do here. What sort of action were you looking for? MastCell ^Talk 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured a generic heads-up was warranted here. I guess as much as anything else, I'd like some Wikilove spread for Irishguy, in hopes of not losing this valued editor; and it wouldn't hurt if his userpage/talkpage was on a few more watchlists. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with block and watchlisted Irishguy's page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. R. Baley (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Erdeniss

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like administrators to interpret this obscene edit summary, left by User:Erdeniss, and see what response it merits. Dahn (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It gets Erdeniss blocked for 24 hours. Neıl ☎ 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning but the block was also called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by Francis23

Resolved

 – yuck. indef blocked. --barneca (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This has scrolled by on my watchlist and I think it's blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That guy. I reverted stuff almost exactly like that from anon editors over the last few days. Looking at Francis' 'contrabutions' I see that (s)he has a preformatted insult and just changes a name or so in it. I suspect the editor may have gone IP at this point. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Wikipedia (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).[78]. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:Dougweller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [79] [80] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's [alleged] carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted[81][82][83][84][85]that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.[86][87]
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group,[88][89] and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Wikipedia works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty bad. I'm tentatively endorsive of a topic ban for some time, simply to let people find other ways to work on Wikipedia and to dilute the personal conflict here. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having tried to reason with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and seeing admin warnings result in more attacks and POV-pushing, as well as a refusal to learn and follow basic WP community standards, I would endorse a topic ban on User:Breadh2o. Having watched the relevant pages and contribs for a little while now, I have not seen any of the other editors be disruptive. The others appear to me to be constructive contributors to WP. However I do believe a lot of their time has been wasted by having to deal with Breadh2o's POV pushing and personal attacks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the support! ;-) Defendant's exhibit A: April 10 lead paragraph in History deleted six hours later by Alun Salt. Defendant's exhibit B: March 30 append to Fringe archaeoastronomy purged April 10. Defendent's exhibit C: read it and weep, if you value the scientific method. Defendent's exhibit Z: my bad-boy essay removed for cause, I'll agree in retrospect. However, for curious admins who may care, it summarizes in my most coherent rant why tilting at windmills matters. WP:BURO Good luck with achieving GA, FA, and the eternal gratitude of the archaeological establishment. -- Breadh2o (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this means you'll be leaving this subject area to work on something where you have a less strong POV; it will make a topic ban unnecessary and this situation much more pleasant for all involved. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that User:Haemo is correct, although I think Breadh2p's last comment about 'good luck' was sarcastic. I think that if he does not remove himself from this topic a topic ban is inevitable.Doug Weller (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Very "Discretionary" sanctions

Apparently a honest user has been arbitrarily banned without any possible explanation at all. I'm referring to this case. I'm a little worried about this and I would like to better understand what's going on, I mean: does "discretionary sanctions" mean "completely arbitrary" sanctions? Is there a limit to this "discretionarity"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's only a topic-ban, and is part of the process of trying to damp down the ever-raging fires by encouraging people not to keep going round the same loops over and over again, something that Thomas has a regrettable habit of doing. WP:TRUTH vs. WP:NPOV as ever. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  You are just unsuccesfully trying to make it appear as something non problematic for the editor ("only a topic ban") and useful for the project without even remotely trying to provide any decent justification. Obviously any possible flame will disappear if we ban every people who do not share your POV but this is obviously not an acceptable solution.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This matter is already open for discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions#Request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll. Please do not create a disruption by spreading the conversation to multiple venues, Pokipsy76. Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'm asking specific questions to the wikipedia community here about the concept of "discretionary sanctions" in connection to what happened. What's your problem? Do you prefer that this thing was not advertised too much?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that Pokipsy76 also appears to be topic banned (after this thread was posted, I think), looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A note in passing

I have just talked Keithmb (talk · contribs) through registering and have confirmed his identity as an authorised representative of Gina Bold. Ms. Bold has some issues with her article (see VRTS ticket # 2008032110015808), they are somewhat complex so I thought it easiest to steer her towards fixing it rather than edit by email, which is clumsy; she has asked Keith to do it for her. I hope we're not going to bite Keith, but please do help out if you see any issues with this user. He seems very nice and polite, but there are a lot of issues and much of it conflicts to some extent with the limited sources cited in the article. Hopefully there will be no problems. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he broke the ref tags for a start, but that is a common beginner's error. I don't have time to help right now, but maybe someone else will? Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Like you say it's a common error. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor engaging in pointy editing, using his talk as an attack page, violating WP:OR

Proxy User (talk · contribs) is engaging in some WP:POINTy editing at the Joseph Konopka article. He insists on changing one piece of information about the subject from "computer expert" (which is what the cited reliable source refers to him as) to "systems administrator". He claims that systems administrators are not computer experts and so the article should not say this, however, this is basically a violation of WP:OR. He's been engaging in edit wars at the Dawn Wells article and accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest and of pushing a POV when they have, in fact, attempted to make the article conform to NPOV. Furthermore, he was engaged in some dispute with FCYTravis, after which he posted the following to his own talk page [90]. This persons behavior and attitude are disruptive. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This really sounds more like a content dispute. Perhaps you should seek help from outside parties via WP:MEDCAB or from WP:MEDCOM. In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you want us to do here? JodyB _talk 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I would encourage you all to be very careful about WP:3R. The two of your should work it out on the talk page. To encourage your fruitful communication, I have protected the page for a couple of days. JodyB _talk 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection. I think it's more than a content dispute, as he's attempting to reinterpret what a reliable source clearly states. But maybe that's just me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, "computer expert" is not a term you will find on the resume of anyone actually in the computer business. It is a term that reporters use for just about any form of person involved in computers, even if it is a 9 year old hacker or a grandmother that bought a machine at Best Buy to send email. Thus "computer expert" and "systems administrator" are not necessarily incompatable terms. I do not know the professional experience of JK (or anything else about him), but if he was indeed employed in the computer business his job title was not "computer expert". It may have been sysadmin, or something else. I would suggest that people involved in the article try to find a more accurate citation on the person's actual job description. The current term, while clearly cited, is IMHO too vague to argue over.

The claim that a sysadmin is not a "computer expert" is open to a vast amount of interpretation. I would say the pointy editor was using "expert" in a vastly different meaning than a reporter will use it in a general readership article (the cited reference). Even accepting the alternate definition of the editor, there is not necessarily a conflict. Some sysadmins are complete dunderheads, but a very large number are indeed "computer experts", though typically not "computer programmers", which I suspect the editor may be thinking of. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

62.30.163.249 (talk)

Resolved

 – Likely IP sock of User:AFI-PUNK; blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated changing of genres; has been blocked for this once before.

Continues to do so AFTER 4th warning. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have they been reported to WP:AIV yet? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No need. Blocked for 31 hours. Likely an IP sock of AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs), based on the pattern of edits. He uses a dynamic IP, so probably no point in blocking for longer. If the problem resumes after the block expires let me know or go to WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

STBot and unicode

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=207120593 where STBot notified me about NFCC problem with Image:50 öre SEK.png. It seems that the bot isn't working fully with unicode filenames. Question is if the bot should be blocked or not. _→AzaToth 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Get the right bot, first! It's User:STBotI (one of four bots operated by User:ST47 - User:STBot, User:STBotD (deprecated), User:STBotI, and User:STBotT). This one ('I' for image, presumably) says it "operates under the functions of Operation Enduring Encyclopedia" - someone save us from bad American patriot puns! :-) As for blocking, surely you can ask User:ST47 to undo it's bad tags? Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously something to fix, but looking at STBotI's contribs this doesn't seem to be coming up very often and we're probably best-off leaving it running until there's a bigger problem. Just my two cents. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

350,575 Afro-Latinos in Honduras

Someone has decided that there are not the 150K Afro-Latinos in Honduras that our sources tell us, and that the figure should be 350K instead, down from his original count of 750K. No sources for this position, but this has been going on for a while (at least since December 9, 2007), in a wide variety of articles that mention the census. Some examples:

• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]
• [97]

I'm pretty sure that it is all Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The problem is that it isn't obvious vandalism, so people sometimes edit on top of it, making it error-prone to keep out.

Is there any automatic way to handle this? Are any of the vandalbots flexible enought to look for this?

Kww (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if someone would do something. Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went at it pretty hard tonight, and my report at WP:AIV was rejected without comment. After he noticed the warning, he went at it with 69.118.13.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This guy needs blocked and blocked hard.Kww (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Angry Christian

Resolved

 – Unblocked following discussion. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Nightscream.

Only one warning was given,[98] at 04:53, 21 April 2008, "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked." At 11:47 Angry Christian replied on his own talk page "What the fuck are you talking about?"[99] and at 16:33 Angry Christian placed a comment on Nightscream's talk page,[100] with the heading "hey what is that crazy shit you put on my talk page about?" and the comment "Seriously."

Nightscream blocked Angry Christian at 17:20, 21 April 2008, with the reason Personal attacks or harassment of other users: User responded to my warnings with profanity on his Talk Page and on mine. and put a block notice on Angry Christian's talk page giving the reason "for responding to my warnings in an uncivil and profane manner on your Talk Page and on mine". A request for unblocking, Request reason: "because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man." was declined by User:Yamla, Decline reason: "Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you."[101]

This block appears to me to be completely unreasonable and unwarranted. I've been participating in work on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article, and have found Angry Christian to be constructive, helpful, and courteous. I've asked Nightscream for diffs and an explanation, but feel that the block should be lifted without delay. .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: at 19:33 User:MastCell asked Nightscream to unblock Angry Christian,[102] with the understanding that he will chill, moderate his tone, and let this go.. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to. With comments such as this, this and this is simply uncalled for and is uncivil. I could go on with the edit comparisons, but the fact is, we don't tolerate such bad assumptions of faith, personal attacks and etc. regardless of the editor. When his block expires in 48 hours, he can constructively contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that these comments came after the unexplained warning and then the block. .. dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps noting that the block then did nothing to stop/prevent the incivility? --Ali'i 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a relatively common, and unfortunate, scenario: admin warns editor, editor makes angry comment to admin about warning, admin blocks editor. I don't think we should block people because they've reacted angrily to a warning we placed. Put another way, we should not be in the business of blocking people because they were rude to us. And it was rudeness, not a personal attack, that triggered the block. If I warn someone and they respond, "What the fuck are you talking about?" - my immediate response is not, and should not be, to block them. That's a bit too close to using the tools to settle a personal grievance. I don't condone Angry Christian's comments before or after the block, but I think the block should be lifted so long as he's willing to let this go and tone things down. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocks should only be used preventatively, and if Angry Christian says he or she will play nicely, we should assume that he or she actually will and unblock. My opinion. --Ali'i 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Block per User:Seicer. It is not true that the profanity started after the block [103] and no indication has been given that the user understands the problem.. As far as the block to pevent further incivility, that's an argument to protect the user talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> This is a bit ridiculous. Angry Christian has been doing yoeman's service in trying to maintain that article's integrity under incredibly trying circumstances. Our number of article views has exploded from less than 100 a day in December to 1000 a day a week ago to around 10,000 a day since the movie was released. We have a flurry of what appear to be sock puppets, meat puppets and SPAs arguing tendentiously about the same issues over and over and over. It is all that the few mainstream editors can do to keep it roughly NPOV and avoid having the entire article replaced with a religious tract.

AC has done great work on that page. And as happens often, sometimes regular editors wear out under repeated assault and say something mildly unCIVIL. So when he responds in irritation to a block, I think this is not that surprising. And the fact that he was unhappy about getting blocked should not be used as justification for the block, post facto. In fact, that really stinks and looks like abuse of administrative tools that is just calling out for sanctions against the blocking admin.--Filll (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock per Mastcell. If we blocked everyone who said the equivalent of "What the fuck", we'd have nobody left to write the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the block. Looking over AC's contributions before the warning, they seem to be constructive and rational. I cannot see any substantial reason for the warning, and I don't think an admin can afford such a thin skin as displayed here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's something missing here--and I also flipped through AC's contributions prior to the warning--Nightscream's failure to justify his warning and his block of AC is a little chilling. An simple explanation of the warning seems like it would have defused the situation. Darkspots (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That puts it pretty well, I think. Escalation isn't always the best solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's nobody unblock till we here from the blocking admin what the original incivility was, OK? No tearing rush. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the user in question might think different about this. No rush, ok, but how long should we wait? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream means well (I say this having met him in person at the NYC meetup) but unfortunately I think his handling of this situation has been less-than-optimal. I agree with Filll's description above (re: Angry Christian doing yeoman's work), and I think this block should be overturned ASAP. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with unblock, and it should be soon. R. Baley (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let's wait for a comment from Nightscream before an unblock, to see if there is any underlying rationale. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, let's not wait and crucify the blocker. Just unblock the user! The idea behind the block was noble, User:Nightscream is trying to keep the page free from off-topic commentary, which sadly occurs on both sides in the debate. The problem is that AC was singled out for reasons not at all apparent to him. And it's not clear to me either why AC was picked out. Most importantly, this was not explained to him, when he asked. Just because he got pissed of for being suddenly warned for something he had no idea about, doesn't mean he should be blocked for bad language. The admin banned him out of frustration. There is no need to fight about who is right or wrong here, do what is best for the encyclopedia and unblock the editor, unless you prefer WikiDrama, because you are about to get some very soon. --Merzul (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock now, and let's not go on too much about the blocker's rash reaction to AC's strong language. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for an unblock here, and I have implemented it. A user who is unfairly blocked deserves to be unblocked as soon as possible. My apologies to Nightscream for not waiting for his input; if there are any problems in the future, a block can always be reinstated but a good faith user driven away by a mistaken block may never return. henrik•talk 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning, Merzul (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Was getting ready to do as much, myself, as I read down the thread. AC's reaction to the warning was imperfect, but who wouldn't be confused and angry when they're suddenly being threatened with a block for reasons they don't understand, when a moment before they thought everything was fine? Looking at contribs, I'm not sure what specifically precipitated this warning, so some clarification on that point might be good for everybody. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, everyone. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read and considered everyone's comments and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here but I appreciate all those who contributed to this discussion. Angry Christian (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is still interested in my responding to this inquiry, since as of this writing it is resolved, but the idea that I did not offer prior warnings to Angry Christians and to others on that Talk Page and one their own Talk Pages is false. All you have to do is look that "Obvious Bias" and "Unthoughtful Article" sections on that Talk Page, as well as my Edit Summaries when deleting uncivil comments or comments not related to the article, as well as the Talk Pages of Angry Christian, Dr. Henley, and others, to see this. Angry Christian responded with a disrespectful, profanity-laden rant on my Talk Page, as he linked to above. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but both you and he have been major players on the Expelled article, on roughly opposite sides. That doesn't put you in a good position to be making hair-trigger blocks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No one is in a position to make "hair-trigger blocks", and since I have not done so, but initiated the block only after repeated warnings, both on the Expelled Talk Page (here, here and here), and on the Talk Pages of DrHenley, Hypnosadist, and Angry Christian, the point is moot. Similarly irrelevant and untrue is the notion that I and AC have been "major players" on the Article on opposite sides. He was blocked for violating policy and ignoring repeated warnings, which is completely irrelevant to my participation in the article. As for "sides", the only "side" I've been on is the pro-WP policy side. I've been deleting inappropriate comments from both those who were pro-ID and accused the article of being too slanted, and the evolutionists who did the same. This is not a "side", except in the mind of those who think that NPOV means that all material should be in perfect harmony with their own mindset. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Block policy states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." It sounds as though you were involved in a content dispute. The policy is quite straightforward; it makes no exemption for blocks arising from civility issues. Your participation in the article is not "irrelevant" as it creates the appearance (however false) of a conflict of interest. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as though I was involved in a content dispute? You mean you didn't actually read the discussion? Why is this? If you actually did so, you'd see that there was no content dispute. There was a discussion on the article's Talk Page initiated by one contributor who accused the article of bias, and others who responded to him. My admonishments to them were made on the basis comments by them that were not pertinent to the article, or that violated Civility, which is what administrators are supposed to do. I did not favor the inclusion or removal of any particular content, and acted in the capacity of a mediator, attempting to respond to the critic's complaints in a way that would preserve the article's factual content accurately without clearly pushing a POV. At that time, I did not have any conflict with Angry Christian over content, nor anyone else involved in that discussion. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Read enough to know that it created the appearance of a conflict. Jpmonroe (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I misread it, but it did (on a quick overview) seem a little quickly done - the commentary and block had happened from when I had looked 12 or so hours previously and when I saw it had happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Nightscream, unfortunately warnings posted on article talk pages are easy to miss or forget, and it's a shame you didn't make this clear to Angry Christian when he first responded, defusing rather than escalating the situation. In my opinion multiple warnings on talk pages are needed in conduct cases. While his language clearly offended you, it's best to either disregard such terms or to give a further polite warning rather than moving immediately to a block. Of course these are value judgements, and it's not so easy in the heat of the moment, but from previous incidents it's become very clear that care to give extensive warnings which set out the problem in some detail is essential in dealing with conduct cases. Tedious, and the exclusion of "involved" admins can be taken too far, but there it is. ..dave souza, talk 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More crazy wacky funtime with American Brit

Please note: I'm only reporting this so there can be no claims that I'm trying to sweep this under the rug.

User:American Brit recently made another appearance, under the guise of User:American Brit the Third (say what you will about him, but I like the easily-named socks). I summarily blocked him as he's been banned by the community. I happened to pop back over, and saw that he'd left a charming message at User talk:American Brit the Third. Because he was making legal threats and personal attacks, I fully protected the talk page, eliminating his opportunity to have a neutral party investigate the claims. I'm posting this here because he's been banned for a year, and this seemed like an ideal opportunity to investigate whether the ban was warranted or not. :)

So, that's that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

American Brit's collection of threats. He was comical while he lasted. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite appropriately banned, I think. Most amusing. Sandstein (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this line: "Just start inviting people to a double funeral because Hanunted Angel and EVula are going tot he grave." [104]. And today. seicer | talk | contribs 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant links: :::Community ban

Checkuser case.

I filed the community ban proposal. Keep him gone. Keegan^talk 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy

User and I originally had a dispute over two years ago. This can be seen here: User talk:Hetar/archive1#22/7. I asked that the user keep the debate to the pertinent pages as I did not want to argue over it, and so that other people could also participate in the debate. This user refused to leave me alone, and continued to post on my talk page. Eventually I took the issue to WP:3PO [105]

Other diffs from my talk page showing repeated attempts to get this user to leave me alone: [106] [107]

After I had posted the issue to WP:3PO he finally left me alone. That is until, recently, two years later, when he shows up, out of the blue, still posting about the same issue. [108] After deleting this and again asking him to stay away, he posted yet again: [109], this time referring to me as a "hateful boor."

Please help me. I am not seeking any kind of contact with this user. I have not edited or gone near any articles he is currently working on (or has worked on for that matter in the last 2 years). I have no desire to be involved with him in any way - and yet he continues to stalk me. Any help will be greatly appreciated --Hetar 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling you a "hateful boor" is an violation of WP:NPA. I think that you deserve an apology for that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did someone mention an apology? Try Wikipedia:Apology - needs more editing! Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The occasion for my revisiting this issue is explained in this edit. I really don't understand what the motive is behind "Hetar"'s abuse---why my short respectful query asking for an opinion on a matter of Wikipedia editing would be answered by a tirade full of hatred. I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered. As for personal attacks: I am the target of that attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user spinoza1111 posting insult via anon IP

Edward Nilges (User spinoza1111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinoza1111 ) is making posts peppered with insults on talk ayn rand via anonymous IP addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.103.128.42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:116.48.168.16

There may be others. At least one other user with Anonymous IP address has supported him in posts, though I don't think this is the same user.

Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a common problem with him. 202.82.33.202 is his home ip and it is fixed. Any other address he edits from is public and really shouldn't be blocked. He generally loses interest in any topic where his edits are removed all the time. I suggest people stop talking with him on the Ayn Rand talk page and just remove any edit he makes there.--Atlan (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Edward Nilges' rambling comments at Talk:Ayn Rand, full of personal attacks, don't suggest any good-faith desire to improve the encyclopedia or to negotiate with others. The most coherent presentation of his views that I could find is at [110]. He also edits the Ayn Rand article directly, but all his changes are quickly reverted.
• How about two weeks of semi-protection for Ayn Rand and Talk:Ayn Rand? This might cause him to lose interest. If that doesn't work, blocking of some IPs might be considered. (So far we have just the indef block on his named account, Spinoza1111, and no formal discussion of banning that I am aware of). EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of semi-protecting a talk page because of one troublesome editor. A block of the main ip in this case would be more appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User Tree of Life Time spamming

User Tree of Life has been promoting his personal website on various articles after being told not to do so. His website details his personal theories, including why the historical dates for everything in the first century CE should be reduced by 4 years. The 3 week editing history of Tree of Life has been solely devoted to making these promotions or arguing why these promotions are warranted. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

W.GUGLINSKI again

User User_talk:W.GUGLINSKI was indef blocked (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#User:W.GUGLINSKI) for a long string of pseudoscience article creations, always referencing his book on "Quantum Ring Theory"; he then badgered other editors in one-by-one responses of (and weird "rejections" of) AfD votes. Well, a series of articles were recently created on the same topics (Heisenberg's paradox, Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation, and New de Broglie's paradox‎), all citing the same book. The creator is new SPA User_talk:YURI2008, and the same badgering AfD "keep" votes are rolling in from an array of Brazilian dynamic IPs, at least one of which was the source of an obvious Guglinski edit Special:Contributions/200.141.116.203 in Quantum Ring Theory's AfD. In other words, Guglinki appears to be evading his block with new account User_talk:YURI2008 (probable) and anon logins from 200.X and 189.48.X. (basically certain) Bm gub (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef-blocked YURI2008 (talk · contribs) as a sock of W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs). I don’t have the time right now to deal with all the IPs, though. —Travis^talk 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites

A group of new editors who seem to have found an agreement outside of WP (see talk page of that atricle) made big efforts to change the article of Dorje Shugden substentially without any discussion. Any request for discussion on the changes were neglected. Moreover verified passages were deleted and balanced views deleted and insertion from a anonymous website made. I like to ask you for your help by checking the subject, revert or a temporarily block of the article. I have sent all new editors welcomes and ask for collaboration but as you can see from the talk page they just ignore. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's a bit of an over reaction to be honest. A group of editors are attempting to improve one article and there is some concern about it? The worse that can happen is that it has to be restored once they are finished. You never know they might even improve the article! SunCreator (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also they are newbies and they are trying to contact whoever is doing the rollback on the articles talk page. I guess that's you? I think you should discuss with them on the talk page, they seem quite genuine, but have not yet grasped yet how to sign there name with ~~~~. SunCreator (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about User:Wisdomsword who manages to grasp using the ref tags in his first posts. I will leave him a note to describe the links in better detail rather than just listing the top level domain all the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, really interesting. User:Wisdombuddha reverts Kt66 and then Wisdomsword is created who's second edit is "KT 66 is reverting anyone' else's comments with his own sickening and unbacked up bias and i'm amazed he is allowed to do it." Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also kt66 does not seem not to be a neutral editor: [[111]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.238.67 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One quote from an uninvolved editor does not necessarily make User talk:Kt66 out of order. User talk:84.167.238.67, are you an editor who is involved in this debate on the article page? I only ask because this appears to be your first edit.

The entire thing is rather bizarre. I'm not familiar with the subject, but all of a sudden there seems to be 6-8 SPAs filling the page. I don't blame Kt66 at all for bringing this here, and hopefully getting more eyes on the article. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING by User:Imbris

User:Imbris has engaged in CANVASSING concerning a move vote in the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta article. He has repeatedly been messaging people and trying to persuade them to vote in accordance to his own personal view on the matter. He appears to have ignored my requests to cease, I'm hoping he'd stop if he was warned to stop by an Admin.
links: [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]

I warned him a number of times to stop, but he ignored warnings and continued today as well [117], [118].
All in all its rather obvious, the best example would be: "I opposed that and invite you to do the same.". Could someone just warn the guy cause he does not look like he's going to stop... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note, however both of you need to step back and calm down a bit from the looks of things. No need to get all frustrated over what to call somebody. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am trying to calm the situation down. It was pretty civil until Imbris joined in, I suppose he's just upset he didn't notice the move sooner. I can understand that, but his reaction is a bit too emotional... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for attempted outing

I have blocked Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an emergency measure, after what I deemed to be his attempted outing of another editor at the current arbitration he is involved in. I was approached privately by both Filll and Durova, who noticed it, and decided it was worthy of oversight. In my opinion, whether or not his hunch is correct (which I cannot confirm) the fact that he was trying to out the real name of someone who had explicitly left the project due to the publicity of his real name is troubling. Sorry if this all sounds cryptic, but it's hard to say much, given the circumstances. I would like us to have a discussion now whether the indefinite block should be made permanent, or how to react. Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection, blocks may be implemented for disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). This neither confirms nor denies the assertion. Standard duration is indefinite, which is generally at least until the editor promises not to repeat the mistake. I have no opinion about whether this particular block should become permanent. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only issue here is that the user is involved in an ArbCom case, and being blocked will prevent the user from participating. Maybe a stern warning to desist, and a public commitment from the user not to do that again will suffice to unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If he vows to refrain from repeating the problem, then that makes sense. Until then he can submit whatever evidence he wishes by e-mail. He isn't a named party in the case. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a named party in the case, and this is a clear violation of policy and one that can often cause the user that is outed to leave the project. I support a block, but like everyone else am undecided about how long. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Participating in an arbitration case isn't carte blanch to do thins kind of thing. No question of an unblock until the user undertakes to behave according to community norms. I haven't looked at their contribs. Are they a problem generally? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Arion is generally a recalcitrant edit warrior that uses extraordinary wikilawyering to weasel his way out of potential blocks. east.718 at 05:35, April 22, 2008

Remain blocked indef. a full appology and promise to knock it off, refactor to two weeks on top of time served. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Though he does have a JD in wikilawyering and has been routinely shown to disrupt, I would support (not that I matter) an unblock because he is named in the evidence and may have sanctions forthcoming (nothing workshopped, as of yet). It would only be reasonable for him to have a chance to defend himself. However, the unblock should be limited to the ArbCom case and, if he is not a party to any sanctions, the matter can be brought up here at the conclusion of the case and a decision be made. Thoughts? I take that back, Durova's idea makes much more sense. If he has further evidence, he can submit it via email. Outing is a serious offence and an editor who has been here for 1.5 years should know better. Baegis (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, Rocksanddirt, and should Arion 3x3 give such a commitment there will be no need, on a preventative basis, to continue the block (in the absence of cause to doubt the commitment, of course). --bainer (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is punitive to give the user an enforced break, as the user seems to be taking the disputed article and activities a bit more personally than is good for him/her. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's worth considering whether preventative applies to this individual's behavior alone, or in a broader context. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal is an example of how AGF can be gamed. The following exchange occurred shortly before arbitration, during a mediation request. Ilena's mentor acted from the highest motives, but his best efforts didn't help:

Durova: She posted that while I was composing my final warning, so I'll give her a chance to strikethrough that allegation. I'll wait a reasonable interval after her next post to this page and if it isn't retracted she's blocked.[119]

Peter M. Dodge: While dispute resolution is open I would strongly suggest you didn't.[120]

Durova: On the contrary, Wikipedia dispute resolution creates no shield against user blocks. Editors are fully responsible for their behavior and may be blocked during any phase of it by the same standards that would apply in any other situation. Blocking is actually rather commonplace during user conduct WP:RFC and arbitration. The only thing that active dispute resolution typically forestalls is WP:RFAR. I retracted my first warning when you requested it. The subsequent ones are very firm.[121]

Shortly afterward her subsequent actions did merit a block, and then a longer one, and after I extended it I became aware that she had also posted a link to her personal website where she had outed another editor's identity. Rather than alter the block again I opened the matter for noticeboard discussion and arbitration followed. Before the case ended she outed the same editor's identity a second time, and in the same way, and got an indefinite block from a different administrator. Months afterward, her e-mail access had to be blocked because of legal threats.[122]

That example was an extreme case and I do not know Arion 3x3's edit history well enough to speculate how comparable this may be. In fairness to Arion, he did make a prompt promise at his user space not to repeat the behavior, and also e-mailed me. I appreciate that he did these things. What concerns me is the potential that cases like these could make other editors shy away from arbitration, for fear that their identities could be outed with little consequence to the poster. This site has had recent issues with arbitration confidentiality. I'm not sure what's the best solution here with that longer view in mind. Durova^Charge! 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

East Pictou Middle School

Could someone semiprotect this for a couple of days? There has been an IP vandal on a series of different addresses reinstating the same vandalism into the infobox every time it is reverted. This has been going on for at least a day, so the semi would probably need to be about 2 days. See current state and diff from my last revert for the standard pattern. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished...

Please take a look to what is happening here: it seems to me that a group of editors and admins is trying to ban all the editors who allegedly do not share a certain POV about 9/11 topic, and in my opinion they are doing this with almost inconsistent, groundelss and pretextuous motivations. Can any other (possibly unbiased) admin take a look to what is going on, please?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This certain POV is the verifiable one. You and the others have been banned for disruptively pushing conspiracy theory POV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ban all editors" is a huge exageration, as a matter of fact the first proposal was a topic ban on a certain user, not a full-fleged ban. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't wrote "all the editors", I wrote "all the editors who allegedly do not share a certain POV about 9/11 topic". However do you think it is all ok to "topic ban" selectively the editors according to their alleged POV?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy76 just violated his two month ban.[123] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I though that "ban" was an automatism, not something that I could violate.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Turemetalfan / 98.224.211.86

The above user has been blocked indefinitely from editing on wikipedia as evident here but is still evading the block through the use of that ip address. He is making edits on the Epica page such as this, removing information referenced by reliable sources in the main body of the article. He has also left an abusive comment towards me on my talk page here, calling me a dick head among other things. --Bardin (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Loner

A disruptive editor (Mr. Loner) on the Megarachne, Mesothelae and List of creatures in Primeval‎ is continuing to make unsourced claims in regards to Palaeozoic spiders, and whether T. rex is going to be on the British television program Primeval. Other editors have been reverting his edits for a number of weeks, but over the past few days I have left messages on his talk page trying to get him to stop, and recommend he read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability before he makes any future edits. However, he simply blanks his talk page and carries on as before. I fear this is becoming an edit war as I try to undo his edits. Do anyone have a recommendation about what should be done? The best, Mark t young (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was watching TV last night and...

I was watching Al Roker's TV show Heavyweights on on the Food Network on Monday, April 21 2008. The show was about the rise of the fast food restaurants Burger King and McDonald's, two Wikipedia article I have worked on extensively. Imagine my surprise when I heard the host rattling off facts and figures about the companies using a script that was verbatim to the text found in those two articles, some of which I had written myself. I was quite awed by the fact that Mr Roker's company had used WP as a source for its data, and was even more surprised that they didn't cite WP for the data in the credits. Ah, plagerism...

Just a little rant.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Puppet of Mike Babic

User:Mike Babic has been warned again [124] and again [125] that he need to stop editing articles using multiple accounts (IP address and user account) because it is against wikipedia rules. His answer on my last warning has been: "forgot to log in that one time" [126] . This answer has been writen on 14:02, 21 April 2008 and only 3 hours latter edited again with his puppet [127] Fact that 24.36.19.38 is puppet of Mike Babic is confirmed with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike Babic.

I am asking only decision in support of wikipedia rules. There is no point that others use only 1 account for editing 1 article if others can use multiple accounts--Rjecina (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, I'm losing my patience with you. Please compare the similar complaint here. It has been pointed out time and time again to you that it is NOT automatically abusive sockpuppetry if somebody occasionally edits logged out. In the present case, he made edits from his well known IP block, and then each time followed up on them with another edit logged-in, thus making the earlier edit easily recognisable as his. Abusive sockpuppetry means intention to deceive; there clearly is no such here.

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([128]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaking but if 1 users is editing article from 2 (or more accounts) article history will show greater support for his positions of what is in reality and this is against wikipedia rules. In reality it is no important if I and Fut.Perf. know who is puppet master but fact that other users think that there are 2 different users which support 1 position and this is false.

I will be happy to recieve new informations if my position is wrong or not ? --Rjecina (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)