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

Editor creates 100,000 or more non-notable articles!

Resolved

 – Editor is not breaking policy, ANI is not meant for discussing policy worries or changes. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor, user:Carlossuarez46, appears to be methodically creating many tens of thousands of articles that contain minimal or no content. They are simply stubs for place names.

Take here for example [1] - it is one of the several hundred settlements in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan that he has recently created articles for. Click onto any of the other place names listed for Lachin to see that the vast majority are empty articles containing nothing more than a single sentence. It is the same for tens of thousands of similar articles on settlements in Azerbaijan and Armenia that he has recently created. He appears to be using country gazetteers containing lists of settlements to create articles for every place-name in existence, without any thought about whether a Wikipedia article is really required for those places - the vast majority of them are (and always will be) without any notability.

The editor mentioned is not alone in doing this, but he may be the most prolific and he appears to be going through every country in alphabetical order (he has already done all the "A"s and most of the "B"s). Is it correct that Wikipedia should become an A-Z gazetteer containing an entry for every single village or hamlet in the World? Meowy 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. spryde | talk 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can have entries for places like Holder, Illinois, and Bill, Wyoming, then pretty much anyplace having a structure with a roof on it is fair game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. While there is no accepted notability guideline for settlements, WP:AFDP#Places agrees with Bugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill, Wyoming: "The new development more than doubled the population to 11 people in two years". I know of single houses with more inhabitants than that, I can't get an article on 256b Acacia Avenue though. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does this mean my garden shed is noteable!? Jtrainor (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My south terrace can be seen in the satellite view of GoogleMaps. Does that make it notable enough for a stub? Oh. Wait. I get it, there's already an article about the city in which that terrace can be found. Meanwhile, if that terrace was here and six people lived in two dwellings on either side of it, a stub about this wouldn't be so crazy at all. Whichever way the community goes on this is ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Try 2 million more like. Permastubs are the future. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another useful link is WP:OUTCOMES, which indicates that articles about villages tend to survive AfD. Otherwise, this situation doesn't require any immediate admin intervention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Wikipedia a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Wikipedia articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be outdone, I plan to create articles on all the possible combinations of 3 letters and numbers, or 36 to the 3rd power, figuring that every one of them is likely to be an abbreviation for something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a conspiracy to bump up the figures for unpatrolled new articles, so that they can launch phase one of the masterplan. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I really hope he discussed it on the country- or region-specific wikiprojects or on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities. If the editors of a country want the criteria to include 100,000 places in that country, that's fine with me, but they should have the say-so, not one editor. There's WP:BOLD but if he did this on his own, he's going overboard. Have you discussed this with him? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about that, but I don't think he did. Look at his talk page - he seems to be getting plenty of support, and other editors encouraging him to create even more articles. "Wow thats a highly impressive number of articles. Its almost like the bot is running as planned. How you generate them so quickly I have no idea but its faster than even I could do." comments one of them. About the Azerbaijan names, the same editor (User:Blofeld of SPECTRE) posted the disturbing "Well you know exactly how I feel about editors who try to get in your way. .... You can have my word that nobody is going to delete 4500 articles".

The problem with the Azerbaijan names is that a good few thousand of them are in Nagorno Karabakh or in areas controlled by Nagorno Karabakh and so the place-names and province names in current use are often different from those that Azerbaijan has officially given them. So I'm sure those single sentence articles will be a cause of endless and pointless arguments for months. Meowy 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh is not a country - it doesn't sit at the UN - it is only recognized by Armenia - it's Meowy's real reason: anti-Azeri POV push. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest bummer is that this is being done in a manual and more or less haphazard manner, with no community control over the information in the stubs. Had we allowed Fritpoll's bot to do its work, we would have much more useful examples of all of these same stubs. There is a lesson there, perhaps - when we as a community turn down a relatively reasonable request to simply allow good work to move forward, someone will later choose to do it anyway and without the same deference. Avruch ^T 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have recalled it wrongly. The bot was approved, on condition of the implementaiton of a whole supporting project framework, which would ensure that rich datasets were prepared to be processed by the bot, to then allow users to create 'rich stubs' full of content. You will have to dig out the deleted versions of the project pages to see why it failed. These one line articles on Azerbaijan I am pretty sure would not have passed the notability requirements of that project, although I do recall at one point that 'two references' was mooted as the bar of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about permastubs being the future was aces! Anyway, I am thinking that a lot of new users might not really know how to use the tools (and increasing numbers of new users tend to be those folk somewhere on the bristly side of puberty). Working on the article for your hometown might be a pretty good way to get started. Of course, creating articles for those places without a lot of internet access kinda prevents them from developing into full-blown articles, but doesn't this partly address one of the flaws of Wikipedia - that areas non web-savvy get little coverage? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when does an editor need the permission of anybody, WikiProject or not, to create an article? Every inhabited place in the world needs an article, as has been clearly stated over and over again, for years now. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, Wikipedia's flaws spin up something helpful. Time and again, the consensus has been that human settlements are notable. This is not that same thing as consensus for article creation by bots sucking stuff out of databases. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would also say that this crapflood of contentless microstubs is in violation of Wikipedia not being a directory. Consensus has ususally been that all places are inherently notable, but consensus can change- and if I were going to WP:POINT out how silly that opinion is I'd be perpetrating this exact same flood of terrible articles. Articles of the form "Blongoville is a village in Shpadoinkleland" are useless- anyone who knows the name of a tiny village likely already knows what country it's in and would learn nothing. They accomplish nothing except diluting our content, making maintenance a nightmare, and making the random article feature a cruel joke. Reyk _YO! 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Points for using "Shpadoinkle". Padillah (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There would be nothing untowards about doing a mass AfD on them, to see what happens. However, I wouldn't think it would be untowards to let them be either, text stubs are cheap and thousands of them are likely to grow sooner or later (by which I mean, many years later). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get rid of these somehow, but it's historically been rather difficult. I wonder, though, why we can't have a solution much as we did for schools or fictional elements which are not individually notable—a "list of places in" by administrative division. In many areas, this would be the county or its appropriate local equivalent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the stubs get minimal data from the World Gazetteer website, and another user linked the site on User_talk:Carlossuarez46 as a suggested place for that user to go. I decided to check a couple cities in China. Our Bengbu article lists a population of 3.5M, but Gazetteer gives about 600K. Our Changde lists 6M, but Gazetteer gives about 580K. Our Dongying article currently lists 1.7M, but Gazetteer gives about 310K. Our Foshan article lists 5.4M/1.1M, but Gazetteer gives about 770M. Why the consistent difference? Should we be using Gazetteer? Gimmetrow 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Off topic of this AN/I post, but in answer of above by Gimmetrow: This is probably like we're writing an article about New York City, but you're reading the population of Manhattan in the gazetteer. Many of the larger Chinese cities have a city center (Manhattan) and a number of counties (Queens). The population of the city (New York City) is huge, but the populatin of the core city (Manhattan, which many people consider to be New York City) is just a part. The populations of all of these cities is in the millions, but the core area has only a small part of that population, and may be called by the same name in English. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly off-topic. It's an example of why people shouldn't be creating these stubs without input from other people and multiple sets of data to draw from to create a page of useful info. Gimmetrow 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting the stubs in a project gets input from the other editors and multiple sets of datas. That's my suggestion for improving these articles and making them accurate. --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind Lachin region of Azerbaijan page containing a list of the villages there. But those village names should be all or mostly RED not blue links. Blue promises the user that they will find more notable information and not merely a time wasting stub.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stubs are not a waste of time. Botany stubs provide a species name, its taxonomy, and, often, a common name, and a geographic range. This is useful information. I've worked in a garden, and this has for a long time been one of the most useful areas of Wikipedia: if there is an article, even a stub, it's a good start on the taxonomy of an organism. And there are a lot more stubs than not. --KP Botany (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Botanical terms are completely different from an endless line of place-names. Meowy 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Meowy seems to have problems with creating articles. This editor he hasn't discussed anything with me but made wide ranging arguments which are basically straw men and seeking drama here. WP is best served by having articles about notable topics than having none on the topic. If you think any of the articles are on non-notable topics, nominate them for deletion. As the critics have tried this before and failed, another attempt will be viewed as WP:POINT - as the prior attempt was - and likely earn the nominator a permablock. Why doesn't Meowy go ahead and improve the stubs s/he thinks are too stubby - not just those I have created, but the tens of thousands of others. Or is this the latest Meowy effort to push his POV in the various conflicts between Armenia and its neighbors. Does s/he want me delete the hundreds or so articles on Armenian places as well? Nominate those for deletion first if you really care to go down in flames on principle rather than as a POV pusher. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You bet I want him to delete all the thousands of pointless Armenian placename article stubs, and all the hundreds of thousands of other pointless stubs his bot-editing has gleefully created. But he can't. Nor can anyone else. And nobody is going to manually nominate 100,000+ articles for deletion. That is why this editor must be stopped asap - he is doing possibly irreparable damage. Meowy 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a human edited encyclopedia and large-scale bot editing should always need consensus even if any of the individual edits that the bot does would be perfectly fine for a human to do. Look at all the Betacommand dramas for endless examples. WP:BOLD does NOT apply to bot editing, since bots (because of their scale of editing) are much harder to revert, breaking the concept of "bold-revert-discuss". If this bot has been approved, it should be operating under a bot flag. If not, it should be blocked until consensus emerges to let it continue. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What bot are you talking about? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll float my perennial proposal: create a bot that deletes all articles that have only been edited by bots. If no human has ever shown an interest in the article, there's no reason to have it. I'll buy the notability argument for places to the extent that if someone has found enough data about a location to create a full article about it, I would never be inclined to take it to AFD on the grounds that it was too puny or insignificant to warrant an article. That's a long way from believing that a speck in an atlas and a line item in a census warrants creating a stub that nobody ever finds enough data to expand.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Carlossuarez46 needs to be banned from creating any new articles. Though it has been pointed out earlier that geographical places do not need to fit the notability criteria, that leeway was never intended to enable the mindless creation of millions of stubs containing nothing. Carlossuarez46 seems to be some sort of weirdo intent on attaining the record for creating the greatest number of Wikipedia articles, and he is doing it at the expense of the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. It amounts to vandalism. All edit should be done with the aim of improving Wikipedia. He is making a joke out of Wikipedia! Meowy 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There will always be people who contribute to the encyclopedia in a way you disagree with. You will not accomplish anything by calling them crazed weirdo vandals who need to be banned, and you will particularly not win anyone over to your side. rspεεr (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you disregard the incivility, Meowy is right though. These contentless microstubs do drag down the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. Behaviour that hurts the project, whether it's done in good faith or not, needs to be stopped. With a big fat banhammer in the case of persistent deliberate vandalism; with kind words and politeness in cases like these. Reyk _YO! 09:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an astonishingly bad idea. You have claimed this editor is causing "possibly irreparable damage", that they "must be stopped", that they're a "mindless" and "gleeful" vandal... and now you're asking they be banned from creating articles. All this is basically over a content dispute? This sort of thing is really not appropriate behaviour and we will not start sanctioning people just because you don't like their legitimate and good-faith contributions. Shimgray | talk | 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray. If indeed it's "harming the project" to make all these stubs (and I'm highly skeptical of that claim), it's hardly the user in question's fault if the community has never come to a consensus against the articles. Maybe we need to come up with a better guideline about settlements. OK, do that instead of talking about sanctioning Carlossuarez46 for behaving in a way that doesn't conflict with our policy, guidelines and practices as they exist now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my request to have Carlossuarez46's article-creation rights restricted is a fair response to an urgent situation. At the very least, he should be restricted to manually creating articles. It is not a content dispute - it is an editing process issue. I don't know how many articles Carlossuarez46 has created - the link declines to answer because he has made more than 100,000 edits. By the time better guidelines are decided upon, he may have reached Zululand and the situation will be a fait accompli.

I stand by my characterisations. The creation of hundreds of thousands of empty stubs does amount to "vandalism" - it is damaging the project because it is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. Users reading an article on Wikipedia expect to get information from it - but none of Carlossuarez46's stubs contain informative content. Claims about the size and inclusiveness of Wikipedia become laughable if millions of its articles are just empty stubs. The articles created by Carlossuarez46 are "mindless" because they have been created using a bot. There is an element of "gleefulness" in the attitude of Carlossuarez46 towards his mass article creation - just look at his talk page, and also his flippant responses to the points made here: "the critics have tried this before and failed". Rather than addressing any of the concerns made by others in this thread, he has just been making extreme personal attacks on me for daring to attempt to interrupt his activities (accusing me of "seeking drama", of being a "POV pusher" and wanting to give me a "permablock"). Meowy 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As the fact we're having to debate this above should show, it is far from generally accepted that these articles "damage the credibility" of Wikipedia, and it certainly isn't accepted that writing articles which someone thinks are damaging to our credibility should be considered vandalism! We have hundreds of articles, many very good ones, which I think make us look silly - I wonder why people write them, and I wouldn't mind seeing them deleted, but it certainly isn't "vandalism".

Yes, he may be being rude about you and getting heated about this, though I wouldn't call it "extreme personal attacks". But you're being rude about him - "some kind of weirdo" - and getting just as intemperate. If having a heated argument was a blocking offence, you'd both be needing sanctioned, so this really isn't the way to be arguing!

He hasn't done anything that requires blocking. He has done something that suggests we need to get back to discussing a philosophical dispute we've been avoiding thinking about ever since Rambot came along, and the appropriate thing to do would be to discuss that somewhere appropriate, not vaguely demand he be punished. Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading and re-reading the thread, and still don't see the issue. No policy or guidelines has been brought to bear to make the claim that these kind of stubs should not be created. Dragging down the quality of the project? That statement is laughable. All you need to do is look at Pokemon to get an idea of the crap that's out there already. Unless there is some formalized guideline developed, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT types of argument won't weigh much. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't mind stubby articles, what does worry me is the lack of reliable sources which prove the locations notability, and the rapid rate of creation--how else would we stop a similar editor creating hoax articles? Add to this the somewhat pointy attitude (on both sides) but especially in response to concerns about the properness of the action, and we have a serious issue. If the user in question persists, I am willing to block per disruption criteria until this can be resolved, and as per an application of the spirit of WP:BRD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(rm earlier comment) You and I both seem to have fallen into the same trap of not noticing signature dates! Looking at Carlos's actual contributions, rather than the characterisation of them here, I see... well, I don't see a surge of new articles needing stopped! The most recent spate of creations of small articles looks like it was on December 16th, eg Allahqulubağı. Shimgray | talk | 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't jumped on the block button :P his most recent contributions are mostly disambig/tagging. But the concern about a rash of articles still remains relevant (but might be outside the scope of this particular discussion). -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an issue we need to think about - but it's a philosophical issue of content inclusion, unrelated to this particular dispute, and ANI doesn't really seem the place! I was astonished to realise this whole thing was about edits a month ago... Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What bugs me about this thread is user Meowy's gross violation of WP:AGF. Requesting a ban on a user for performing actions that are within a standing consensus is remarkably asinine. --Smashville^talk 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention done in bad faith that this editor is actually trying hard to improve the coverage of wikipedia in the long term. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant argument from talk page

Resolved

 – Immediate issues resolved, AN/I is not the right venue for this discussion unless something crops up again. — neuro^(talk) 14:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted a comment on [Talk:Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis], arguing that the out-of-place mention of the Catholic viewpoint would be akin to adding a section on laws to bacon. This has been censored twice. How am I supposed to discuss the content of this disputed article when there are people butting in by deleting my argument? Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your 'comment' seems a little like an attack to me. — neuro^(talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks/incivility. He re-inserted the attack after I had given him a final warning for making personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks have continued after block, suggest extension. — neuro^(talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's right, though. The Catholic thing is POV-pushing and is redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is AN/I the right venue for that discussion? — neuro^(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, or at least not yet. I'm also not sure what he got blocked for, i.e. his comments seem a bit peevish but don't seem like personal attacks, unless I missed something; but it's only 24 hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I struck the "resolved" from this, because this block really, really looks questionable to me. I just don't see a "personal attack" worthy of a block (or even a warning) in this editor's contributions. Spotfixer seems to be of the quite reasonable point of view that the Catholic church's position on various topics is generally of no consequence, and is adamant about it, but I don't see anything crossing the NPA threshold.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree. He wasn't particularly civil when asked about his edits, but I really don't see much deserving a block here, to be honest. And he's right about the content dispute, as well. Black Kite 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it seems it's now a bit more than that. Just view his talk page, after the block discussion, to see what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • True. I usually give the receiver of bad blocks a little bit of license to vent, though.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not a bad block, so he doesn't have any license to vent. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Funny, it looks like a bad block to me and two other editors that have commented in this thread. Would you care to point out the "personal attack" that you thought was worthy of a block? I've searched his contributions, and can't even see anything particularly questionable before you blocked him.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • See the user's interactions with others on User talk:Spotfixer, Talk:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, User talk:Schrandit, User talk:Gentgeen. For example, Gentgeen (talk · contribs) warned both Spotfixer and Schrandit (talk · contribs) for edit-warring a couple of days ago. Take a look at Schrandit's response.[2] Now take a look at Spotfixer's response.[3][4][5]
          • Your first point of contention when discussing this block, although irrelevant, was to point out Spotfixer's correctness. I'm not questioning his correctness in the content dispute. In fact, he makes good points and his contributions to articlespace have been pretty solid thus far. I just want him/her to discuss these topics with some civility. I hope that he/she learns from the block and makes even more positive contributions to the project. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I doubt has, if you read his talk page, you can see that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. That doesn't exactly sound promising to me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, he/she at least deserves another chance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Some of that I hadn't spotted, and I will grant that "bad block" is too strong. I'll still put it in the marginal category. I suspect that what's happened here is that a marginally bad editor with a point to prove has been transformed by blocking into an extremely bad editor with a crusade. Let's hope I'm wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • For the record, I agree it was a poor block because ICB did not follow WP:incivility protocol for addressing incivility. He honestly does not seem to understand what exactly WP:incivility means in part because (1) no administrator has explained to him how he violated WP:incivility; and (2) the post he got blocked for really isn't a particularly good example of his uncivil posts. It doesn't seem personal to me at all. I'd urge administrators to use discussion here instead of extending the ban; tell Spotfixer that his block was marginal, and that his subsequent incivility (of which there is a lot) will be overlooked; cite precisely the wording that was offensive and invite him to edit his own posts to remove incendiary language. If you treat him like that, and he then makes uncivil edits, he has no excuse. --Thesoxlost (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. A very good editor with a point to prove has been transformed by a very bad block into a very good editor with two points to prove.

I do not consider this matter settled. and will not rest until Ice Cold Beer's administrator rights are stripped. He needs to be made an example of for all other administrators who would harm Wikipedia. Spotfixer (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer has returned from his block to troll my talk page.[6][7] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The user has now personally attacked me, as seen here, telling me that I've "lost touch with reality". I do not see any hint that this user has realized why his behavior is disruptive, or that he's going to stop. I would believe a longer block is warranted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On the users own talk page? As someone who has seen first hand how quickly Beer can drop down the hammer on a user [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] and you'll notice two seperate editors restored his edit before he caught the idea that it was being discussed and he should stop removing it. Later, the discussion on his talk page was equally ineffective. [[11]]. And his accusations of trolling always seem to folow the pattern of him doing something against policy and then blaming the victem of his bad choices. I cannot say I've ever been very impressed with him as an editor and when I learned he was an admin I was honestly amazed. RTRimmel (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you shocked that someone made personal attacks on their own talkpage? Would you care to elaborate what is correct in Spotfixers actions which led to his latest block? --Smashville^talk 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The user has now posted his award on his own talk page, listing several admins as incompedent, corrupt, abusive.. etc. The admins listed are everyone that disagrees with him. Etc. Here is the diff.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support temporary/long term block for WP:ATTACK. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's going to do it again when he comes off his block...so the question is...do we longterm block now and give him a chance to change his mind in the future...or do we let him come off his unblock and hang himself again, which is what he is almost certain to do...--Smashville^talk 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Per what smash just said, well...:

Lengthen the block

• Support - The user has not shown any sign that he will stop the personal attacks or incivility. I support an increase of block length, letting him loose again would not be beneficial.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 07:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the block expire, and if the behavior continues, then we can talk about a lengthy block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The initial block was a bad block, as stated by 4 editors it seems. And hounding the user afterward didn't do anyone any favors. The second block was at least partially justified, but again my read of the posts made by the user indicates that the fault mainly falls back to the incident that set this ball rolling which was the initial bad block. RTRimmel (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. He seems to be involved over at WR...or...at least he has brought them up at least once...considering they are making fun of him there...maybe one of them had a talk with him about how he was going about this wrong...he hasn't done anything in 24 hours... --Smashville^talk 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX: "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk"

(ported over from where it was initially - and inaccurately - posted at AN)

While John took the time to open a discussion at WQA in regards to this matter, I am growing concerned that ThuranX might be of the inexact opinion that suggesting a fellow editor "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk" is anywhere near acceptable behavior. This was part of an article discussion wherein the John (talk · contribs) acted with exceptional reserve in the face of behavior that would have sent anyone else packing. ThuranX' behavior there, and elsewhere with increasing frequency seems to be be growing problematic of late. While this advisory is of one situation occurring in one article discussion, ThruanX seems to be unwilling/unable to render his opinions and dictums in a socially acceptable way. JNW has been here almost as long as ThuranX, and yet he has nary a single block, whereas ThuranX has been blocked repeatedly for precisely the same behavior he is displaying yet again. I think some sort of intervention might be called for.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have pretty much given up interacting with the user, as he has been unremittingly unpleasant for the two-plus years I have been here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. After reading the discussion, it seems that ThuranX may have reacted strongly but he was certainly provoked by very dickish behavior from the other user. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, being a dick (and I am not necessarily agreeing with your assessment, btw) is an open door for an experienced editor to act the same? Please. That's a a theory widely disproven by jumping off a cliff just because the neighbor kid did, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

..and a link to the WQA ♪BMWΔ 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If the person drops dead, then the issue of keeping away would become moot, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but I am guessing that John might not wish to accede to ThuranX' wish for the person to shuffle off the mortal coil. Tangential quip aside, is this the sort of behavior we condone from experienced editors? Were this the first time, or some sort of Mastodon issue, I'd say chalk it up to low blood sugar. However, this keeps happening with a largely unrepentant editor. You seriously cannot be advocating this sort of nonsense, can you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If that question was directed toward moi, the answer's no. I think it is possible to both condemn and make light of such episodes. Spare the rod and spoil the child, I say. No need to investigate any circumstances here. It's unacceptable. Block.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course they attach themselves to the other person using a set of titanium-alloy handcuffs, and then drop dead. ♪BMWΔ 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Beryllium, for when you truly care. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I haven't heard of beryllium handcuffs since "The Adventures of Phoebe Zeit-Geist". PhGustaf (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to have fans, isn't it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also good to note that SirFozzie informed (and suggested a wikibreak) to ThuranX after the WP:AN filing, and I have advised ThuranX of this ANI.

As a comment, being exessively provoked does not excuse behaviour, but explains it. In a situation involving provocation, it's important to hear the reply after being called on the behaviour. Just last week I was the victim of my very own ANI after excessive provocation - I was -> <- this close to saying something similar to the other editor after all the wikipoodling I had been a victim of. ♪BMWΔ 17:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While notifying the principles in the matter, I I realized that I accidentally identified JNW (talk · contribs) as the recipient of ThuranX' replies, I've altered the initial post to identify the correct user John (talk · contribs). Both have now been notified. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And BMW, I understand that ThuranX might have felt provoked, but this seems to keep happening with him with many more editors than just this one here. Each time, folk suggest a wikibreak, a spot of tea (or an entire pot); unfortunately, this particular kettle seems to remain on the boil, no matter how many breaks are suggested. While I applaud SirFozzie's note to ThuranX, esp. after the latter took a bite out of him, we don't provide for this. As Ferrylodge suggested, a block might be a method by which we can protect other users for a bit (and thereby the encyclopedia). The carrot has proven rather unsuccessful; perhaps a bit of the stick is called for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering John told him twice to seek a new hobby...a little aggressive with the response, but I agree...definitely provoked.--Smashville^talk 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not twice, only once. --John (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, once in article discussion and once in ThuranX' usertalk page, and - it bears repeating - after being provoked by Thuran's barbed responses. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So now your saying that provokation does excuse behaviour? 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Provocation does not excuse behaviour. — neuro^(talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Clearly, I am not. but I think a suggestion to calm down, be nice or find another pastime is a tad low on the scale of incivility - especially when we consider the response, before, after and with other editors. I think there is an assumption of dickish behavior on the part of John that is both unsubstantiated as well as immaterial to the actual problem. Or, are you of the opinion that, were the same sort of attention showered upon you, that you (anon) would not feel unfairly attacked?

And no, provocation does not excuse the depth and breadth of the behavior through the wiki. While this complaint addresses one incident, is there is misapprehension that its the only one where ThuranX has - all by his/her lonesome - denigrated an argument to name-calling and insults?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was a part of this case? Why have I been excluded?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you were connected to the incident, aside from offering a succession of unhelpful remarks at the wrong noticeboard. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I live in a wilder and woollier world than wikipedias civility standards... such as they are. So no, I would not feel unfairly attacked. I sympathize with ThuranX in that I feel he was the victim of a unsolicited collaboration request which turned out to be a my way or the highway volentolding. Which of the two editors was more 'uncivil' is a matter of dispute. Surely ThuranX used language that others felt was unnacceptable, but I can name at least three people on this board that felt that Johns very civil words hid a passive-agressive style dickishness. Isn't that just as bad direct namecalling?198.161.173.180 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, is not as bad. Gerardw (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you can imagine, WP is not the world. We have standards here that are more or less adhered to so that the community at large doesn't devolve into some webforum of hypersensitive trash-talking, or folk trying to prove that they are smarter/righter/better than everyone else. No one is the smartest person in the room here at Wikipedia, and that means that everyone gets to be treated via the Golden Rule until they abrogate that right. Now, either every single one of the dozen or so people that have been subjected to ThuranX's colorful remarks should be blocked as trolls, or the problem resides with ThuranX' behavior. Yes, (s)he contributes a lot and is seemingly a net addition to the community, but usefulness doesn't - and shouldn't - excuse sort of allowances we are making for him/her. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so they got a little feisty and now probably despise each other. Why can't we let it slide? Why are you people so bent on punishing a few minor transgressions?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainly, MS, the point is that this isn't an isolated incident, its just the most recent flare-up by ThuranX. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Feel free to seek another hobby"

When I pointed out that ThuranX was free to find another hobby here, I was not intentionally being uncivil but alluding to our founder's much-quoted saying, that people who are unable or unwilling to follow our policies are free to go off and do something else, something which applies to everyone here, including me. If I ever find myself getting overheated or over-focussed on something on Wikipedia, I usually just go off for a day or so and do something else. I do not think this qualifies as incivility or dickishness, just simple fact. Whether I could have handled that interaction better (yes, I probably could, though not much better) or not, it was certainly not my intention or expectation to provoke comments like "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk". I think there is something wrong with the level of abuse coming back from this user. What needs to be done to correct their behavior I will leave up to others; however I am pretty clear that I don't want to work on a project where behavior like this is tolerated. --John (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to work on a project where behavior like this is tolerated. Yes you do, you know it's as hard for you to leave Wikipedia as the rest of us Wikiholics :) In the long run, a simple case of incivility is something that disappears, but you are correct, a history of incivility is significantly different ... but you also know, that many on Wikipedia will excuse the occasional outburst if the editor is generally a "net positive" ♪BMWΔ 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Wikiholics - lol) This is generally true, BMW, but when discussion - which has always been considered that which makes the wiki actually Not Suck - is stifled for fear of being pimp-slapped by an experienced user, a lot of folk simply withdraw instead of continuing. The Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who shout down the others disagreeing with him/her. I am not saying we should indef block the guy/gal, but rather that some recalcitrance from ThuranX would be nice to see. As we can be fairly sure that won't be coming, we can extrapolate that he/she doesn't feel such behavior is actually a problem. And that, my friend, is the problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. I do not want to work on a project where someone can be abusive and it is excused because they did something good in the past. If this is indeed a pattern of behavior from this user then I really do think this is a problem which needs to be addressed. WP:CIVIL is not just for when you feel like it, it is an essential component of an online project like this. Without it, I don't think we have a chance of completing what we are trying to do. If I were to come to believe that, I really don't think I would see the point in continuing my work here. --John (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John here, I dont know many people who want to work on a project with people who act like that and are excused. As a matter of fact, I know many good users who left because some, "popular," users was a straight asshole and the community just turned their back on the abuse. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's punish him then. Should we block him for one week for foul language?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please focus on the actual complaint and ongoing problem; it isn't about being a potty-mouth, its about treating everyone around him like crap (pardon the comparative pun). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for 12 hours for the gross incivility. If you look he has a pretty lengthy block log for previous incivil behavior. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also not be opposed to lengthening the block due to his long history of gross incivility and other interactions on this project. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And since several people have agreed that John was provoking ThuranX, I assume you will be blocking him too? Or is this block simply to punish one 'side'?198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

John explained his comments above. All I saw was his attempts at being civil and cool in a heated situation. This is a difficult task to handle, and for those who handle it without making grossly incivil outbursts and statements should in no way receive a block. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this is also not about, "sides." This is about an editor who has repeatedly shown extreme disrepsect and contempt to his fellow editors through the use of abusive, incivil and derrogatory comments on many occasaions (many of which he was blocked for as well). Take a look at his block log. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see two editors acting in an uncivil manner to each other. I see several editors stating such, and I see you blocking ONE of them. For something that isn't about sides, you sure seem to have taken one.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see one of the editors who explained his comments and what he truly meant by them as well as admitting he could have handled it a bit better as well as having no history of gross incivility, and I see one user who has a long history of gross incivility to fellow editors and no explanations to his incredibly offesinve comments. It is not about sides, it is about actions. Should the other editor wish to explain how is comments were meant in the nicest of terms and were only mis-interpreted and agree to never act that way again or be blocked again I would agree that the block is probably unjustified. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing blocking ThuranX, by all means punish him. I'm talking about whats good for the goose being good for the gander. You see an editor explainin his comments? I see a textbook example of politeness hiding incivility. Its simple really. First, be a dick... but a polite one. Then when your target calls you on it, claim innocence behind your politeness while pointing out the incivility you have created. For good measure, make sure you sprinkle in a note about how you plan to quit if this isn't dealt with (extra points if you can vaguely point out someone who already has). Then an admin can come by and swing the banhammer at the obvious problem whilst you run off to start it again with a clean block log.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, you need to be able to get a firm message across. The question is, can you do it nicley? That is not being incivil, it is stating the truth in a manner considered appropriate by civilized adults. In this case, John's comment was telling thuran that if he did not like the way things were done around here, he might want to look elsewhere for a hobby instead of endure the stress (he said it in a bit rougher terms) but was appropriate about it. As he cites above, this is based off of a philosophy from Jimmy Wales. Now not condining the behavior, there is a big different between what John, and what Thuran did. You can argue that John was being a tactful dick and maybye that is what it was, but how much different is that from constructive criticism or other forms of appropriate conflict? Not all conflict is innapropriate but when you respond the way Thuran did, there is NO way that can be classified as an appropriate response. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For example, would you consider this reponse to an editor whose article I deleted being a dick? I did a google search and found little information on there band. I need to get a negative message across (that there band is most likley not notable and will not have an article here until it becomes notable). I got the message across in a nice, but firm way (no cursing or degrading comments. For example I did not call him a bloody fucking idiot or something like that), but still got my negative message across. There is a MASSIVE difference in the way John and Thuran handled things. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And the message here is 'I get to point out things you have to change cus I don't feel like it, and you better do it cus im polite'. I get it. That does clear things up for me and I'm glad you feel that way.198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to stop arguing with you about this. It is not about what was said, it is about how it was said. WP:CIVIL is mostly about how you interact with people, not what you say. If Thuran had said, "I disagree with your assertion that I should find another hobby and honestly I am a bit offended by it," I have NO doubt that John would have clarified his intent and this would never have happened. Instead thuran said, "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." which cannot in any way be excused. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed this edit from an editor previously blocked for incivility. In addition the above cited diff, such edit summaries as this or swearing in posts do not help much either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon, the matter seems done, so maybe we can stop arguing about it. I can see where you are coming from here, but ThuranX' response wasn't commensurate with what he was receiving. I don't see the dickish stuff from John, though you should feel free to post on my talkpage where you think it was. Chris pretty much summed up the idea that disagreeing while remaining polite is a lot better than getting aggressive. Manners separates WP from some web forum. It also renders unto you to post anonymously and still be given the assumption of good faith. This is pretty much my last post on this as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/cx2) Don't worry, I'm done too. I care little and can change less. John's alleged misconduct was already pointed out by me and Thuran already, so if you and Chris see fit to forgive it then that is your right and there is no need for more rehash. I, however, maintain my opposite opinion. I politely put down the stick and back away slowly from the horse. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note - unblock has been requested. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also to the admin who review the unblock request, read through the thread in question before making a decision. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Aye, I have read it, and while I understand ThuranX's frustration, the comment was clearly way over the top. Having said that, my concern about the actual block is that a block nearly 7 hours after ThuranX's last edit looks punitive rather than preventative. Black Kite 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I would have based the length of the block on ThuranX's level of ... "apologeticness" once his comment were brought on board. Maybe then it was either 1 day (for real grovelling) or 3 days for disruption if he'd acted unremorseful... but hey, I'm no admin ♪BMWΔ 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with John's editing goals but I think his diplomacy could use improvement. It's better in these situations to engage in more discussion of the underlying issues than to just spout Wikipedia policy. See WP:SOUP to understand ThuranX's response to what happened. I'd support an unblock of ThuronX if his block were longer but 12 hours is short enough to just sit it out, if it's not already over. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX's response

Well, now that the block is over, I'd like to say goodbye. Chrislk02 has just given Arcayne official license to harrass me as much as he wants. He's already appearing on the talk pages of the articles I edit, replying all over to make sure I know he's there, watching and talking me. He's also given the tacit go-ahead for Manhattan Samurai, an editor I've had NO contact with but who seems to work in amazing synchronicity with Arcayne, despite Arcayne's protest-too-much denials.

John's behavior perfectly fit WP:SOUP. He deleted, I reverted, he came to me for help, when I showedhim some good faith, help, and started to do some work to help HIM improve the article HE sought to change, his response was to rudely and smarmily reply that it was all now my problem to deal with, not unlike hockign a loogy into my soup, not just spitting, then assuring me that it was flavor enhancer, if I didn't like it, I could fish out what hadn't dissolved, but since it's the only soup I've got, I'd better eat it. That behavior from an admin is even worse. To John's credit, he brought the issue of my reply to WQA, where it could have been discussed. As I said on my talk page, it was a pointless comment on my part, since I'd already done all the work, but his last comment was like spitting in my soup again once I'd ordered a new bowl.

However, to have Arcayne Forum shop this to multiple AN pages, for him to STILL be watchign my talk page and hawking me, as he's been doing for over a year now, is too much. I've asked him to leave me alone on talk pages, on my talk page, on AN/I, and everywhere I encounter him. He won't do it. He won't, and so far, doesn't have to. Since I've been dealing with this stalking harrassment for a year, and I see that Chrislk02 has now reinforced his behavior, I can see no other recourse. Others have told Arcayne to leave me alone, and Arcayne doesn't listen. And I'm not the only person Arcayne acts this way with. Is DreamGuy around? Since this behavior has now been explicitly endorsed by an admin, I will check back on this, but otherwise, it seems like retirement's the best option for me. I've already left pages Arcayne works on to avoid him, but if he's going to follow me around with approval, then I'll leave, cause what else would there be to do? ThuranX (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is where everyone is supposed to stop what they are doing and say "Oh God, no! Don't do it ThuranX! You have so much to edit for! You're irreplaceable here! We'll tolerate ANYTHING! Would banning some of your enemies make this better? Just don't RETIRE!" Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is where some admin with a lick of sense agrees that there should be a flat out prohibition on Arcayne's following me along like an accountant, marking up every move I make and playing Gotcha!, which is what went on here. I'm asking for ARcayne to be flat out prohibited from this, as he's prohibited from interacting with a number of other Wikieditors who he constantly delights in pissing off for the fun of it. That's what goes on here. I want an intervention against his antics. Short of that, and since he announced quite publicly on my talk page he would continue to come after me, and was, in point of fact, encouraged by ChrisLK02 to do so, there really would be no recourse, now would there? ThuranX (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"no recourse" lawl. You're not locked in a dungeon, you're having problems with another person on the Internet that's generating drama and stress. You have many, many options, the least difficult of which may be to switch editing topics and ignore him completely. Or, create a new username, retire this one, and continue editing without telling anyone. These are drama-free options available to any user not under sanction who wishes to escape editors they don't get along with while still being able to edit. Invoking the nuclear option and delivering a tearful goodbye soliloquy are not. They are an attempt to gain the upper hand in a personal conflict by playing "up the ante", threatening to take your ball and go home and blaming the community for your inability to accept the less-dramatic dispute resolution options presented to you. I've read all your diffs in your conflict with Arcayne. I'm not taking a position on it; the community has already shown that your behavior is concerning. I'm asking you to stop, breathe and think before you make things worse. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Weel, you've been heard from. How about some admins, now? People who can actually comment on the fact that he's stalked, he's bee nasked to not stalk me, and has bragged that he hasn't stopped. This is really simple stuff. That I was blocked in now way invalidates the problem I'm asking be addressed. That you see anything I say as drama shows me you're really not worth addressing here anymore, and your attempt to spin this into some bigger drama is your choice. I'm asking for him to be told, flat out to stop.

And your suggestion that I 'reinvent myself' is moronic. Were I to do that, and a new editor shows up on the pages I'm interested in and have been working on, then who I am is easily revealed. Addressing the problem head on is far more mature, regardless of your opinion that being sneaky and passive-aggressive is better. By the way, I HAVE switched topics. I've already dropped articles from my watchlist to avoid him. Am I expeceted to continue to do so? ALl he has to do, now that ChrisLK02 has enabled his behaviors, is constantly follow me all over the project, which he's shown tonight he's willing to do. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that harassment complaints should be taken seriously. If the allegation is true, there are appropriate responses. If the allegation is false, there are appropriate responses. If the investigation reveals that the parties involved need to make an effort to stay away from each other, then that also seems a reasonable outcome. Recommending that frustrated users simply create new accounts, strikes me as being rash, not to mention insensitive. I just hope if I'm ever harassed or feel that I'm being stalked, someone will take my complaint a little more seriously. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, harassment complaints should be taken seriously. I took a quick glance, and I see Arcayne on User talk:ThuranX, sounding reasonable, and I see ThuranX here, making wild accusations and generally behaving like a petulant child. If ThuranX wants to be taken seriously, he needs to act like a reasonable adult. Friday (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an adminstrator response ThuranX - stop wildly accusing others of bad faith, and accept that you are responsible for your own conduct, and that conduct is expected to fall within certain norms, telling other users to "fuck off" isn't within that. You and only you are the determiner of your conduct and your Wikipedia experience.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another admin take, since you asked: Thuranx, you're a very helpful editor but you're too rude, which is hurtful more often than you think and stirs up other editors into watching you more carefully and speaking their minds about... your rudeness. WP:Civil sometimes seems like it was grown in the cabbage patch but there are reasons why it has so much support on en.Wikipedia. If you need to lose your temper, ok, wonderful, yell at the display, or whatever, but please don't share it with us through an edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These aer both interesting responses about me, but neither speaks to the issue I've specifically asked about. Will an admin tell Arcayne to stop stalking me? I haven't said 'no one better get in my way', what I have said is, and I restate it here. One user has stated his intent to be a one man gestapo force against me, reporting anything he feels I do out of sorts, all the time. He's not an admin, and has a block history longer than mine, as well as well-established issues with constant harassment of other users here. Will any admin tell him to mind his business? there's an entire community here who can bring me here if I offend them, the odds of my never being caught if the number of people who can report me is all but one. I have no confidence in his ability to be reasonable, neutral or responsible in these actions. He's made it quite clear that he sees himself as an arbiter and connoisseur of my behavior and personality, which shows he's incapable of doing anything but maintaining a campaign of harassment if allowed. He's begun coming to pages I work and commenting up the talk pages, and I expect he'll do more and more if he isn't flat out warned not to. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are UK Wikipedians being proxied again?

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action

As a FYI it appears Be Unlimited and 02 are proxying again as a result of WP:IWF. See: User talk:89.167.221.131 and here. Not sure whether another one of our pages has been blocked by the IWF.... but Be Unlimited and O2 are going through one IP it appears... D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think this proxying is IWF related? — neuro^(talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be enough activity coming from that IP for all that traffic to be being proxied through the one IP. I suspect it's possible that the IP is just saying that to try and then claim that "it wasn't me" when they're blocked for vandalism (which they have just been)..._Gb^T/c 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoning Be now. — neuro^(talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A lot of edits from the past few hours, some good faith not good not, hence I think that multiple users are being proxied..... D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that I'm coming through this proxy, a different one from the one I was coming through before as well. Brilliantine (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proxying confirmed (they didn't say yes, they didn't say no, but from what I have heard from them and various people both on and off Wikipedia it is occurring), requested IWF comment on affiliation or lack thereof, apparently they will get back to me in office hours. — neuro^(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pass the salt, then, my hat's just coming to the boil. _Gb^T/c 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Contacted 5 people I know to be using Be, all on that IP. Definite. — neuro^(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Talk doesn't appear to be proxying at the moment (I've just checked) - don't know if it's a technical error with Be/O2 or whether a specific URL hasn't propagated to other ISPs systems. Nick (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey. Has anyone from the impacted ISPs checked virgin killer? Assumeing they are sticking with their no blocks widely disributed material locateing the targeted image could be tricky.Geni 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

appears virgin killer is visible. So this could be a problem.Geni 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Killer is indeed visible, both on Be, O2, and from what I can tell, nothing is wrong with me on BT. — neuro^(talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IP is still proxied on commons for Be customers. — neuro^(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the third comment in a row, but is appears that the proxying is active on most if not all WMF sites, but only WMF sites. — neuro^(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Four in a row -_-, secure servers are non-proxied. — neuro^(talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just chipping in to save Neuro from setting a world record in talking to himself, and also to confirm that BT isn't being proxied. Black Kite 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been no contributions as far as I can see from any of the other proxy IP addresses previously used. Brilliantine (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a Virgin Media connection, from within the UK. I just checkusered myself and I am not editing through a proxy; I've had the same IP since 5th December. For the record, the secure server was always a method of circumventing the IWF block, so it doesn't surprise me that it continues to be one now. --Deskana (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't checkuser yourself in public ;) ♪BMWΔ 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much we can do until we get more info. Only one ISP so could be a technical glitch but we shall see.Geni 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Two ISPs, unless I'm mistaken. I doubt it is a technical glitch. — neuro^(talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I recall those two use the same cleenfeed derived system and servers. Other ISPs use different servers.Geni 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Be is owned by o2 Telefonica. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The blocked IP hasn't edited it's own talk since 18:10, which suggests to be that the proxying was temporary, and may have stopped? Can someone check? D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative, still operational. — neuro^(talk) 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Telewest not affected, yet anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage the wp developers to get involved with this, adding code to detect this proxying and redirect all requests from IWF'd users through the secure server, including either installing a wildcard certificate on *.wikipedia.org or (if necessary, as I seem to remember there may have been a technical problem with using wildcards the obvious way) rewriting all outgoing wikipedia urls to use secure.wikimedia.org's mangled wikipedia url's. It's not just a censorship issue, it's also a privacy one since a creepy operation like that is likely to also be monitoring people's surfing habits. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TalkTalk is OK for me. This has to be seen as a puzzle at the moment. It may be a technical problem unless evidence can be found that Wikipedia content is being blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this is still ongoing on the IP mentioned above as of a few minutes ago. I suppose it is possible that it may have been done in error. Brilliantine (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable as it may seem, UK users of Wikipedia may be being proxied again. TalkTalk has revived one of the proxies in the 62. range on 7 January 2009, see [12]. Hopefully our friends at the Internet Watch Foundation are not playing silly b***s again, but things are now looking worrying. I am going to contact Jimbo about this. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this was how it happened last time - gradually. Maybe the WP:IWF page needs updating? At least only two of the previously used IPs are active so far. Brilliantine (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to WP:OR issues, there is a need for caution here. There is still a possibility of a technical problem, although things are more worrying than yesterday. I have e-mailed the IWF for a comment (although I am not expecting a reply). However, if they are proxying for any reason, they will not be able to keep the lid on it any more than they were over Virgin Killer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant the informational page rather than the article. Brilliantine (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They might be able to since this time we have no idea what is being filtered.Geni 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TalkTalk is filtering Wikipedia again. It has been running like a dog today, and Special:Mytalk is showing one of their proxy IPs. Secure server is running fine though. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm is there anyone who might tell us what is being hit? Doesn't appear to be any of the ususal suspects. so unless someone can do a complete autoscan not much we can do.Geni 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past few minutes I have been able to try a Virgin Media cable connection, and it appears to be OK. TalkTalk was fine yesterday, but is apparently being proxied through just one IP address at 62.24.251.240 today. Jimbo has asked me to contact Mike Godwin. Can anyone else report in on other ISPs?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to our previous IWF contact asking them to confirm or deny whether we've been blacklisted again.MikeGodwin (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, my phone is going to melt again. I've emailed a link to this thread to the Open Rights Group list and wikimediauk-l, seeing who can confirm or deny this one - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Media fine at the moment. I'll update the WP:IWF page as necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone using Demon around? If so, are you being proxied? As I recall, Demon were the only ISP last time round that were honest about what they were doing (giving a message saying the page had been censored rather than a generic error message) so they may be a good source of information this time around as well. Trying lots of potentially questionable pages and seeing if any of them come up with the error message would be one approach, but simply phoning them may work better. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is being proxied, please leave a comment here as before. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on Demon and I'm not currently being proxied. Davorg (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's a question: if en.wikipedia.org is being proxied ... is upload.wikimedia.org? That was the IWF's stunning incompetence last time - they blocked text pages talking about the image, but ... didn't block the image itself - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you tell, since it isn't a wiki and you can't use Special:Mytalk? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That it's leading to serious performance problems on Talk Talk gives a clue - if upload.wikimedia.org is dazzlingly fast ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case, no - it is working at normal speed. en.wp on the other hand... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My ISP has also been like treacle, and AAISP promise no filtering. I suspect this is unconnected. Secretlondon (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is unsure: Here is how to check if you are being proxied when visiting Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the IWF, apparently

Mike Godwin asked the IWF if Wikipedia was in any way being blacklisted, and the IWF representative responded by saying there is no Wikipedia entry on the IWF URL list.

Secretlondon notes above that A&A (who are vehemently anti-filtering) are seeing bad performance on Wikipedia. Secretlondon also noted on wikimediauk-l that the extreme porn law comes into force tomorrow ...

So what on earth is going on? - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are any number of Wikipedia articles that could be causing the problem. Dnepropetrovsk maniacs caused a flap recently, but currently contains no shock site material. However, the plot thickens if the IWF has issued a denial and obvious proxying is occurring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess our only option at the moment is to contact the affected ISPs and ask them. I think someone already tried and got pretty much nowhere, but it wouldn't hurt to try again. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say technical fault if it was just one ISP and just for a short time. However, there are now at least two ISPs involved - one which has been proxied for a few days now... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly was godwin's question phrased? Otherwise nothing suggests there is an issue at our end [13].Geni 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So we have 4 options. 1)very odd glitch. 2)ISPs acting of their own accord. 3)Someone else can add stuff to the cleenfeed list 4)IWF is (deliberately or otherwise) giveing out false information. I think we have to ask the ISPs.Geni 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the site slowdown is just random internet issues. Yesterday an ATM switch broke cutting my net off all day, and twitter had 30 minutes of lag etc. Those two ISPs could be using the same Cleanfeed-like implementation - afaik they are all different rather than one opt-in system. It could just be a technical fault. It would be very interesting if there was another list they are subscribing to covering the new extreme pornography legislation. Who would run it? Secretlondon (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IWF but 1) that shouldn't kick into the 26th and 2)unless applied verly liberaly that law shouldn't impact us.Geni 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Secretlondon, if it was an internet glitch, it wouldn't lead to all members of Be and all members of TalkTalk being forced through two transparent proxies... unless the same glitch has occurred on both ISPs (highly unlikely I think). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They could be buying in the same service from a third party. Secretlondon (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

62.24.251.241 is back active (TalkTalk) - I suggest we keep an eye on this list of IP's for any new activity. D.M.N. (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference - the TalkTalk Members thread regarding WP filtering. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is doing this should bear in mind that Wikipedia has a HTTPS server capability. Using this facility makes proxying ineffective, as the Virgin Killer affair showed. Unfortunately, the TalkTalk proxying is now a racing certainty, so WTF is going on here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:89.167.221.131 (O2) is active and was blocked for vandalism. I've unblocked but please revert. How do we manage these? Secretlondon (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't we usually soft-block and block account creation, with a warning that the whole ISP is being filtered? - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here is an example. BTW, I'm still trying to work out what material Wikipedia could be hosting that is worth this type of filtering, which is sophisticated and reminiscent of Cleanfeed. Wikipedia's content is hosted under state of Florida law, and is not likely to break UK law either, as the Virgin Killer affair showed. Is someone looking for a knighthood here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some strange things being "trialed", sometimes covertly, in the UK at the moment. One of them is the Phorm initiative. This involves ISPs letting Phorm monitor users' internet behaviour in order to target adverts to them. I know nothing of the technicalities of how this is done, but merely mention it because one way this could end up being done, might, it seems to me, have the effects noted here. TalkTalk have been associated with the Phorm initiative in the past. In other words, although it was an IWF connection before, it may not be in this case. As I said, I know little about this, but wonder if someone with more knowledge might do a quick scan of relevant documents to see if there could be a possible influence here. Some refs (may not be the best): [14] [15][16]  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone, somewhere knows why this is being done. Personally, I doubt whether market research or advertising would require the setting up of a transparent proxy, as websites (including Wikipedia) already know who visited, and when, and which pages were visited. As the Virgin Killer row showed, the main effect of proxying the connection is to slow it down to a crawl or screw it up completely. The IP addresses involved have also been associated with the Cleanfeed system in the past. It's still early days, but this matter cannot be allowed to drop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On Be's forum (must be logged in as a Be member to view) a staff member says "We've had confirmation from the IWF that there is indeed nothing on wikipedia they are blocking. It seems to be a technical problem, which we are working to resolve asap." MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures

The developers restricted signature length to 255 characters, isn't that reason enough? It seems as though we have policy on this, although we don't, precisely as to what policy means on WP, ie, a page listing the rules we have here. Currently we have signature guidelines, but no real policy as far as I can see, unless you interpret the fact that the devs limited the sig length to 255, and they probably had a damn good reason for that.

Continuing on, it seems to me that many interpret this guideline as policy, but there is no real enforcement unless someone randomly spots that this user or that user is circumventing what is noted on the page using a /sig subpage to substitute their signature wherever they sign.

As far as I have also seen, when issues with this are brought up, either people are forced to change their signature, or others are let go. I know wikipedia may not be about fairness, but that just looks a tad off to me.

Do we or do we not have a problem with circumventing the 255 character limit? The devs sure did, so why don't we? If we do, then why don't we enforce it? Why do we let some get away and others are forced to change their signatures. I consider this a matter for admin attention as admins will mostly, in the case that people refuse, be the ones that enforce it. In fact, admins are really the only people that enforce anything, all of us established users simply tag the ones who break, or come close to breaking policy, to alert them they are doing such, and if they continue, we run to the admins to take the appropriate action.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that depends - if someone has a signature with 270 characters it doesn't matter at all, but perhaps there's a slight problem if someone has a signature with 750 characters. We really don't need to worry at all about minor infringements on the limit and only even consider enforcement when people are really going overboard. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Well, this brings an idea to mind, how about we allow circumvention, but only to a degree, ie, we set a limit on signature length, as besides the technical length. As you said, people aren't going to enforce minor infringements, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 11:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just like a cop not enforcing 45 in a 35 zone ... waiting for the "big fish". Unfortunately, it's like one day you steal a pen from the office. Then stapler. Then a package of paper. Oh look, that ink cartridge fits my printer at home. Oh look, I need a new printer at home. Tacit acceptance of violations lead to further violations. An editor with a history of flouting the rules and policies does not a good editor make. ♪BMWΔ 11:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it's not a big deal at all and makes hardly any difference to how Wikipedia functions then I doubt there will be a single admin willing to block somone for going 20 characters over the limit. It does not get in the way of building an encyclopedia having a slightly long signature. That said, there may be concern if someone signature is 200/300 over the limit because it makes the edit screen cluttered in discussion - in that case enforcement may be needed (although I reckon it would be hard to get a consensus). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular signature that you find problematic Daedalus? If so, then we can gladly discuss it. If not, then perhaps this thread isn't that useful. If you feel strongly about it, then perhaps you might consider starting Wikpedia:Requests for comment/Signature size. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to draw a line somewhere, that sig length should not exceed? And no, there is not, I had the problem of one of my past signatures being substed, and then the page I was using was called up for deletion. I went to the MfD, seen here, where the general consensus was to delete, but the MfD was withdrawn because the user who filed it did so in regards to a specific user, but then the user shortened their sig.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My signature is substed, I don't think this causes any problem :). However I do believe that if a sig is too long, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis (There are no guidelines as of the allowed colors and sizes either, and I'm pretty sure we don't want to make an other policy banning every green and pink signature there is :P) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a limit of 31? --NE2 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the technical reason, if any, for a limit of 255 vs. some larger number? Or smaller? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Geeks love powers of two. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All I want is a limit defined as disruptive, as apparently anything longer than 255 isn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's not really a technical reason, it's just a nuisance in edit mode. Seems like someone should be able to fit their signature into 255, which seems generous as it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about m:DICK as a canonical policy we can all subscribe to here? In the edit window on my PC, Daedalus' signature runs to three lines, his comment to just under one. So 75% of his comment above is pure overhead. Is that enough to be disruptive? Ask anyone trying to use a mobile device. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fuddy duddy on this one. I don't think anyone should be allowed to customize their sig in any way. It looks good, but it is annoying as hell when trying to read through comments in the editing frame. Just a lot of white noise. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For those wondering:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor

...that is 255 characters. I would think using the above as a sig would be unacceptable, much less to try and have one larger than that. I think the hard and fast rule is the better way to go. If you can't say it in 255 characters, use a talkpage. Padillah (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts: a sig is not automatically appropriate because it's below a certain limit, nor is it automatically inappropriate because it's above a certain limit. Instead, a sig under community discussion is appropriate or inappropriate based on consensus reached about the applicability of both common sense and WP:SIG to the situation. A specific case of circumvention is just fine, so long as everyone agrees it is (a 1000-character sig would be A-OK if discussion decreed it so, although I seriously doubt this would ever happen). The developers made the technical limit 255 bytes because that's all that you can fit into a MySQL TINYBLOB, a database field for storing text. The next biggest size is a BLOB, which is 65535 bytes and obviously not appropriate for a sig. So, attempts to circumvent the limit using template substitution for an otherwise appropriate sig might be considered more of a problem with the software than with the individual using the sig. In other words, in and of itself it's not a problem (in my opinion!). Gracenotes^T § 14:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was sure a blob was bigger than that (4K) I've learned something today :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem, and one that I am guilty of as well. My visible sig can be 3 letters, but with 252 characters of coding around it. To the visible eye on a page, it's just there. To the edit page (or diff's view), it's freaking honkin' AND disruptive. On many boards, if you change your sig in one central location, it changes all previous iterations as well. In theory, having your sig in a template would do the same thing, and indeed might be smarter. However, at this point, Wikipedia's sig is in your preferences. It's limited to 255 characters. You want modifications, go to village pump or something. talk→  BMW  ←track 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

However, unsubsted templates would be an easy vandalism target and would hurt page rendering a lot :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's many 1000 character sigs that would be viewed as appropriate and necessary. Here's a question, how big is a username allowed to be? That should be reflected in this decision. Also, what about the possibilities of vandalizing a users sig template and affecting hundreds of talkpages? do that to two users and we've got trouble. Padillah (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why there's a bold Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature in the Preferences pages. If the said template is substed though, vandalism would only be visible on the next messages by that user. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't help but comment on the "prone to vandalism" comments here - you know you can create a faux CSS and subst it, and it will be automatically fully protected, right? — neuro^(talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that a substed template as a signature would actually be a plus in many cases, so long as you watch it for vandalism. Personally, I think that {{Subst:User:Username/Signature}} is way less disruptive than [[User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins|<span style="color:#FF0000">Inferno, </span>]] [[User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins|<span style="color:#FFA500">Lord of </span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Inferno, Lord of Penguins|<span style="color:#FFFF00">Penguins</span>]] 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC) to people editing pages. You also have to keep in mind what all that space is used for - in most cases, markup. If somebody wanted to, they could use preferences to make this:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

, which is extremely disruptive, both on the the talk page itself and to those editing it, and would be disallowed, despite being made in preferences. However, here is another example: AAA, AAA, AAA, AAA, AAA, AAA, AAA., which is over 255 characters, and is a lot less disruptive than my first example, the 255 A's. (Personally, I kinda want to subst my signature: a black backround would make the yellow penguins a lot less blinding to those who read it.) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When you subst you are still inserting the entire code for your sig, and long signatures are distracting in the edit window. And we can't allow signature transclusion for reasons explained elsewhere. –xeno (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the 255-char limit on signatures isn't to do with database storage; 255 bytes is the limit for a TINYBLOB, and the 255 character limit is too long for that if there's even a single non-ASCII character in the signature (which there often will be). IIRC, it was in response to a request a while back that the devs put some limit on to discourage long signatures; the previous discussion was [[17]] and here. --ais523 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here. --ais523 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help for a fellow Editor

Resolved

I'm posting on behalf of Yankees76, as this user fears they are being wikistalked by sockpuppets of Messenger2010 (talk · contribs). Here's the text he's asked me to post for help.

"I've asked another user who I trust to post this for Wikipedia administrators to read. Today after more than a year of protection, I asked for my user page to be unblocked, and within a few hours of having a user page, old personal information from 2006 was posted by a newly created user ‎Wanceez67. Since I had asked for my user page to be deleted, the only place that any information like this is still visible on Wikipedia is in the history of the user page of the the impersonator accout Yankaas76 (talk · contribs) who was blocked as a sockpuppet of Messenger2010 in 2006. Aside from myself, no one else would have access to this info and the only person who would know of the impersonator account would be the actual vandal themself. Is there anyway I can find out what active users have my user page on their watchlist? Or what other accounts use the same IP address the Wanceez67 account uses? What else can I do to avoid further harassment from this individual? This invasion of my privacy has me considering leaving this project completely. Please post any help you can give here -I'll read it and use another editor to reply." --Quartet 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New impersonator blocked indef, new edit deleted, and old info also deleted. A checkuser might be of use, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Should he be looking to see if ‎Wanceez67 is the same as Messenger2010 and User:Yankaas76? Will this also reveal other sockpuppets? Though I'm sure Yankees76 has gone through the checkuser process before, I've not been here as long and haven't needed to do one. I'm not sure if there's any evidence to support an RFCU as all the personal information and diffs have been deleted. --Quartet 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I gave it my best shot. It's located here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wanceez67--Quartet 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser's done, one more sock found and they're still looking. I think this is resolved for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry on Talk:William Timmons; copyvios by User:Rtally3

I think this should be looked into. A user Hazeldell97202 (talk · contribs) has appeared and his first edit was to an obscure talk page Talk:William Timmons to argue on the side of Rtally3 (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked for sockpuppeteering on that very page. It could be just a bizarre coincidence but it seems strange that this user would appear just now when Rtally3's block expired and when he began forum shopping to continue deleting the sourced material on the page that he was previously using sockpuppets to delete. (for evidence of forum shopping see his posts here, here, and here, which are all about this same exact piece of information that he wants to delete).

On another note, the user Rtally3 has created two pages, The Merrimack Manufacturing Company and The 1819 Strikes, which contain verbatim text copied from the book What Every Amercian Should Know about American History: 200 Events, as a simple google search shows. These pages should be deleted and the user warned about the Wikipedia policy on copyright. csloat (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update, the user has corrected the copyvio issue by changing the page and paraphrasing the one source he used; there are still major questions about notability, but the copyvio problem has been dealt with, I think. csloat (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for caring so much about me, csloat, but I'm afraid I'm not a sockpuppet. Just a bored academic at work, waiting out a snow storm. And I'm curious about why you two are so enthusiastic about this particular issue. Cheers, Hazeldell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeldell97202 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well anyone who agrees with rtally3 is obviously a sockpuppet. What is referred to as "forum shopping" I think was really just using the noticeboards for what they were designed to to -- gather second opinions about an editing dispute and possible policy violations. I think the responses to those posts justify the concern, and use of the RfC's. Rtally3 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When supposedly "new" users know too much about how wikipedia works, and go to specific topics and dive into specific debates, it raises reasonable suspicions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand who are you? Not sure why you're monitoring this all of a sudden, but csloat has enjoyed accusing me of hiding my identity by using different accounts for several months (afterall, there can't be THIS many people that disagree with him!). Anyone interested in the proliferation of the rumors surrounding Timmons over the years might become interested in the development of his WP page as his name surfaces, and in my opinion don't deserve to be "bitten" [18] for giving their opinions -- especially when they aren't even making edits. If a new user appeared who happened to agree with csloat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rtally3 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come off it; I haven't "enjoyed accusing you for several months" -- I noticed you were using socks; a checkuser proved it, and you admitted it! You were blocked for it, quite appropriately, and you admitted having a meatpuppet as well. The minute you come back, this other user shows up, registers, and dives right into a heated debate on an obscure talk page, making essentially the same argument as you. It may be a coincidence, it may be a meatpuppet, it may be a sock puppet. If it's a coincidence, I apologize for any offense I may have created by voicing my suspicion, but my suspicion was far from unreasonable. Cheers, csloat (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Juzhong

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British and Irish footballers who have played abroad before I change my mind. Juzhong (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, plaxico-ing are we? Looking at that discussion your behavior is atrocious; swearing, personal attacks, and then complaining that people are failing to respond to your concerns. I know some of those users and they would be willing to entertain your reasoning if it wasn't for the fact your reasoning is divided between non-policy based comments and those under the heading 'bad arguments to use in a deletion discussion'. Recommend an immediate block of Juzhong for rampant incivility. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness in making this report yourself, but I see no alternative to an enforced wikibreak. Given your history of aggressive interactions with other editors and previous civility block, I've blocked you for one month, and strongly suggest that if you decide to return you don't edit anything you have strong feelings about. If you can't maintain a degree of detachment from your editing, I'm afraid Wikipedia may not be the place for you. EyeSerene^talk 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to say that I agree with the block, thanks for going ahead and following through with it. Tavix (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Large backlog currently at WP:UAA

62 reports, plus whatever the bot has flagged up. Anyone fancy lending a hand? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK to me now. Every entry has been cleared or flagged. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd edit summaries by 4.240.165.56

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this user's edits. The edits appear to not be legitimate so I would normally revert, but it's the oddness of the edit summary that bothers me. Any advice?--A bit iffy (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's removing unsourced comments about cancer and heart disease. At least one of the comments is an immediate followup to a posting by an IP that the above IP claims is a sockpuppet. The comments are largely unsourced but the above IP is making unsourced claims in the edit summary. So which one is right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me (per WP:DUCK) as though the IPs that 4.240.165.56 is reverting are, in fact, indef blocked User:HarveyCarter, who seems to have a fixation about smoking. But, unless I'm missing something, HarveyCarter wasn't banned; and I thought that "revert edits on sight" applied only to banned, not blocked, users. (That said, the reversions all appear to be of unsourced information, so I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to stand.) Deor (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I usually get HC on filmstar-related articles, and he usually edits from a 92. range, which is AOL. Since I know of no admin who will unblock him, it seems he is de facto banned rather than de jure; accordingly, his edits are revertible on sight, since he usually cites offline material and has a history of citing trashy sources for those articles anyway. --Rodhullandemu 14:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the clarification - things make sense now.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Web forums using Wikipedia as a webhost

It seems that some web forum (or other social group on the web) is using Wikipedia as a webhost. There is a large group of users whose only contributions consist of creating and maintaining "Next Top Model" type games on various user pages. Per WP:USER and WP:NOTWEBHOST, these pages should probably be deleted and the users warned to find somewhere else to have their games hosted. In some cases, these games are being posted right into the middle of encyclopedia articles (a couple of examples here and here). Below is a partial list of the user pages involved. I started just blanking them, but when I realized how many there are, I decided to bring the situation to wider attention. I'm sure there are more users and user pages than what I list here, but these are just some that I found using the search box:

• User:S0oxclusziiv
• User:INTMC1
• User:Patrey14
• User:Ashlotte
• User:Randomxx
• User:Loopscale
• User:I'mDeadly
• User:Sims 2 next Top Model
• User:The FIERCE Top Model
• User:Kerumfetti
• User:More Than Models
• User:Model's Music
• User:NTSupermodel
• User:FuriousFierce
• User:ToRoNtO 1991
• User:ANTMFanatic
• User:Jjsntm
• User:Jsahdd
• User:Ch33tos
• User:Junjun19
• User:Girlychic101
• User:The Next Angel
• User:QMisAmazing
• User:Wtsmiley
• User:NnnxAlex
• User:CycleFive
• User:Holidayroad92/RealityTV
• User:Gilliganzeemo/Sandbox
• User:Holidayroad8/Survivor 2008
• User:Nico 777
• User:Potolino
• User:JJJayz
• User:ApexStrike
• User:Pumkinlov8
• User:Gabewannabe
• User:Gilliganzeemo
• User:S2NTM
• User:AnThononyian
• User:AtNTM1
• User:Xclusziivone
• User:Cutepongki
• User:Jhg812
• User:Scarlett1616
• User:RikkuRules
• User:Reneealldeway19
• User:Xclusziiv1
• User:Nico 777
• User talk:Elsolfoda
• User:FAB!AN
• User:Zeman_88888
• User:Num,3
• User:Sireafi

I will leave it up to you admins to decide what the best course of action is. Thanks for your assistance. Peacock (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Blimey - someone needs to nuke the lot. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a huge amount of this in numerous articles. A search for "call-out order", with all namespaces enabled, seems to find a lot of it. Should we warn then block, or just block, prior to deleting all the cruft? -- The Anome (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuke the material *first* otherwise, they can copy it offsite and then repost it. Nuking first will discourage a repeat performance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuke em all. Blanking will simply allow the material to be kept. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's all the userpages listed above nuked. I haven'r gone through the user contribs, so that won't cover any edits they've made to other pages. How much more of this is there?

Update: several more have been added since I started typing the above... -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it. (I added a couple more to the list if anyone want to get them, too) Peacock (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at a few of the IPs that have participated in this, 3 of them appear to be from the User talk:75.156.0.0/16 range that resolves to TELUS. Presumably at least some of this relates to Canada somehow? -- The Anome (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ‎

Two of the three school articles that had the bogus "call-out charts" added are for schools in School District 43 Coquitlam, British Columbia, so I'd say yes. Deor (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more: User:Ctamproductions, User:Jentaps, User:Winditup102990, User:FloralScents, User:RBG Host, User:Sundae Morning. Peacock (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted stuff, but I was able to get a quick look into a couple of them before they were deleted, but I would hazard a guess that this is a classroom exercise. I've seen at least one such "incident" before. If so, someone might want to see if they can contact the institution in question. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:RBG Host seems to be a central point for this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiped the latest batch. I am tending to think RBG Host is the nuclei of all this as well. Let us know if there are more. seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:Ngaraadhe, from whom there's a message on RBG Host's talk page. Deor (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are some (many?) of the current reality TV show articles fictitious?

The words "call-out order" also occurred in a number of Wikipedia's reality TV show articles. However, I ignored them, because they had real celebrity hosts and judges. However, the virtual "competitions" that are part of this ARG also use the names of real celebrities: how do we tell the difference? All of this makes me wonder how many of the reality TV articles here are completely fictitious...

http://www.rtvgames.com/ may have something to do with this, as well. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ProjectRunway_RTVG&oldid=261987482 .

See User:CoutureChameleon for another suggestion that at least some of this may be RTVG-related, eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3ACoutureChameleon&timestamp=20081211193257

Question: given the scale of this, which appears to be a concerted effort, should we now block all the users whose userpages are listed above? -- The Anome (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to go back and search but I remember pointing out a user that was doing something of this scale with various reality TV shows, first vandalizing the actual show pages, then doing it in their user space. That user was since blocked. Since this sounds like a coordinated effort, they should all be warned that they will be blocked if they do this again, which likely will filter to whatever external site they're communicating on. --MASEM 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look, please? It would be good to know the scale of this, since this has clearly been going on for months. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Bandsofblue (here was the second ANI with the link to the first). --MASEM 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My question also. These users have been on here for like 2 months. If there's a problem with what they're doing, why do they remain unblocked? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone realised what was going on, in terms of scale and apparent coordination, until about an hour ago. -- The Anome (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to block all these users without taking a closer look at each. A minority of them have been making at least a few contributions to reality TV related articles. Peacock (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to check that those edits were actually helpful, and that the reality TV shows and constituent episodes actually exist in the real world. -- The Anome (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) I've left User:RBG Host a note, since they seem to be central to much of this, and notified them of this thread. EyeSerene^talk 17:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In conversation with RTVgames forum members

Hi - I registered an account yesterday (and in a brainfart - registered Robert Roberts - mainly because I was watching Bob Roberts at the time) and am in conversation with forum members there - broadly, they didn't realise it was a problem and there should not be a repeat. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User edits solely to add external links

Resolved

 – User indefblocked

This may be a form of self-promotion. User Lesloid0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing with the apparent intention to add external links to toy articles. ←Spidern→ 15:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick WHOIS suggests that the linked websites are related. I've indefblocked the user in question. -- The Anome (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

Resolved

 – They be socked.

I have a suspicion that User:MiltonP Ottawa and User:Wayne Poirier are the same person. The latter account was created shortly after Milton vandalized another user's page and was blocked soon after. Both accounts share a similar User Page and both are involved with edits on old TV shows where both have been deleting "Trivia" (it was an argument over this that got Milton banned). The new account (Wayne) also jumped into accusations on my talk page in what seems to me a telling manner. Anyway, I don't know if this is enough to prove anything, just thought I'd bring it up. TastyCakes (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Gerardw (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An obvious sock of somebody, as he jumped right into a talk page debate out of the blue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ACOA Edits

User:Richhoncho has taken a series of extremely questionable actions on the ACOA article, including repeatedly marking major changes as minor, and making misleading changes to an article prior to a review. The original issue was the list of ACOAs. The entire list was been removed because it was unsourced. I provided citations for several of the entries and restored the list. Richhoncho removed the entire list again, including the properly sourced entries, and tagged it as a minor edit (see here).

I restored the cited entries only. Richhoncho then requested a third opinion and made a major change to the article, tagged as minor, and without discussion, that made it seem like it was about a particular organization, which it is not (see here). In fact, I had informed Richhoncho the previous day that the article was not about an organization (see here). This user is thus ignoring relevant discussion or feigning ignorance to justify inappropriate edits.

I would appreciate if an admin could review the edits I have linked to and take an appropriate action. --Elplatt (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please review all the edits, including talkpage. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Myspace guys..again

Resolved

 – Understood, it would seem. — neuro^(talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They popped up on Twinkle earlier. So I pointed them to WP:NOTMYSPACE. Then made it clear to the one that went to my talk page that they will be blocked if they continue.

Users are

• User:11vegeta11

and

• User:WaltDaMan

I also warned the IP that is in Walt's Userpage history. You guys can decide what to do. This is their second..or third warning from me (see em on Twinkle). Rgoodermote  16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Both users have been notified of this topic. Also, this is a continuation of an incident above. Rgoodermote  16:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't know my edits were agaist the rules. I never read your messages until the last one that Rgoodermote sent. Won't happen again. 11vegeta11 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I left you at least...3. Check your history. Plus, between you and Walt it seems you were both upset about the last warnings I sent you two line 1 (Not sure what they are talking about..seems to be the last warning I sent..not sure. Couldn't find Walt's reply). Enough is enough. get to editing and stop talking. Get a blog, go to a social website or make your own Wiki. Anywhere but on Wikipedia and it's sister projects. We are here to build an Encyclopedia. Not to fool around. You are allowed to make friends. Allowed to have conversations. But you have to be productive. Rgoodermote  16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Trollmann

Admin Daniel Case recently blocked Trollmann (talk · contribs) citing a username violation. The word "trollmann" is in fact a Norwegian noun with the meaning "wizard", and I therefore contacted Daniel Case about this block. Case explained that the reason he blocked the user was that he had created the article Digitroll, which was deleted as a non notable organization. He argued that since the username and the article both contain the substring "troll", this indicates that the username is promotional and should be blocked for a username violation. He also indicated that he would block a user called "Wizard" if that user created an article called "Software Wizardry".

I disagree with this assessment. The user only created the Digitroll article once, and assuming good faith, he may simply be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Since the username is a simple noun, I do not agree that it should be seen as promotional just because it shares a substring with an article the user created, as the username in itself does not promote anything. In my opinion, a much less newbie-biting course of action would be to inform the user that the article they created was deleted on grounds of non-notability, and welcome them to contribute in other ways. If he started re-creating the Digitroll article, he could then be blocked for spamming, not for a username violation that doesn't exist.

I have not come to an agreement with Daniel Case regarding this issue and would like some outside opinions on this block. Is he back? (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment, Trollman is also a German surname. DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the user in question has requested to be unblocked. How do we know they do not agree with Daniel's block reason and have created a new non-commercial username that they are merely not disclosing? MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit besides the point? --Conti|✉ 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the block was necessary, but unless this guy wants to be unblocked, I don't see that anything more needs to be done. Friday (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not actionable unless the user makes an unblock request.  Sandstein  18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that the new consensus? A block is not actionable unless there's an unblock request? Why are we even discussing Betacommand's unblock, then? --Conti|✉ 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify and extend my remarks from Is he back?'s talk page: This username is not blocked once and for all time. "Trollmann" would be a perfectly fine username for a Norwegian (or German, or Vietnamese for that matter) who wanted to edit articles about D&D or WoW or drumming or anything else but Digitroll. If someone wants to use it for those purposes in the future, or if the user says he wants to edit those subjects instead, I would be fine with that, as I assume many of the other UAA admins would be. It was one of those usernames where its validity depended on the use, and it failed that test. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By which, I assume I cannot edit articles about either the New Zealand artist, or the American geographical feature, which happen to share my name? DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you? My guess is that this was based on the observations that many accounts that match, or are derived from, the name of the article they seem to be interested in editing from the moment of creation are pretty much SPAs. I think by this time you've proved you have no ulterior agenda here, and no one would mind (I don't see how anyone could accuse you of a COI when editing an article about a natural feature ... I should have also included toponyms as one of those things there could not be a conflict of interest in). Whether a lot of usernames, for a lot of reasons, are allowed or not depend on how they are used, and we really only have the first couple of days worth of edits to make this call on. And, if the user really wants to do this, we do have username requests for comment so the community can decide these things if one admin's opinion isn't considered sufficient. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification by hypothetical example: Suppose that when I created my account, I had used my initials, DBC, as all or part of the name. If my first edits had been to Dead Brain Cells or Detroit Boat Club, I would have been blocked indefinitely then and there, at least if the username policy was applied then as it currently is. But if I had edited as I did when first opening my account, I would be here now as I am. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too stupid to get it, but what's wrong with a user named DBC editing the article Dead Brain Cells? I know of a bunch of users that are named after the topics they edit, and I don't see anything wrong with it. --Conti|✉ 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't take up the first part of your question (sorry, you set yourself up for that), but you fail to distinguish between users editing topic articles they share names with and users sharing names with organizations we have articles on. The former, such as, say, Baseball Bugs, who does indeed do baseball-related editing, cannot create a conflict of interest. But having organization-related usernames not only conveys a strong conflict of interest, many times it also implies a role account, which we don't allow. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that organization-related (and band-related, for what it's worth) usernames can imply a conflict of interest, but the result of such a username is not automatically a block. Rather, we should look at the edits of said user first. My point is that user DBC should not automatically be blocked when he edits Dead Brain Cells, he should be blocked when his edits consist of "Dead Brain Cells is the best band ever!!!". --Conti|✉ 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the way we've been doing things at UAA for some time now. The policy in those cases is to softblock, so they can easily create another account. I don't know whose idea this was, but everyone seems to be doing it that way. Might have to do with some discussions at COI, I don't know. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the part of your reasoning that I disagree with. The username policy says that promotional usernames "are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia". In my eyes, that means that the username itself has to be promotional, such as someone calling themselves "FubarSoftwareCompany". I don't see why someone creating an article called "Detroit Boat Club" should be treated harsher than others just because their username is "DBC". This approach is extremely newbie-biting: the users are blocked, with an explanation saying that their username is bad, when the real reason for the block is something else. If they had just received an explanation that their band or company is not notable enough to have an article, they might continue editing productively, without their username being any problem at all. If they then keep re-creating their article, or perform blatant spamming, then by all means block them. I would go as far as to say that blocks like these, based on a flimsy assumption that the user will not edit productively, are the exact opposite of assuming good faith. Is he back? (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It really sounds as if your complaint is less with my action so far than a perceived lack of clarity about this in the underlying policy. If that's so, then I suggest we remove this discussion to WT:UN. The only other thing I will say is that, re good-faith assumptions about new users and their names, taking a name with some apparent connection to the subject of the only article the user seems to be interested in editing, no matter how otherwise productive their edits, is extremely prejudicial (to say the least) to other editors' ability to assume good faith on their part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Aparna rajesh (again)

I came here a few weeks ago regarding persistant and long term problems with this user (discussion here) which include text copied from other websites and apparent nonsense edits (these take the form of links to random films placed in the plot summaries of other unrelated film articles). This resulted in edits being cleaned up and User:Either way issuing a final warning for the copyvios ([19]). In response, Aparna rajesh posted apologies on both mine and Either way's talk pages ([20], [21]) promising never to do this again. A few days after this, User:Dekkappai picked up on the nonsense edits, and (after briefly discussing the issue with myself) posted a futher comment about this on Aparna rajesh's talk page ([22]), though by then I rather hoped this issue might have been settled. Apparently not.

Aparna rajesh recommenced this same pattern of editing on 2 January, with a copvio in Naanayam ([23], plot summary copied from [24]) and several nonsense edits ([25] & [26]). I nearly came back here then, though I merely undid these edits and gave another warning ([27]). But it seems that my goodwill is misplaced, and I'm just wasting my time. Earlier today, Aparna rajesh made more of these nonsense edits ([28] & [29]) and yet another copyvio in A Bloody Aria ([30]; plot summary appears on a number of other websites, but seems to originate from here, p.89).

Aparna rajesh has been on Wikipedia for over 18 months, which is more than enough time for him to be familiar with our basic guidelines and policies. His talk page history shows that he has been informed and warned about problem edits innumerable times, and yet these problems continue. As my own efforts seem to be futile, I would appreciate some further assistance with this user. PC78 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef block, no way about it. The user has constantly made counterproductive edits despite multiple warnings from multiple users, and has been here far too long for it to be excused as some kind of teething problem. Shorter blocks are not going to be helpful; if he is unwilling to pay attention to multiple warnings then short blocks are, I feel, going to have the same effect (goes off, comes back later presumably when he hopes people have stopped paying attention). Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive and useful report. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent copyright violations and nonsense edits. A clear-cut case, I should say. If I am wrong or if this needs more discussion, feel free to unblock.  Sandstein  18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the thread, I was just about to do the same. As you say, clear-cut; good block. EyeSerene^talk 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Review of Prophaniti's one-week block

Resolved

 – Blocking admin consented to unblock.  Sandstein  09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in content disputes with other editors about the classification, by musical genre, of various musicians. For her edits in the course of these disputes, she was today blocked for a week by Swatjester (talk · contribs), who gave "disruptive editing across multiple articles" as the block reason.

As the administrator reviewing her unblock request, I disagree with this assessment. While Prophaniti did use reverts, she does not appear to have edit warred or otherwise disrupted Wikipedia, and appears to have used talk pages in a productive manner (see e.g. here). I am also concerned that prior to the block, Swatjester reverted Prophaniti's edits to at least one article subject to the dispute ([31]) and also reverted her talk page comment for no reason that I can see ([32]). This may have made him party to the dispute, after which he should - per WP:BP#Disputes - not have blocked her.

I may, of course, have overlooked something. That's why - after asking Swatjester to comment - I am asking the community to take a look at the case and determine whether Prophaniti's actions merited a week-long block. Her unblock request is on hold in the meantime.  Sandstein  17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you know better. Reverting vandalism (edit warring deletion of sourced content) does not make one a party to a dispute, nor does a single edit to a page. And if you're asserting there is no edit warring, you obviously have not looked at the user's contributions, which I've kindly provided for you below. He/she has come close to the 3RR on several pages in the last couple of days. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the diffs you provide, but "edit warring against consensus" is not vandalism as defined in WP:VAND.  Sandstein  18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit by Swatjester looks a bit worrying, too. Striking out other user's comment because you disagree with them is definitely not appropriate. --Conti|✉ 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The block doesn't seem justified on it's face, and yeah- that diff is quite a concern. I recommend unblocking for now, since this looks pretty questionable. Swatjester should explain himself, but I don't see a need to leave Prophaniti blocked in the meantime. Friday (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of support below. Striking a talk page comment that is a blatantly wrong statement of policy intended to confuse other editors is perfectly acceptable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking a talk page comment has never been perfectly acceptable, even if it is blatantly wrong. And in this case, it's not even that. --Conti|✉ 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, my experience on this project has shown otherwise. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm on vacation and flying across the country today, so I'll be in and out of contact. Prophaniti has a history of edit warring on music related articles. When I came across the lostprophets article, Prophaniti was edit warring there by removing a cited source (one that we use across the project), and their last dozens of edits were all reverts across several articles. Prophaniti was not communicating with anyone, was blatantly ignoring talk page consensus and making misleading proclamations on the talk page like "No, it doesn’t matter if editors have previously come to a consensus, sorry, but sources overrule editors every time." and "You could have 1000 editors behind you, it doesn’t matter." This is extremely worrying behavior from someone who has shown themselves willing to ignore our policies against edit warring in order to get their POV across. Let me reiterate, we've blocked this editor 3 previous times for precisely the same behavior, and after I warned him, he gave indications that he would continue the conduct the next day, and then did so. That is the very definition of disruptive behavior. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Diff support: removing sourced material, removing sourced material, misapplying policy, edit warring, refusing to discuss with other editors, removal of sourced material, more removal, example of the POV pushing he has been doing across articles, and here as well, edit warring, and here, same thing against consensus, Oh look, another edit war, edit warring on the same thing against talk page discussion with ridiculous reasoning, undiscussed removal of sources, more band genre edit warring, more edit warring edging on 3RR, etc. Why is this even needing discussion? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These diffs do indicate a certain single-mindedness, but (maybe because I know nothing about the subject matter?) I'm not certain whether we should call it edit warring. Where Prophaniti uses arguments, they are prima facie reasonable ones, about the reliability of sources and so forth. What do others think?  Sandstein  18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A moot point, but the arguments were not prima facie reasonable in some cases, such as "XXX is not a valid source" without any reference as to why it is not. We have the reliable sources noticeboard, or article talk pages, to develop consensus on that. For instance, removing all reference to something that only takes up about 6 words does not fall under the meaning of undue weight. It's simply not what the policy covers. I could make the same edits that he made and cite "WP:NPA" as the reasoning, but that policy would have nothing to do with the actual edits on the page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting on a plane to Atlanta in 20 minutes. I'll ask that nobody unblock until I get back, if this needs to be further discussed (which it really shouldn't). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the diffs you cite look to me like an editor making reasonable attempts to identify musical genres based on sources. If there's edit warring in there, sure, that's a problem. A week seems excessive tho, and I don't agree at all with the stance of "I'm going away, don't touch anything". This is a collaborative project. No single editor should ever hold things up if it can be avoided. Given your response here, I'm not very willing to trust your judgement on this issue. Friday (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And we don't overrule other admin's actions without full consultation with them first. We routinely give admins who are traveling or otherwise unable to comment, the benefit of a chance to respond in full. As to whether you are willing to trust judgment, I'm not sure where that came from, but it's certainly not called for, nor does anything regarding my judgment follow from this thread. Regardless, there is edit warring in there, spread across dozens of articles. A week is not excessive given the prior three blocks for the exact same behavior were three days. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd tentatively support an unblock based on the above. The editor's comments don't seem to me to be unreasonable, and in fact look like a willingness to engage in debate. I'm also not certain what's wrong with the statement "sources overrule editors" - that sounds spot on to me. EyeSerene^talk 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing that is wrong with "sources overrule editors", as I'm sure you know very well, is that it is generally used to justify editing against consensus. Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I should clarify: verifiability is the only justification we have for article content. If editor consensus regarding an article is not supported by a preponderance of reliable sources, the consensus can legitimately be challenged. Of course I agree that there are proper and improper ways to do that, and tendentious use of WP:VERIFY, WP:UNDUE etc should never be used as an excuse for wilful disruption. However, I read Prophaniti's "sources overrule editors" as challenging a (mis?)perception on their part that editor consensus was being used to disregard what the sources said. EyeSerene^talk 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to contributors: Prophaniti intends to comment on this matter; please see User talk:Prophaniti#Blocked for any arguments she may make.  Sandstein  18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that Prophaniti admits that he was wrong and got carried away on the article, I'll support a lift of the block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be settled, then. I'll undo the block.  Sandstein  22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a perfectly clean block to be honest, but seeing as how this was settled, can someone close this thread? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Setanta747

I was directed this way by an admin who refused to act due to a "conflict of interest." This user is engaging in Tendentious editing over at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and has broken the 3RR rule, ignoring an attempts on my part to start a discussion on his talk page. (He is simply reverting those too.) The user has performed over 12 reverts on this page over the same matter and refuses to engage in discussion. He has been blocked before for this type of behaviour and has not learned to either stop edit warring or stop tendentious editing. He has also started edit warring at The Twelfth and regularly edit wars in order to push his own pov. Can he please be blocked, so that the disruptive editing can stop?78.16.30.201 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Very odd, this dispute, but Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in longterm edit warring at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution (edit | [[Talk:User:Keithgreer/User Devolution|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and has already been blocked in the past for editwarring on templates. I've blocked him for 48 hours without first notifying him of this thread, since he apparently does not want to be contacted about this. The reporting IP is likely another of the longterm edit warriors on that page; I've blocked it for 24 hours.  Sandstein  18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and the contribs of User:O Fenian and the IPs involved (78.16.233.121, 78.16.36.214 and 78.16.30.201), I'm hearing some quacking. However, I'm concerned that Setanta747 seems to be unable to leave it up to User:Keithgreer as to whether or not they agree with the change to their userbox, and at the obsessive behaviour demonstrated in edit-warring over such a politically-charged subject as the flag of Northern Ireland given Setanta747's previous record in this area and their awareness of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I have no argument with the IP 3RR block, but I think there may be a case for reinstating Black Kite's 1-week block on Setanta747 (which was provisionally unblocked early). EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I edit from British Telecom IPs, not ones in Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? BT Ireland have BT ips in Ireland, and have been used by Wikipéire (talk · contribs) in the past. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not in Ireland. Given the tendentious, incorrect, and sometimes offensive Loyalist-agenda driven edits that Setanta747 makes, it is hardly surprising more than one Irish person may revert him. O Fenian (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that O Fenian is not Wikipeire. (This is per a private Checkuser I asked for about various issues in this area) SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though being involved I won't re-instate the block myself, that needs to be done by an uninvolved admin. It is certainly actionable under the remedies of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like modifying another admin's actions without very good reason, so I've asked Sandstein if he'll take another look at the block length. And I apologise to O Fenian for apparently putting two and two together and making five (some of Wikipeire's socks were in the 78.16.xx range though, so maybe that was the quacking I heard!). EyeSerene^talk 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the relevant ArbCom remedy or other sanction that Setanta747 violated through his conduct? The link by Black Kite above goes to a proposed decision.  Sandstein  19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He is on probation according to this log, and he has also been edit warring on The Twelfth to restore his version, 1, 2, 3. O Fenian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the log O Fenian has linked to shows a one-year probation from April 2008, and also has two previous rv blocks recorded (for 48 and 72-hours respectively). I know I'm being lazy by not providing diffs, but ctrl+F 'setanta747' on the page will get you to the relevant posts. EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm from continental Europe, so bear with me: how is User:Keithgreer/User Devolution related to The Troubles? It seems to be about the UK, not Ireland. – With respect to the Twelfth edit warring, I don't think a lengthening of the block is needed at this point, but I won't object to other admins lengthening it.  Sandstein  19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the edit-war has been over substituting various images of the Flag of Northern Ireland into a userbox. The flag issue is politically-charged, mainly because the various flags used over the years have become associated with sectarian positions and are therefore held by some parts of the community not to represent other parts. EyeSerene^talk 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm not convinced that the block needs extending at this point, but if he keeps this up after it expires, then by all means.  Sandstein  20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?--Tznkai (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked Setanta747 for 1 week, per the above (thanks Sandstein!). EyeSerene^talk 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• All right, I'm still not objecting to someone else lengthening it.  Sandstein  20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmi Hugh on Proprietary protocol

Re: repeated deletion of sourced material. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. To me, it seems the user doesn't like the information in the source he is deleting. I have suggested supplying evidence to support his position on the talk page, but that hasn't happened yet so it seems like he's pushing WP:OR. Any advice appreciated. pgr94 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits controversially in a repeated manner is vandalism. Block Jimmi Hugh. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits controversially is not vandalism: in Wikipedia vandalism is narrowly defined as changes that are made with the deliberate intent of making an article worse. Reverting edits controversially is edit warring—which is also against the rules. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you Looie. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way, that's a pretty good edit war that Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) and Pgr94 (talk · contribs) have engaged there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither Jimmi nor Pgr94 is over 3RR yet. It would be good to have more than two people working on this article. Maybe they can use WP:3O to get an outside view. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the kind words. I always appreciate an editor who can take my perfectly valid reasoning, and instead of disagreeing with me head on, accuses me of vandalism and now of pushing a point of view, an accusation that hurts and irritates me to no end; despite the fact that I deleted the same section when it was pro-open standards and when it was pro-closed standards, because I'm simultaneously pushing both points of view. It all makes complete sense to me. My point of course being, my edits were perfectly valid (so far as conflicting edits go), whether you agree with them or not, and the reason I refused to waste my time on long discussions is that on the three previous occasions, you simply refuted me with the same incorrect points I'd argued before until you simply stopped upon realising you couldn't get your way. The second reason was due to the fact you accused me of vandalism, and I really don't want to argue with someone about policy, when they don't even know policy. So, on with the blocks, I assume it will be for both editors, and not simply the one who didn't go running to the admins first, and that Arbiteroftruth was joking, having actually bothered to check the edit history before making comment on blocking someone. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange messages by IPer

User:198.163.53.11 is asking the following question on many user talk pages in the past few minutes: "Is what is happening here what I think is happening here?" It refers to an RfC on Planetary habitability. Smells spammy to me. Willking1979 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped for the moment, but if he continues a block would be in order. He continued to post no less than nine times after the warning. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An unprotected image is displayed on the main page

Resolved

 – fixed Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:1906 Patrie gondola bow.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Thanks. John254 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image now protected locally, and at Commons. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting to be like deja vu. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot is what we need, but it looks like East is on break. rootology (C)(T) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor censoring and vandalizing another’s posts

Resolved

 – Both editors given useful advice, life goes on.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And editor, User:Earle Martin keeps on deleting my posts,[38] which are clearly not abusive personal attacks. Here is the post he deleted (in case he deletes it again). Please, this kind of behavior can’t continue. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd distortion of events. First, a torrent of abusive language, [39], which was partially removed by User:Ryoung122 and fully by me. Ryoung122 left Greg L a request on his talk page not to use such language, [40], which was summarily deleted by Greg L with the comment "grow up", [41]. Greg L restored a slightly less offensive but still inappropriate version of his comment, with the addition of a threat ("don't dare revert me again"), and accusing other editors of being childish, [42]. I removed it again and left a mild warning, [43]. Greg L restored his comment again, claiming it was not abusive, and accusing me of vandalism, [44].

The entire tone of Greg L's comments was rude, aggressive and totally inappropriate, and I stand by my removal of them. I was already on my way over to investigate filing a user RfC when I learnt of his comments here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg, while I'm not sure your posts are personal attacks (since they're not personally directed at anyone), they are....hold on I'm trying to think of the word....aggressive? Irascible? Certainly not civil. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the removal, but I grant that my opinions on talk page refactoring are slightly more liberal than the norm. Regardless of the merits of doing so in the first place, it's pretty clear that Earle Martin isn't helping the situation (even if he is right), and it's probably better to just let the comments stand and the situation die, rather than be continually inflamed with an edit war.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether they are personal attacks or not, instead of deleting the comments, the correct response of Earle would be to simply file a WP:WQA and let a neutral third party decide instead of taking matters into your own hands. I am against any kind of removal of talk page comments, unless there is a consensus for removing the content (usually at WQA). Tavix (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let’s be clear on the facts: what he deleted (here) was not a personal attack nor was it as he claimed: “abusive”. It was simply “aggressive” in tone. So what? If he felt that way, he can try to shame me by telling me so. As I advised Earle with my first edit summary, “the proper response to bad speech is better speech”. Not even an admin on a power trip can just start deleting posts he disagrees with unless they are an outrageous personal attack on someone. You step in to protect others who can’t defend themselves. You don’t act like you’re one of Red China’s Internet *thought police* Greg L (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying if it was a personal attack or not (I didn't read the whole thing, it's pretty lengthy). All I'm saying that if he thought it was a personal attack, he should have taken it to WQA to get a second opinion of what to do. Tavix (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to review this situation by Ryoung122 and I pretty much agree with Swatjester. Greg L, the debate is getting a little bit heated and, while I can completely understand why you would be upset, it's probably just best to learn from this... I might also recommend taking at least 5 minutes between writing your comments on the issue and hitting the show preview button... I myself have had many instances where I've hit that button and found myself regretting or justifying that decision in less than half an hour, even when I was 99.9% certain that that was what I wanted to say. I'm no prude, I swear like a sailor (to be cliche) in real life, but on Wikipedia, it's usually best to try and avoid it... it's likely to cause problems (since it's usually construed as (incivility), it rarely adds anything to the argument and it causes others to react poorly. Even if you are right, people may bypass that if it's phrased in a certain way. My advice to Earle Martin would be that it was an act of wise discretion to not take any administrative action, but that the same policy should be applied to editorial action. I completely understand your rationale for removing the comment, but as someone so involved in the debate to begin with, it probably would have been best to alert someone else to remove it. It might remain there for a few extra minutes, but unless it's something that plainly violates WP:BLP (which is unlikely here), I'd say it's not worth it to remove it. If it's truly vile someone else will gladly deal with it... if it's questionable, it's best not to get your hands dirty with it.

Forgive me if I sound patronizing, but this WP:ANI, I'm the A and this is my advice. Neither user has committed any cardinal sins here, so I suggest taking a little advice, whether or not you hate me for it, and moving on while trying to abide by it. The issue at hand is complicated and emotional as it is... delays like this only make it worse. Cheers, CP 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• CP: That is all good, common-sense advise and I can’t argue with a bit of it. But there are three important principles I abide by that govern my worldview:

1. The proper response to bad speech is better speech.
2. Editors are wasting their time if they presume they can dictate to someone else—particularly me—how they may think and express their thoughts.
3. Everyone here on Wikipedia deserves to be free from personal attacks.

After I cleaned up my “potty mouth” (as Earle called it—something every 2nd grader has heard), he deleted my post again even though there was clearly no personal attacks on anyone. This is an extremely important principle that can not be whittled away by acquiescing to “let’s all just shake hands and be understanding on the playground next time.” There is not to be censorship on Wikipedia unless someone is really protecting someone from something. Earle is an admin. As Tavix pointed out, Earle could have simply filed a WP:WQA over my second post (as if that would have gone anywhere). It should come as no surprise to anyone here that if we have admins censoring (deleting) posts like Earle did, tensions are going to rise in a hurry. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I was not involved in this discussion, but they appeared on my Watchlist page. These comments are little more than bullying and attempted intimidation. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "there's a bomb" on an airplane is not free speech. While your comments don't rise to the level of personal threats, they do appear to be both personal in nature and attacks upon another editor. Even forgetting the potty mouth, questioning another editor's courage and/or intelligence is simply going to inflame the situation, and is a personal attack, because it is not dealing with the issue, but attacking the person. Trying to put other people down and belittle them is attacking the person and therefore a personal attack. Lucky for you, GregL, that some of the commenters above didn't even want to read the entire post.Ryoung122 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ryoung, equating what I wrote to speech that causes a clear and present danger to public safety (Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "there's a bomb" on an airplane) is patently absurd. The issue, is not whether or not my post deserved a Pulitzer prize; it is whether or not an admin should have taken it upon himself to delete a post. Further, when I told him it was not appropriate, he wrote “bring it on”. Not only was he wrong to have deleted the post, he is juvenile. Finally, you wrote questioning another editor's courage and/or intelligence is simply going to inflame the situation. I did not do so in my post and for you to suggest as much is uncivil, as is outlined here in WP:CIVILITY, where it states that incivility includes Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Accordingly, since I consider your above post to be a personal attack, which belittles me, I’ve struck your post. I perceive no need to further refute your words or even start a Wikiquette alert over your post. I react to it with righteous indignation. “Get it” now? Greg L (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Greg (whom I know well) might have been more restrained in his comments; however, regulars on the page know that this user's coarse references are not meant personally. I rather enjoy them in what is otherwise a staid environment (while not wanting to encourage them). Earle Martin might have taken it all with a grain of salt. Earle Martin might definitely have resisted the temptation to breach the talk page guidelines by removing Greg's comments: suggesting they be withdrawn or altered would have done the trick and avoided inflaming the situation. Can we all move on? Tony (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this a threat of violence?

Resolved

 – Will contact staff in morning. — neuro^(talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[45] -- Identifies a particular person as having "Odds of survival 1-99". Added by an IP (81.158.38.134) that mostly seems to be interested in defaming random people. Don't know what to make of it. -- Why Not A Duck 00:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The term "high school survival" is a common thing around here referring to teen angst and dramas. I would just view it as normal vandalism. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I live near there. I'll call them up in the morning. — neuro^(talk) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Editors Proposal

Resolved

 – No; also wrong forum (WP:VPP?) --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this, but I have a proposal. Could we enable a mechanism in which blocked editors can edit their blocker's talkpage? If they start abusing this, we can take it away from them. I know what you're thinking: the RfU process already handles this. However, when I was blocked for 12 hours back in late October for a supposed 3RR violation, my block ended before I was even given an unblock review. Something needs to change. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a horrendously bad idea, which leaves blocking admins open to a torrent of abuse. Usually unblock requests are done within the hour, there is no real need for this--Jac16888 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I also concur with the above comment. When a user is blocked, he can post an unblock request. If that process is abused, then their talk page is protected. I would rather not have users that I have blocked in the past come back to haunt my talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Many blocked users rant and rave on their own page for awhile, but that's relatively harmless. It's a reasonable assumption that both the blocking admin and any users who were "victims" of the blockee would be watching his page and be able to respond. The 12 hour block with no response to an unblock is rather unusual, but fortunately it was only 12 hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the horrible idea responses. You block a person for trolling...the last thing you want is them trolling your talkpage as well as their own. Based on most of the unblock requests I see, nothing productive would be posted on the blocker's talkpage. --Smashville^talk 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance - if someone is blocked, does that also prevent them from using the e-mail feature? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not unless its disabled, one of the options when blocking--Jac16888 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So it would have been possible to e-mail the admin even though not being able to edit his page. I also note that Ed posted an unblock request [46] about 3 minutes before the blocking admin reiterated [47] that it was a justifiable 3RR block; and later another admin concurred [48] by which time the block had already expired. The blocker didn't fill in the unblock request, but his comment suggests he had seen it and decided not to fulfill it. And my guess is that any other admin seeing it (if any) decided to leave it be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I get some lovely e-mails. --Smashville^talk 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

God, no. I get email bombs; I don't want goatse. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Goatse? seicer | talk | contribs 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GOATSE --Smashville^talk 06:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why did I ask... I need some eye bleach. seicer | talk | contribs 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Return of User:EverybodyHatesChris

EverybodyHatesChris has reappeared, this time as Cheers dude (as well as several IPs and accounts.) Unfortunately, he even managed to arrange mentoring for the "Cheers" account. I have just blocked Cheers dude, Coastme20, and the IPs 65.31.33.40 and 65.31.33.40. I'm short on time right now, so any help would be appreciated in monitoring the IP range and any new users that appear with a similar MO. I'll post more details when I have more time, as there also seems to be a connection with another, older banned account (User:ForestH2). --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The connection between the "Cheers dude" dude and IP 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) maybe should be reviewed also, as they share page interests and were both turned up in the Law Lord's RFC. One thing is the telling (and in-common and unwitting self-putdown) "goodbye" comment, probably just as they were being found out: "I've grown tiresome of users looking for trouble" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really much investigation needed on that one. See here. Can I also say I'm royally pissed to have been had by a sock? --Smashville^talk 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And I just now checked that one. I love it when they out themselves. Saves a lot of time. Like the KingsOfHearts/Rfu23/etc. situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that Ckatz already got him. Never mind! And socks can hide, but they usually "out" themselves in some way, as they keep returning to "the scene of the crime". Although their "retirement" just before being indef-blocked reminds me of Larry Miller's "pub crawl" comment: "We decided to leave, just after they threw us out." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note, we don't block IP addresses indefinite, as the block template states. The IP address was blocked for one year, so I amended the templates. And good riddens to Cheers Dude. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A year is a good stretch in the wiki-phantom-zone. And I've a hunch he's not so filled with cheer just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, Cheers dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) replied: [49] [50]. Protected his talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good riddance. Funny, I was criticised for saying he was not a new user. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• What a coincidence: I was coming over here just now to suggest that someone owes JzG an apology. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. That's one less user on my wtf list. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin misusing viewdeleted

It has come to my attention that an admin by the name of "John Soong" has been misusing viewdeleted in order to retrieve an answer key to a test used by employers for potential new employees. According to the article, he retrieved the deleted revision, and posted its content on Facebook. This is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools, and whoever John Soong is should own up and face consequences for his actions. Majorly talk 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could possibly be the admin hand of User:John Riemann Soong. John Reaves 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be one and the same, going along with a comparison between what the article reported and what is on that userpage. John Riemann Soong (talk · contribs) has an alternate account, although he is unwilling to disclose it publicly. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

After running a comparison tool, I believe that Ja24896kin (talk · contribs) is related to the administrator above. seicer | talk | contribs 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread is a joke, right? I mean, the part about Majorly actually being angry about this, and Seicer actually looking into it, etc. Please, please tell me this is all tongue-in-cheek. Tan | 39 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I feel that it is an inappropriate use of administrator privileges. Nothing to desysop over or anything. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to view deleted entries (i.e. websites that cache old entries and the such). Are we sure that the article is even correct? Would it really matter in the long run? Seems like a waste of time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree - it seems a difficult task to prove that the information posted came from WP's logs. Short of that proof, there is little we can/should do. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not. If the administrator deleted the page, then it is recoverable; if the administrator used an alternate account (he has indicated that he does use another account) to create or maintain the page, and it was deleted, then that is recoverable. seicer | talk | contribs 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What did he do wrong? Deleted edits are not copyrighted material. No personal information was "outed". No BLP violations were made. I see zero wrongdoing. Tan | 39 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What he did wrong was this: he used a privileged facility for his own selfish ends. The information that had been deleted was almost certainly copyright, if I understand the scenario correctly - answers to proprietary tests. Such tests would be expensive to replace should the answers be leaked. It's probable that this is the sort of copyright infringement which would upset the copyright owner. The suggestion is that admins should not use privilege to assist a copyvio. (At least the second part of this rant pre-supposes that there was a copyvio involved.) Finally the whole thing would lead some to question the judgment of the admin in question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I think the main issue is that the text lifted is proprietary and is subject to United States copyright laws. At this point, if the company does request assistance, we would need to direct them to the WMF as this has hit mainstream press. seicer | talk | contribs 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but if I'm not mistaken, admin tools are a privilege to be used only to better Wikipedia. Even without copyright infringement, using admin tools for non-Wikipedia purposes seems wrong, no matter how "altruistic" that purpose is. -kotra (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure admins have harmless fun with tools every once in a while. I would assume the tools are sometimes used for copying deleted content (hopefully with attribution) to specialist wikis where people will care about Bruce Wayne's mother's dog. To prohibit any of that would be silly and cultlike.

As for the specifics of this action, it's a little sketchy for several reasons. But every time I think "what a dick, ban him!" another part of me thinks "so what, was it really that bad?" Remember, for instance, that any copyright concerns are between Soong and the copyright holder (be that Kronos or the poster, or a third party the poster copied it from, or a combination). If it actually was the work of the poster, would all have been right if Soong put at the end "copyrighted whoever, released under the GFDL"? If not, copyright is a red herring, and you get into whether it's ethical to spread the "answer key", and whether we should care if our admins have ethics. (Maybe Kronos can make us a test for that purpose? )

Finally, why the hell would Soong say where he got it, unless he doesn't care about being an admin anymore, or is framing someone? --NE2 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am never one for making outrageous suggestions however given the nature of what has occured, I think desysoping is a consideration that we need to think of. As I said, I do not make this suggestion lightly. Seddσn ^talk 03:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If he used the admin tools to "liberate" deleted material that was copyrighted to Facebook post it, that's just not a good thing at all, and probably should be referred to Arbcom for a public review, if that is the case. The Arbcom can task the checkusers to see what the admin account is, if it's not known to the AC. I sent an email to arbcom-l to direct their attention here. rootology (C)(T) 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

John Riemann Soong has been made aware of this thread. No attempt has been made to e-mail, as his e-mail functionality has been disabled. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated on the English Wikipedia mailing list, I am fully prepared to initiate a request for arbitration and request desysopping for abuse of the view deleted edits tool. Awaiting the admin's response before moving forward. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the account's infrequent use, I believe that you can go ahead and proceed, Durova. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the Foundation's lawyer, Mike Godwin, has expressed the opinion in that past [51] that the view-deleted userright carries extreme legal risks for misuse, I would concur with Durova and Seddon that Arbcom might want to consider desysopping, as least pending an explanation. Also, if the account cannot be located via Checkuser, it may be worth asking the Sysadmins if there is any additional help they can provide given the legal risks associated with the situation. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are we going to desysop? Are we going to checkuser John Soong under the impression that he has an unknown administrator account (and there are no other john soongs)? What if it is another John Soong? How do we know? Protonk (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I know who the admin is, it is rather obvious if you study the history of the account. I've emailed my findings to arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to wait 24 hours before proceeding. Let's see what develops. Durova^Charge! 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

He's User:La goutte de pluie. krimpet✽ 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you saved me that email. I agree that is him. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a diplomatic way to bring up WP:OUTING, but I do think this discussion has an odd witch hunt feel to it that doesn't seem appropriate on AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 05:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this, but look at the images that account uploaded. Very troublesome if it's the alternate account of an administrator. Enigma^msg 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Which one's, exactly? And are admins not allowed to upload certain kinds of images that would otherwise be acceptable? (Not sure what you're getting at) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the alternate account's talk page. Administrators can view what things he uploaded that have been deleted. Some of them appear to be copyright violations, although I am not an administrator. Enigma^msg 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some of the images uploaded by the account back when it was a different name in 2005 (Natalinasmpf). Many of the images tagged public domain are actually images created by the Government of Singapore. They hold copyright over works made by them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• What a ludicrous witch hunt. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. The self-satisfied sanctimonious defenders of the wiki should fine a better use for their apparently ample time. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is aware of the matter, and is currently investigating. More information may be available, along with a statement, shortly. — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt attention, Coren. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. seicer | talk | contribs 06:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I reported this to the committee privately via email roughly 8 hours before this thread opened. I'd hoped to avoid this sort of public drama because the reliable source article gives everything needed to out the admin except his username. Too late for that now. An admin using view deleted privileges to take material deleted for copyright violation and post it elsewhere is certainly a serious abuse of the tools that merits review by the committee. And the deletion log for the Wikipedia article in question does show a deletion and partial restoration for reasons of copyright violation. Unfortunately, view deleted is an admin tool that never leaves a log entry, which makes any detected occasions of abuse of the tool even more concerning. I don't think it will be fruitful for us to discuss the specifics of this case further here given the outing issue. GRBerry 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am strongly opposed to any secret ArbCom action on this matter, or to any desysopping without giving the administrator in question a chance to present a defense at a full ArbCom hearing. It's not at all clear that the material in question is a copyright violation, and there has traditionally been no objection to administrators providing unencyclopedic deleted material to those who wish to use it on other sites. We're supposed to be about free content, not preserving a set of bureaucratic rules. I am very concerned that a decision in this case might have a chilling effect on those who wish to obtain and use deleted content for perfectly legitimate reasons. If any deleted material is so problematic that no one should see it, then we have oversight available for these exceptional cases. *** Crotalus *** 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Learsi si natas's

76 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 – and buh-byeKeeper

userpage is a rant in which he asserts that the Israelis are worse then Nazis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And??? Brewcrewer removes sourced information from articles without discussing them first. What is more important? --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is your username really backwards language for "Satan is israel". Seriously? You find that appropriate? Keeper | 76 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

lol you figured my name out. And to answer your question, oh yes I do!!! ---Learsi si natas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

I'm going to block your account so that you can choose a new username. From what I've seen, you've got the wrong website. Fringe crap theories are thataway. Keeper | 76 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Blocked indefinitely, pending username change. Reviewing contribs... seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Detective Keeper: Good job noticing that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, seems like we were all trying to push the "block" button all at the same time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I recognize satan everywhere :-) Someone beat me to the block as well. I'm sure he'll just go away quietly, if my experience has taught me anything. </sarc> Keeper | 76 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Unblock request already :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that managed to push the button first. Anyways, this is not the first username backwards that we have blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Classic reply! seicer | talk | contribs 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a full protect of the usertalk. It's not necessarily that it isn't going anywhere, it's just that it's already arrived at nowhere. Keeper | 76 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

.erehwon ta devirra ydaerla s'ti taht tsuj s'ti ,erehwyna gniog t'nsi ti taht ylirassecen ton s'tI .klatresu eht fo tcetorp lluf a esrodne dluow I seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Backwards lives! Ya know, I thought America was "the great satan". I wish they'd make up their minds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All jokes aside, I'd also suggest a Keeper76 inappropriate textstring addition to the auto-reporter for WP:SSP, given the eidtor's last comment about a proposed next name. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat at Katya y jairo

There is a possible suicide threat at Katya y jairo. Could an admin who is familiar with our procedures take a look at it and help deal with the situation? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the page history and the user's previous record with creating such pages, I would suggest that this is merely childish editing, and not a genuine suicide threat. Blocked indef for removing speedy tags from the articles (s)he has created. haz (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:216.165.3.44

Resolved

 – IP blocked ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is simultaneously edit-warring, without any discussion, on several pages: Lehi, Irgun, Kiryat Arba, Yitzhak Shamir. On some of these s/he has made five or more reverts already today, sometimes with offensive edit summaries, eg [52]. User has been warned several times, but removes all warnings from his/her talk page. Also posting offensive and vexatious messages on my talk page; eg [53]RolandR (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

31 hours off for edit warring. I have no opinion on the content of the IP's edits. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of admin power

This is the photo he put at the top of an article about half-smoke sausages. His caption names the resturant again.

An admin (user:BanyanTree, who I believe is owner of the restaurant in question) created an article about half smokes, a type of hot dog. It is an item on the menu of Ben's Chili Bowl, one of hundreds of places to buy that item in Washington DC. He named that restaurant FIVE TIMES in this very short article about a sausage.

-- In one of the five instances he says: "Ben's half-smokes, which are half pork, half beef, are arguably the most renowned in the city ".

-- In his original article, he inserted a photo (right) of his restaurant, not the food the article is about. That image was eventually replaced with one of the article's subject (a sausage), but even then, the restaurant name is in the caption for no reason.

-- He also added a list of celebrities who have eaten at that resturant. This is COMPLETELY irrelevant to an article about a food.

After I removed his advertising, his only excuse for reverting my edit is that his statements promoting that restaurant are true (i.e. cited -- his resturant was reviewed in the Washington post food section.)

But much, MUCH worse: HE SAYS HE'S A WP ADMIN AND WILL BLOCK ME IF I DELETE HIS ADVERTISING AGAIN. When doing that, he angrily told me "say it to my face!"

I suspect BanyanTree is the owner of the restaurant. That would be one of Ben's two sons. But it doesn't matter if he is the restaurant owner or not. He OBVIOUSLY has a financial interest in it. Nor is it relevant here that I wasn't polite enough in my edit summary when I deleted the advertising. The salient point is that A Wikipedia administrator is using his admin authority to insure that the grossly inappropriate advertising of his business' is not removed.

I would like to request that:
1) his advertising be removed
2) this matter be investigated
3) if others agree that he used admin powers to prevent removal of advertising he put in Wikipedia, that his admin status taken away.

TechnoFaye Kane 12:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that because BanyanTree has "from Ben's Chili Bowl" in the caption it's an advertisement?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And what the hell is this about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it's clear to me that TechnoFaye here is just misinterpreting what BanyanTree said about Half-smoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as BanyanTree wrote most of the article, and TechnoFaye assumed "OMG UR SPAMMING I'M TELLING." I think this is a fair summary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

He did spam, and I did tell, yes. Further, I don't expect action will be taken, as from these comments it seems the admins here are a "good ole boys" network.TechnoFaye Kane 12:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Um, from a one-click glance, you were warned about using FUCK YOU as an edit summary, which is Not Good, rather than warned about editing the article. You were also asked not to remove cited material, and you appear to have responded with further reverts. Both of you seem as bad as each other in the edit warring, but Techno, you're not a lily-white as you've painted yourself. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 12:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I never said I was lilly white. I even acknowledged that in my original post. Punish me for the edit summary. Ban me for 24 hours! But that is irrelevant to an admin abusing his power for financial gain. Also, is it appropriate for someone to revert an edit when he merely doesn;t like the summary?TechnoFaye Kane 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The namecheck for the restaurant does seem to be rather bloated though; there are uncited claims, and the two sentences on Anthony A. Williams are probably best left to the politician's article, the same with the Bill Cosby claim, or the article for the restaurant itself. There's a forum used as a citation which wouldn't be a reliable source. Whilst it may be cited content its relevance is somewhat suspect to me. But meh, what do I know --Blowdart | ^talk 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that both parties need to step away. Techno's edit summary is inexcusable and could realistically be blocked for it, although I couldn't say for sure if BanyanTree has any involved interest in the restaurant, so I don't know about personal attacks. But WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are definitely not being applied here, as this later revision shows, the restaurant is indeed named more times than is really necessary. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean "step away and don;t complain about using wikipedia to push his buisness." Because the article is now a commercial. If both he and I "step away", it will remain a commercial. TechnoFaye Kane 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, and I will thank to please do not put words in to my mouth, Ok? You've already started this thread in a confrontational manner, and are only pushing it. Both of you need to step away, and let the community work on it. You've post your legitimate complaint about the advertising here, but both of you are brewing an edit war, which could result in both parties being blocked, admin or not. Feel free to push the envelope, tho. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, if you and they both step away, people with cooler heads will step in. Neither of you are helping the article at the moment. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I agree. I'm out of it. I'm gonna go look at porn. Bye.TechnoFaye Kane 12:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be tagging {{POV-section}} on the Venues section, since it is said that are arguably the most renowned in the city, which maybe not true, or it is just an opinion by other people. E Wing (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe not, because somebody already removed the non-NPOV statements. E Wing (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm avoiding doing real work today *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 12:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article has been substantially cleaned, removing much of the spammy advertising. I have removed the forum as a source -- it is simply unreliable and not an approperiate citation. I also invited BanyanTree to the discussion. seicer | talk | contribs 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither party has done themselves much credit here, but in D.C., Ben's Chili Bowl is an iconic restaurant, closely associated with half-smokes. That said, the article is better off without without it. Acroterion _(talk) 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup ... some of the content was pretty weaselly (not Ron Weasley). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the article has been redirected to the previously existing article (without the advertising), I don't think there's an issue now, is there? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shabushabu violates WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA

Shabushabu has repeatedly stated that he alone should be working on a Singaporean Chinese TV drama article (The Little Nyonya), and that other people should not work on it ([54]). When I was editing the page in question to rewrite a section with awful grammar and English usage, I was attacked for having POV, and was accused of being a fan of the main actress of the series, even when the content or the context of the section was unchanged.

The user also sent me abusive messages, stating that it is "sickening" that I, as a user in Arizona who has never seen the series (wrong assumption on his part)([55]), have the galls to edit that article.

Truth is, thanks to internet technology, I was able to watch the series in question, and I have knowledge of the series in question.

Shabushabu, through edit warring and NPA violations, was banned for 3 hours yesterday ([56]). During the first hour of the block, he posted many unblock requests, stating that I abused my powers (what powers, as an editor in good standing?), and that I prevented him from editing ([57]).

The torrent of abuse from this user has exhausted the community's patience. I ask that an indefinite block be made to Shabushabu, who has already told us that he is unrepentant. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)