Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

(un-closed by 67.122.210.149 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC), I hope this is the right way to do it, see my comment further down about how WP:BOT is the specific policy being broken).

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)

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">: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)

I've had to reread this several times before commenting here, because to be honest in all my time on Wikipedia I've never read anything quite so ridiculous. Let's get this straight - Meowy wants to ban Carlossuarez46's article-creation because it's somehow damaging to Wikipedia to add information that increases this encyclopedia's coverage - information which should be easily verifiable. If the suggestion wasn't so pitiful it would be hilarious. Hasn't anyone anything better to do here than start coming up with spurious concerns like this? Sure, we end up with tens of thousands of tiny articles. But what harm does it do? All it does is increase Wikipedia's scope. And is there any guarantee that those articles - or a significant proportion of them - won't grow into far larger articles? Or any guarantee that - if Carlossuarez46 was stopped - someone else might not add any specific article manually that would otherwise have been handily bot-created (thereby saving a lot of work)? All that Carlossuarez46 seems to be doing is adding encyclopedic information to an encyclopedia. it's not as though we've a shortage of space - we're not having to use more paper to get this information down - it's basically being given to us for free. Sure, a lot of them are likely to remain stubs for a long time, but that's true with a lot of articles - and stubs do provide a basis from which to expand. I'd wager that a large number of FA articles have started as stubs and grown from there than began as fully formed large articles - toady's front page FA for one. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot is breaking policy

I undid Gwen Gale's closure since this bot appears to definitely be breaking policy, namely WP:BOT, which states:

Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the bot account and possible sanctions for the operator.

Note that higher speed or semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases. If in doubt, check. [Italics in original]

I searched for evidence that Carlossuarez46's bot had been approved, and didn't find any, though maybe I missed it. (Per the italicized provision of WP:BOT that higher speed processes can sometimes effectively be considered bots, I am going to refer to this operation as a bot despite Carlossuarez46's annoying coyness about whether it actually is one). If there is an approval for the bot then I'd appreciate a diff. I don't think this bot should be approved. If it has created 100k articles and is still in the A's, it will have made at least a million articles when it's done, quite a substantial fraction of all the articles in enwiki. That degrades the quality of the encyclopedia all by itself (lowers the average quality of articles), and maybe more importantly, these articles are unlikely to be watchlisted by anyone, making them vandal magnets. We are long past the point where Wikipedia benefits from growth of sheer numbers of articles like this. Unenrolled (IP address) editors can no longer create articles directly, and there is a reason for that. The crap and spam potential is just too large despite the efforts of the RC patrol (look at some submissions to WP:AFC for a while if you're not sure of this).

The argument that individual articles about habitations usually survive AFD and therefore this bot is ok is a non-sequitur. The first part is like saying that editors usually don't have it in them to kill a living baby after it is born--ok, fine. It is quite a different thing to conclude that it's appropriate to launch a bot with the intention of causing millions of teenage pregnancies and no plan whatsoever to care for the offspring. The argument that any such stub is a potential FA is also unimpressive. No evidence is given that the presence of the automated stub has non-negligible chance of giving rise to an FA that wouldn't be created anyway if the stub weren't there; it's far more likely that the authors of any such FA will create the article themselves if there isn't already a stub for it. For that matter, an editor creating a stub about his or her hometown is also different than a bot doing it, since the human editor will likely watchlist and care for the article. Will Carlossuarez46 maintain these millions of stubs that his bot is spewing?

Carlossuarez46 has taken quite a belligerent attitude about this in the past, as well: "If you think that there is a consensus somewhere that settlements not be added to the WP, show me where and we can go ahead and delete all of them in accordance with such a fouled up consensus or maybe we'll just WP:IAR and say that consensus smells like what it's full of..."[2]. The consensus is not about adding settlements, it's about rampant bot sprees that are not supported by consensus (think of Betacommand, who this incident reminds me of). There are some other such incidents that I don't feel like digging up but can be found if necessary if (say) we end up with an RFC about this. WP:BOT seems very clear to me, WP:BOLD does not apply to bot edits. The requirement is to get consensus first, then launch the bot, not the other way around.

For the reasons I've stated, I think this bot is a bad idea and I urge Carlossuarez46 to stop it himself, and for admins to intervene against it if he doesn't.

67.122.210.149 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – I have closed this to prevent harassment and continued bringing up of this. Thuran was blocked, block expired, he is being nice and we move on. Lets all put down our sticks and step back from the horse corpseChrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(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)

Hey, I'm mentioned. I didn't know. Why didn't anyone notify me that this case was still ongoing? I am even eager to take on new cases. I would like a workload. There are incidents that need to be righted. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:24, 8 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)

If Arcayne is, in fact wiki-hounding or even wiki-poodling (ask if you need clarification of this term :-) ), then I honestly say 2 things: you'd think they'd have something better to do (like build an encyclopedia) and they should feel pretty guilty about doing something like that, and #2, let them "follow you" and make sure you give them good reason to get bored out of there skull by doing so, and they'll finally unwatch you. Like the old saying goes, "don't let the bastards get to you" ... this is, after all, the internet and internexistentialism rules here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to further information about wikihounding and wikipoodling. I would like to know more so that I can determine whether or not I want to get involved. I have recently been reprimanded for seeking more cases so I definitely need something else to do.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I am following ThuranX' thoughts here: is he suggesting:

*...that I am somehow working with/related to Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs)? If so, I would freely submit myself to RfCU, SSP or whatever other instrument available to measure the distances betwixt myself and this other user.

• Nope, Arcayne and I are not the same user but we may have crossed paths before.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

* ...I am forum shopping? I have already pointed out numerous times that I did not "forum-shop" a complaint. I submitted it to the Admin Noticeboard, and not the more appropriate Admin Noticeboard/Incidents; furthermore, I noted on the initial page it had been posted incorrectly, and convo regarding the subject was discontinued as well as providing a link and brief explanation on the AN/I complaint.

* ...that I am wikistalking/hounding/poodling his edits? Sure, he is on my watchlist butso many other users are as well and, as Bwilkins pointed out, had ThuranX no issues, there'd be nothing to report. I am not his cop; I don't care if he rolls through a stop sign - I do care when he runs over someone while doing so. Odd though, that whenever the old anon would post one of his/her many AN/Is against me, Thuran was always ready to comment, recommending a block/ban - even when he wasn't involved. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

* that I am continuing to harass him? After Chrislk02 asked me to not post on Thuran's page, I didn't, and have largely avoided discussing the user, the sole exception being to defend myself against some of the more bizarre accusations ThuranX made. Indeed, the only reason I am posting here is that the user again made some wild accusations here as well (prohibitions against contacting users, etc). If I don't say something, some folk might get the wrong impression, and feel I am guilty of such via my silence. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not allowed to contact Dreamguy on his talk page, I'm asking for the same. It's really that simple. You're a deliberately annoying person. You provoke for the purpose of poking and seeing how hard it takes to get a yell. And you've stated an intent to police my contributions; you've said you intend to continue watching what I do and reporting whatever you see. You're not talking about IF you run into me on a page, you're describing wiki-stalking. That you continue to deny any of your comments after being called on them is also indicative of your 'who me?' defense. He further maintains a 'tit-for-tat' defense " What's good for the goose is good for the gander." The crucial difference he ignores is, I watch AN/I and AN, and ArbCom, and other community based pages, and when I saw reports about him in those places, I spoke up. I do not, did not ,and have never had Arcayne's user/talk pages watched. I do not follow him around, and when I see him discussed in a locale, I don't bring it to two other boards for more drama. This sort of failure to understand a major situational difference is part of the problem. ThuranX (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, this isn't actually true; I choose not to address DG on his talk page; every effort by myself and others have little if any effect on improving his demeanor. The difference between the two of you is that your more numerous edits reach a larger number of new users (of which I was but one who contemplated leaving after your "greeting"). Your block log is but one less than mine, and the last time I was blocked was over a year ago; you've been blocked three times in the last six months, and all for the exact same thing. It also bears noting that the 'goose and gander' comment referred t your "speaking up" and jumping without actually looking at the baseless AN/I complaint - most of them submitted by a indef blocked stalker. Were you seeking to "cross the street" to avoid me, you would never have commented there, as it creates a window for dialogue. Ergo, your argument about avoiding me and my edits seems inaccurate. If you want to avoid me, then do that. Don't sneak in the erstwhile 'call for blocking'.

Additionally, I am not denying I watch your edits; you toss out a lot of uncivil remarks, ThuranX; I don't pretend that I can fix you (even though I am concerned that you are hurting your excellent edits with your behavioral issues), but I can try to ensure that we don't lose users to it.

This is my last comment on this. I only spoke up to correct some of the inaccurate statements being made. Further commenting is just going to devolve into diff-less, context-less accusations, and the wiki would seem best served by editing articles and whatnot. If folk have further questions about any claims made here by myself and others, please feel free to speak up on my usertalk space. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chrislk02 has made a clear and distinct second warnign to Manhaatan Samurai about his behavior, fo rthat I thank Chris. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [3]. 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 [4].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): [5] [6][7]  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)

I can also confirm, from an e-mail from the IWF that Wikipedia is NOT on the IWF list or any list the IWF has. This is per Fred Langford Director of Technology and Content at the IWF. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again confirming. — neuro^(talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Has Be/O2 fixed their proxy problem yet (considering non-Be members can't access the forum post)? Still no official word from TalkTalk regarding why they are filtering... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Be/O2's proxying may have ended, since no new contributions have been recorded since 13:27 UTC on 8 January 2009.[8]. However, TalkTalk is still definitely proxying on 9 January 2009, leading to blocks for vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for an indefinite block?

Since it doesn't seem to be going away, I have moved and updated {{UKBlock}} in order to make it vague enough to be used each time the ISPs start proxying again. I suggest we indef block the cleanfeed servers with it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 9 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)

Excellent point, I keep forgetting about these :D. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:12, 8 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 [[9]] and here. --ais523 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here. --ais523 13:12, 8 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" [10] 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)

Your points make it sound as if it's been proven that I've made attempts to hide my identity by using multiple accounts, which has never been the case. Just because other user(s) might have been blocked around D.C. does not prove that I was using those accounts. I was originally blocked for meatpuppetry, and then circumvented the enforcement of what I think is a ridiculous rule by posting twice under a new user name, but still signed under my old user name. While this is technically using a sock, I wasn't editing and it was clear who I was in those 2 posts. I wasn't hiding my identity -- which is the very reason that using a sock is a violation. Yes, a rule was broken, and I "served the time", but none of my actions belied the integrity of WP. Rtally3 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It not only was proven by a checkuser; you admitted to it in the ensuing discussion. You just admitted to it again in the above comment after claiming that it hasn't been proven. I'm not sure what your point is here. csloat (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply untrue. The difference is that you are accusing me of hiding my identity to make it appear as if there is a consensus, which has never been the case. Every post I have ever made has been signed "rtally3". Rtally3 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is false; you had a few different identities at the time and you eventually copped to them being you, and then you created more after the block and signed them rtally2, but at first you tried to pass them off as different people precisely in order to create a false consensus. The second time it was to evade a block. It doesn't matter; using socks to break the rules is still breaking the rules whether you are "hiding your identity" or not. Anyway if you're not doing that I'm sure you have nothing to worry about anyway, and I apologize again for wasting your time. csloat (talk) 06:34, 9 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)

Yup, I've had a talk-page apology and a polite request for a copy of some deleted content, which I've sent on. It's apparently over and done with, so no big deal ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmi Hugh on Proprietary protocol

Re: repeated deletion of sourced material. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. 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)

I can't but help notice that Jimmi Hugh is making many edits to the proprietary-technology articles. *Not one* of his contributions to these articles have been based on verifiable sources and worse still he has been deleting referenced material.

• proprietary protocol (attempted AfD, deletion of referenced material, deletion of referenced material)
• proprietary software (disruptive deletion, Trying to rename an article despite 149 scholarly articles)
• proprietary firmware (deletion of sourced material)
• proprietary hardware (adding nonsense), granted what was there before wasn't great either.
• and elsewhere (disruptive edit, disruptive edit).

I totally agree with EdJohnston that it would be good to have more than two editors. I am pretty worn out by all this unconstructive to-and-fro-ing on Proprietary protocol and would welcome more input from others. pgr94 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have just discovered Wikiproject computer networking and added Proprietary protocol in the hope this will get more people to read article. Also requested input from here. pgr94 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I just looked over the talk page for this article and weighed in with my two cents on this specific issue. Looking at the diffs, I seem to notice some pretty strong leanings away from WP:NPOV, specifically noting the edit comments. In addition, I think both parties may have some fault for breaking WP:NAM. :-D I think if both pgr94 and Jimmi Hugh were to re-evaluate their comments from a NPOV, they would find some serious fighting words that they used, perhaps a bit inappropriately. I don't think a ban is necessarially warranted in this situation but I would advise Jimmi Hugh to try and be a little more neutral and both sides to assume WP:GF. QuackCD (talk) 01:50, 9 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,[16] 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, [17], 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, [18], which was summarily deleted by Greg L with the comment "grow up", [19]. 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, [20]. I removed it again and left a mild warning, [21]. Greg L restored his comment again, claiming it was not abusive, and accusing me of vandalism, [22].

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 and will simply delete your thoughts because I think you stepped over a line and have decided you don’t get to have a voice. “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)
  • Nicely put, Tony. Earl's cut was ill-advised and on its face shows that he knew it was a bad idea for an admin, even though he did it without using admin tools. Greg's "The proper response to bad speech is better speech" is finely-tuned kettle-calling. His propensity for using foul language to trigger wikidrama is familiar to many of us, though I'm rather surprised that Earl took the bait. They both seem to be adults, let us simply encourage them to act that way. We all have our bad days.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mooooooo! Oh, I'm sorry, you said "kettle-calling" not "cattle-calling". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don’t think there is anything more I want to say on this matter. I much prefer “Greg, don’t be a dick” versus deleting my post and silencing my voice. That, at least, would give me the opportunity to reply “Hey, that’s Mr. Dick to you.” Thanks to all for taking the time to respond to this and smooth things over. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cool response. I see the 'resolved' tag placed by Goodmorningworld was struck. I hope the case can soon be closed? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Tim Allen, whose birth name is actually Timothy Allen Dick would appreciate that there's now a new (uninvited) member of the Dick family :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:43, 9 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: [23] [24]. 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)

• JzG could safely quote Jim Carrey from Ace Ventura, Pet Detective: "I hate being right all the time!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Yup - only 7,542 to go... unless your list is even longer than mine. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You might find the rant on 65.31.103.28's talk page amusing and/or useful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin misusing viewdeleted

Collapsing. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed for discretion and courtesy: an editor who edits under a real name might be related to a problem, but nothing has been confirmed.

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) "selfish ends"? I edit here primarily for "selfish ends" (it allows me a quick reference for my own research without having to drag my notes around). Most people operate selfishly. Sure, if you applied such things as removable, then half of the community would be taken away. I don't think "selfishness" is against policy. I could be wrong... Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 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) Are you referring to the GFDL? If so, all he would have to do is attribute it and then it can be used. Are you referring to something else? If so, I don't think Wikipedia is concerned in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I don't think it has anything to do with GFDL. If this admin used the tools to recover material that was specifically deleted for copyvio reasons, and then reposted it on Facebook, AND apparently claimed he did it as an admin, he 1) possibly did something illegal, as the WSJ explicitly says that the copyright owner sent the WMF a request for it to come down; 2) he may have used admin rights to circumvent OTRS or OFFICE--possibly, since it probably came through that route; 3) thats just not what the tools are for; 4) it's a frankly stupid black eye for Wikipedia caused by a stupid act. rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) As I pointed out before, I know of at least three websites that I could use to recover deleted material. Also, if its not hosted on Wikipedia, then it is not Wikipedia's problem. If the content violates Facebook's ToS, then they will delete it. If the company wishes to sue Soong, then they can. However, none of this seems like it is Wikipedia's problem. Plus, when did people start believing everything in the Wall Street Journal around here? Not that I mind. I like the paper. But still. It seems odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 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. DurovaCharge! 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 [25] 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. DurovaCharge! 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 must admit that I am a little dismayed on how 2 administrators just outed a fellow editor's alternate account and therefore real name on a public forum without evidence of abusive sockpuppetry... -- lucasbfr talk 17:16, 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. Enigmamsg 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. Enigmamsg 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. DurovaCharge! 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) Crotalus is right that it's important for this administrator to have a fair opportunity to present his side of the matter. If there is going to be a case please announce it formally and allow the individual at least a week to respond. Although in order to protect this person's pseudonymity and future employability, it might actually be a good idea to hold the actual case offsite. DurovaCharge! 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Just on a side note, he appears to be open to recall if anyone would rather pursue that option opposed to ArbCom. Tiptoety talk 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) As I just posted to WikEN-l, I see this as a minor, if stupid, abuse of the tools. A liberal application of WP:TROUT seems more appropriate than more severe action. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sam, how is it "minor"? A comparable case is User:Everyking, where he was emergency desysopped for even suggesting that he might disclose deleted information on Wikipedia review--and that pales in comparison to this. This admin did disclose information that was apparently deleted for copyright purposes, posted it onto one of the busiest non-WMF websites in existence, and then had it splashed over one of the major media sources on the planet Earth that he did it with his WMF admin tools. This is minor how? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The Everyking decision was a travesty, driven by pure paranoia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about free content, and if someone wants deleted content to use on a third-party site, they ought to have access to it. *** Crotalus *** 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) And your thoughts on the fact that this material in this case was deleted by a legal take down request via OTRS? rootology (C)(T) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The article says they sent a complaint, not there was a formal DMCA request. Did I miss something? I am still personally disappointed by the people who brought the alternate account of this user here without their consent nor abusive sockpuppetry concerns. Note that I am not disputing the basis for the arbcom investigation, but what was said in this public forum. -- lucasbfr talk 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's not an issue that is covered under policy, as it is not personal information. It's a user account. If an account was used for malicious or purposes unbecoming of an expected editor, and it was being controlled from an alternate account, then it qualifies as a disruptive alternate account. Per policy, it is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) There's policy, and common sense. I don't get how having this account released to the community before he had any chance to respond to these allegations is achieving anything. Arbcom is the right venue for that kind of things, and while publishing deleted information is wrong and is a breach of community trust, I am pretty sure what people had in mind when talking about disruptive alternate accounts and good hand/bad hand accounts was trolling and team tagging, not screwing up with one account you rarely use. I'm sorry but I still feel this was inappropriate. -- lucasbfr talk 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Why do you think that "publishing deleted information is wrong and is a breach of community trust"? If material is deleted from Wikipedia for not meeting guidelines on reliable sources, no original research, etc., and someone else wants to reuse it on another site, why shouldn't they be able to do this? *** Crotalus *** 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I did not mean {{user recovery}} of course :) See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Everyking desysopped. -- lucasbfr talk 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) My own wider take on this would be that using the bit for any goal or task not straightforwardly meant to help the encyclopedia in good faith and which one would not want to disclose to a neutral admin or arbcom is likely going to be a breach of trust. I do know some admins who peek at deleted contribs only for fun and do nothing further with them, I think that's within good faith and harmless. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I don't want a situation where people have to guess as to what is and is not an acceptable use of deleted revisions. To leave this open to desysopping on a case-by-case basis would have an unacceptable chilling effect against the preservation of free content - even if it's free content that we would rather not have, if someone else wants it, it is not right for Wikipedia policy to stand in their way. Again, if something is so bad that no one should see it, then use oversight. *** Crotalus *** 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's not so much of a guess. Put it this way, so far as doing stuff with the admin bit, if one wouldn't want to tell arbcom about it, one likely shouldn't do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) That's a slippery slope to hell. Imagine a website called "The Deleted Wikipedia: Information Wikipedia Doesn't Want You to Know" - picture the embarassment/legal issues that could arise. As an example, if I was an admin, and deleted an article that listed the names of people who were on a flight where something went horribly wrong, GOD FORBID someone checked it out, and printed that list somewhere else for shits and giggle (if I AGF) or for financial gain (if I don't AGF). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Was that meant as an answer to my post or Crotalus'? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry Gwen, it was a reply to Crotus that got EC'd, and I had to run withouth time to fix the indents :-) Fixed now though! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) That already exists Bwilkins, Deletionpedia. MBisanz talk 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Well, this strikes me as the key paragraph in the article: Melanie Shebel, who has a blog that often focuses on the alleged unfairness of Unicru, says she's seen a huge uptick in traffic as the economy has worsened and people have grown more frustrated by the job-seeking process. After an anonymous poster on her site put up an answer key to the Unicru test, she took it down, fearing a lawsuit from Kronos. But recently, she says, she re-posted it, after reviewing her legal rights. If he did anything wrong, it was brag to a newspaper about it. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I meant my last comment to be where it was originally, but no harm done. I do want to amend my last to also say that this dif from Soong does indicate POV editing unbecoming of an admin.Hiberniantears (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's quite simple, really. The report stated that a site administrator used sysop tools to gain information that was apparently under copyright, and then republish that information in violation of that copyright. It appears that financial conflict of interest played a motivating role, since this material was used in employment testing and the report stated that he was looking for a job. Now if that report was accurate, then the action was a serious breach of ethics and perhaps also a breach of the law. Identifying the individual may or may not involve privacy policy issues depending on whether he self-disclosed, and of course it needs to be certain that the correct individual is identified. This issue is a matter for arbitration attention if anything ever was, and if the report is accurate then I would expect this person's administrative access to end. A reasonable period for response and clarification is natural, of course, and circumstances may change the outcome. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I haven't seen the content, but I wouldn't rush into saying there was any true copyright violation to it, the content may have been fair use criticism. As for using the admin bit to gain an edge in getting an everyday job, to put food on the table, during a depression, which is otherwise unrelated to Wikipedia content, yeah, that was maybe a bit dodgy, but the kerfluffle and worry has been stirred up because he rashly, openly bragged about it to a reporter and the tale got published. That may not have been at all clever and maybe, it links up with what some in the community would think of as trust, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Gwen, the report tells that he republished the answer key to an employment test. And it appears that the copyright owner sent a formal request via OTRS to have it removed from our site. If those facts are accurate then it is a serious breach of trust for one of our own administrators to use his access to republish it without permission. And the conflict of interest noticeboard is filled with people who are just trying to put food on the table. It's one rule for everybody, and sysops have accepted an obligation to set the standard in terms of proper conduct. DurovaCharge! 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I think you and I can easily agree, something untowards has happened here with an admin bit. However, the article I read didn't say it was a stolen answer key, but a set of seemingly successful answers which had been gathered more or less through trial and error and then published by people who had taken the test. Not having had anything to do with the OTRS ticket, for all I know, they made a mistake in granting the deletion request. WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. COI becomes a worry only when an editor puts their own interests before the encyclopedia (after which the wonted notability, sourcing and weight policies kick by themselves and strongly so) or if it stirs up disruption (edit warring, most often). For me, the worry is trust: Is distributing or otherwise using deleted content for any meaningful outcome one wouldn't at least want to disclose to arbcom (on wiki or off) something most editors would think of as ok? Only sharing my thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Very good thinking, Gwen. Thank you for explaining it. Here's a rundown of mine: one of the reasons we select people for sysop access is because we trust them to exercise discretion in sensitive functions such as the ability view deleted revisions. Crotalus has a point: there are many instances where the ability to gain access to deleted revisions may be properly used, and we don't want to create a chilling effect. The iconic example of his objection is the emergency desysop of Everyking (whom I later conominated for RFA). Yet other material certainly ought to remain out of public view--that's why deletion exists. If the admin thought OTRS made a mistake, then the proper thing to do would have been to challenge the ticket--not take it upon himself to overrule OTRS and republish the material. And the addition of a palpable conflict of interest does not settle well: one of the reasons we have an OTRS system is so that serious concerns can be handled in an orderly fashion. If every administrator were free to republish deleted material for personal gain or vengeance, then why would an article subject bother with the OTRS process at all? We try to keep Wikipedia from becoming a battleground, and administrators aren't exempt from that. DurovaCharge! 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Has anyone actually seen it published on facebook? Or confirmed that he actually did retrieve it from the deleted revision (it is easily found elsewhere on the internet)? All this talk about desysopping and mistrust seems to be a bit premature, if you ask me. --Kbdank71 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, I would wholly agree with you, policywise, skirting an OTRS deletion with the admin bit is where trust may have been broken. As an aside, I'd be much more worried if this had to do with negative, unsourced BLP content or personal information which was then used to smear, out or otherwise do harm to someone. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Maybe this happened today, but he doesn't appear to actually have the mop... Hiberniantears (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) See above for the outing. --Kbdank71 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Yep, there's another account (an "admin hand"), which has been part of the worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) If the report was accurate then the individual could read deleted edits, and hence obviously did have the mop. Now we don't actually know if the real name user was the same individual or someone else with a similar name: this site has over 8 million accounts. And we don't know (unless they self-disclosed, which I haven't seen) whether these two accounts under discussion are the same person or not. Obvious concerns such as that are one reason this belongs in ArbCom's hands: in this economy we wouldn't want to unfairly taint anybody. DurovaCharge! 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Well said. Might I then suggest that we hide this thread? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Excellent idea. DurovaCharge! 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Especially as since apart from two unprotections on 14 September, the admin account hasn't used the mop for 9 months - so it's hardly urgent. Black Kite 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee involvement

I can confirm that the Arbitration Committee has received multiple reports of the incident, and is discussing the matter. --Deskana (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Make a separate log for view deleted edits

Moving forward: I've mentioned this idea before: why not have a log of the use of the view-deleted ability? Such a log could be made to be only visible to admins. This would make these sorts of situations easier to deal with. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is 'view-deleted' even a function? I don't think would be possible (nor necessary). John Reaves 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it isn't a separate function per se. But admins are allowed to see deleted edits. It wouldn't be at all hard to make the software keep a log whenever a deleted edit was viewed. Keep track which edit, who viewed it and when. As to necessary- this is not the first time we've had a problem with deleted edits leaking out. Having a log of them would take minimal resources and would help prevent this sort of problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There'd be so many and sundry unintended outcomes: It would make witchunts, fishing expeditions and smears much easier, never mind adminship is all about trust, to begin and end with. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What Gwen said. And this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Also, I can't see Brion going for it - a log that can be added to by about 1000 users just by one link being added to a busy noticeboard? I don't think we'd get useful information, just a big, big BIG ol' list that keeps getting bigger and bigger. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As with any sort of log we'd set it up so you could look at the entries created by any specific admin. I doubt the total log size would be more than an order of magnitude larger than the complete block log. The total server use would be tiny. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not how large it would be but how large it could be. All of our existing logs get entries only after someone has positively done something - saved, deleted, blocked. All with a positive-challenge mechanism. This log would be triggered by passively doing something - clicking a link, bang, you're logged. Easy to fool people too. See my additional reasoning here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good one... but what would anyone accomplish by tricking people into viewing a deleted edit in such manner? If the edit were actually viewed inappropriately, and was then posted in the manner you just used to cover someone's tracks by causing a multitude of admins to view it, we'd still have the time stamps to sort out what happened. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And we'd also have a record of whoever set up the clever link. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's lucky that sockpuppeting is so difficult to do here, then, isn't it? ;o) No, obviously not (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Point. Taken. — Satori Son 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you turned off the autoblock flag on that one, because it is about 99% likely that it was a one off comment made for this discussion from a participant. Not "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point". Jeez. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.[26] — Satori Son 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. I mean, I went and looked at the 'bad' edits in question. We'd have a log of that too... Protonk (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but with a timestamp. The set of admins who had the relevant timestamp would be tiny. This isn't the first time we've had this sort of problem. We've had multiple prior issues with content deleted due to BLP or OUTING concerns being leaked by mysterious admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a log only works if you assume the copying occurred at the same time of the viewing. The material in question was on the article for 15 days before being removed, when the whole world had access to it. --Kbdank71 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Content deleted to prevent OUTING or severe BLP problems (like personal info) should be oversighted without exception. As for the 'other' problems, ask yourself if having a log will fix them or if we have had past 'unsolved' dissemination of deleted content. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are multiple websites in which you can view deleted material. Why would this matter? Because it would be monitoring usage when someone who might (if it is even possible) go to those websites for a malicious viewing deleted material usage. Thus, we would have a large portion of decent people being monitored for no particular reason. It seems completely unnecessary. Also, why would we allow for the possibility of people challenging others later saying "oh, you viewed this deleted items 5 times, that has to be awful". The drama potential is through the roof. The fact that there are other websites nulls any benefit for really involving any further analysis of viewing deletions. It seems as if there is outrage over and article and not an actual problem that is fueling this right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Limited usefulness - where such a log would be useful would be in seeing if seemingly inactive admin accounts had been potentially compromised and were being used to view deleted revisions. If an admin account that last edited in 2005 suddenly saw brief activity in the "view deleted edits" log, then that might warrant a closer look, especially if it turned out that what was being viewed was potentially sensitive. Ideally, though, inactive admin accounts could be desysopped to prevent this, and sensitive material would be oversighted or a "future access will be logged" deletion would be done, where admins accessing the material would be first warned that the action is about to be logged, would have the access logged, and would have to provide a reason - a reason other than "being nosy", probably a reason more like "reviewing decision made by X". Kind of a level between deletion and oversight. Though having: visible on page, visible in page history, deleted edits, access-logged deletions, and oversight, and root-access full developer wipe, would bring the levels of visibility to six (though that last option isn't, I hope, ever used), possibly too many. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Some alternatives - I've felt for a long time that viewing deleted articles is one of the more powerful and dangerous admin functions. The argument that other sites mirror deleted stuff is only partially relevant, since they tend to not be updated very frequently, and the most sensitive material tends to be deleted from wikipedia almost as soon as it is added. One idea is to log every use of the feature, as proposed. The arguments against logging given above make sense, though. One compromise might be to make the logs accessible only to checkusers for use in investigations like this one, under policy similar to existing checkuser policy. The alternative, I think, is to abandon once and for all the notion that "adminship is no big deal". That notion is grounded in the idea that all admin actions are supposedly (fairly) easily reversable. But disclosure of sensitive deleted material is near-impossible to reverse, and with no logging, it's hard to even detect.

  Yet another idea (probably with good arguments against it too) is make "hard" deletion (the ability to delete material so that it is recoverable only by oversight users) available to all admins; it would be used for copyvios, personal info disclosures, etc. as opposed to ordinary reversable deletion for non-notable articles, routine vandalism, etc.

  Regarding this specific incident: I'm a believer in m:avoid copyright paranoia but the disclosure that has been alleged here, if true, is outrageous; it's like a police officer running the license plate and getting the home address of a woman because she has nice tits rather than because of some legitimate LE requirement. If the accusation turns out to be true then I think desysopping is mandatory, preferably accompanied by a ban of significant length. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's a balance to be achieved here: we want the public to trust the discretion of our admin corps, and we want our admins to think twice before using their ops in ways that would undermine that trust, yet we also want admins to use their tools with reasonable confidence that good faith normal action won't be gamed against them due to partisanship or confusion. Joshua's suggestion is something to bear in mind, and if similar problems recur (which I hope they don't) it might become necessary to implement a suggestion along these lines. Durova^Charge! 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know if I support or oppose this proposal, but take a look at the hit count for Special:Undelete/Daniel Brandt [27] and Special:Undelete/Brian Peppers [28]. I can't imagine that there have been reasons other than "I'm just curious" to access these articles in a good long while, but they seem to be getting a few hits each month. (Then again, six people wanted to block Jimbo last month, so maybe this isn't that bad.) --B (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - we should all be subject to reasonable oversight. –xeno (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems like a really, really, really bad idea when you consider there is no way this doesn't get thrown back into an admin who can't remember why he was looking at a deleted edit two years ago while investigating a conduct complaint. This really does seem like putting the cart before the horse... --Smashville^talk 14:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

let me explain my actions

Firstly, I am rather unhappy with how Vanessa (the journalist) represented my statements. When I said "maybe vengeful", it was rather tongue-in-cheek and intentionally self-deprecating. I had no idea she would cite me in that way.

Note, the only reason why I didn't go through all that trouble with contesting the OTRS ticket was because I discovered this action a year and and a third after it happened, didn't feel like going through a dozen different AN archives to find out what triggered it, and I was busy with life at the time (scholarship applications, job-seeking, as you can see). I did not really feel like challenging another administrator and thus I did not restore it. Maybe I should have done this in the first place.

But I was superbly annoyed by Unicru, not actually because I was unable to find retail positions -- I easily found others; I mentioned this to Vanessa but she didn't say this in the article. My annoyance was because it appeared to be purporting that "tests" based on a Myers-Briggs typology were a valid way of evaluating worker efficiency, that people who enjoy solitude (some time off reflecting on the lake by yourself, you know!) and people who don't think every trouble of their own is always their own fault, made bad workers.

I did not really agree that it was a copyright violation. (I totally empathise with the woman quoted who reviewed her legal rights. Furthermore, I had no idea the journalist would call the article a culture of cheating; to me, it was something else entirely.) It's just at the time I didn't really feel like getting involved in the bureaucracy again -- I love you all but I thought I would get back to hardcore dispute resolution at some point later in my life, you know? I suppose a basic courtesy would have had been to inform people what I had done, and I regret that.

Furthermore, answer tests don't really belong in an article, in as much you don't publish the source code of the Linux kernel to the Linux article. That was really the final reason why I did not pursue a reversal of the deletion. Even I MYSELF would have deleted it anyway had it been there, for copyediting reasons. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground.

Now on the other hand, I didn't really see anything problematic about viewing the deleted revision. It wasn't libellous or slanderous. It was a rather handy list of what you're "supposed" to answer and why Unicru was ridiculous. It wasn't as much for the purposes of allowing other people to "cheat" and take advantage of the system, in as much that telling someone about to take a rehabilitation test in North Korea that you should say "strongly agree" to the question "Kim Jung-Il" is a Great Leader is helping them cheat. I mean, I quite discovered the idea that you weren't supposed to answer honestly (e.g. that you were an introvert at heart) quite too late. In fact, I majorly disagree that publishing a key of this sort amounts to "cheating". I hope it's quite self-evident. The only reason why I didn't document the absurdity of the test line by line itself -- was that I thought someone else had done it. When I first viewed the article for the first time, I was expecting to see a 40kb+ article with an NPOV dispute where some editors would have brought up the controversy over some of Unicru's questions. Instead I found a stub.

I am fairly certain you are not legally prohibited from ridiculing personality tests consisting of questions like "you like to be alone," etc. What I was trying to point out to Vanessa was an argument not unlike that found in Myers-Briggs#Unscientific_basis_of_the_theory. If I thought it was wrong for me or a "misuse" of admin tools to have recovered deleted material in that way, I would have not admitted that to the Wall Street Journal with my real name!!

RE: concerning my two accounts. I had this whole androgyny/tomboy fetish when I was 11 and that was the basis of many of my internet personalities. (Also, at the time, despite being male, I had this urge to prove to the world that girls could do anything boys can.) With time though I found that I grew out of it, that it became rather a hindrance not to be able to show my real self, and to avoid the public embarrassment of having to admit it, I have since mostly edited with my real name (unless I found something that needed sysop tools to fix). As you can see, I have had not much free time to do that much editing either. I guess I don't need two accounts now, huh? I had no idea people would kick up a fuss over this. John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it that gives you such confidence in your ability to evaluate copyright? A surprisingly high percentage of your image uploads have been deleted and, if I understand correctly which admin account is yours, your userpage has 14 separate notifications of disputed fair use rationales, etc. The most recent of these notifications occurred only last month. It does not appear that your learning curve has been progressing because this has been happening for two years. In bypassing OTRS (the proper channels) you certainly did challenge OTRS--you held yourself above it, and apparently still do. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh except I uploaded the disputed ones years ago. Some are only being noticed now. At the time, I had mistakenly conceived that the IP of the Singaporean government was public domain / fair-usable (believing it to be as benovolent as the US Federal government), as well as the IP of state governments. I have since had not the time to go back and correct these errors of mine.

And unless I am wrong, OTRS is used for emergency removal of potentially damaging information that would cause trouble for Wikipedia, something rather akin to office actions. In hosting the data somewhere else other than Wikipedia, it is I who have taken legal risk. Note that I did not try to host it somewhere that would cause the project legal harm, e.g. my user page. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, some of the speedily-deleted images were my own creations. =) I was the one who originally invented the Goban template (inspired by the chess template). I used my own images then, using mspaint. As you can imagine, they were 2D and not terribly aesthetic (well, rather minimalist), but they sufficed. Someone else came along years later and built upon my idea. This made my old images obsolete.

The upload of Singapore images came at a time when the SG community was still in its infancy, Wikipedia was less strict about fair use, and we lacked any good photographers. None of the editors at the time called me out on it. Later, I realised that my rationales were not valid; as you can see, I attempted to change or delete some of them, but I had too many uploads at that time to hunt them all down. Other editors caught them for me later, but by then I had taken a break from the project. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable answer, actually. I checked Commons:Licensing and it doesn't have an entry for Singapore. Found the law from an external link at the bottom of the page, but it takes a bit of surfing to hit upon a PDF document nearly 200 pages long. It's always best to double check these things first, but an understandable mistake and I appreciate your efforts at self-correction. And yes, reporters do sometimes quote selectively. So what will we do if some editor ends up at the conflict of interest noticeboard, cites you in that article, and says his conflict of interest actions are no worse than actions by this site's sysops? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for having some trust in me. I'm going to bed soon so I may not be able to engage in more replies til tomorrow. However, I do not believe I have committed a "conflict of interest". My biggest mistake I think, was not telling people what I was going to do with the deleted information (simply because I was pressed for time). My potential conflict of interest I think, is quite of a different nature than say, a US Congress intern editing his employer's article with bias, or using my admin tools to gain advantage in a dispute. An analogous conflict of interest would be using my admin tools to enforce my particular edits to Unicru. This I did not do.

Now again I reiterate, I did not compromise anyone's personal life or safety, nor their reputation or privacy (*cough*); the questions are freely available if you do any Unicru-based application online, and you can easily ask other people how to answer. It's not exactly 'leaked data'. You can get nearly-identical questions doing spin-off Myers-Briggs tests. In fact I suspect the bulk of Kronos' intellectual property as far as Unicru is concerned is the computerised system that judges 'red', 'green', 'yellow', etc., and an automated system to tell employers. Now on the other hand, instead of compiling my own list of how to answer every single separate question (since it's a rather mindless job), I found that the list already had the work cut out for me. I apologise for my laziness. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am committed to upholding the integrity of Wikipedia

There is a reason why I stated I was open to recall. The community gave me trust; they should also be able to take it away. I did not believe I had broken that trust, and still do not believe so. I do not believe it was a misuse of admin tools. The journalist seemed to have this initial impression it was some big leak -- to me it made more sense if it was someone's "learned" experience of what were the right answers (or maybe a collective experience). I was willing to take personal responsibility if Unicru decided to assert that I shouldn't have the right to post answer keys (in fact, if you see from the article -- Unicru seemed to be rather legally powerless to do so). How is it any different from Wikipedia's normal reportage of reverse-engineering on its articles? (Again, I did not seek appeal of the ticket because the test answers were badly formatted, didn't have enough prose at the time to warrant splitting into a more relevant article, and were ruining the stub.) Suppose if Wikipedia were legally required to take down the code contained on the DeCSS and illegal prime articles? Would it be considered an abuse of admin privileges to view the previously deleted content? John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You mention being open to recall. Out of curiosity, have you specified a procedure for this anywhere or do you favour the default process? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Default process. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that initiating your own re-confirmation RfA now might be an appropriate way of determining whether you still retain the trust of the community? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is 0108 EST and I would rather do it tomorrow; I only realised this issue because I logged in to edit the genetic engineering article. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems an honourable way forward. Presumably you'd gladly undertake not to use the tools at all until the RfA is concluded? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of doing so. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Roger Davies about this being the honorable way forward. Don't know how others would feel, but I'd be willing to give a reasonable interval for dialog so that everyone moves forward in an informed manner. The natural format for that is a request for comment. Would you consider RFC instead of an immediate RFA, John? And does anyone object to this suggestion? Durova^Charge! 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go with any method that allows the community to best carry out its will. I am not sure which is the best method, so I leave it up to the others' discretions. Thank you all for at least some understanding. =) I am going to bed now and shall return tomorrow. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you keep the tools it'd be good to see that happen in the way that minimizes the chances of a few good faith errors leading you here again, and whatever choice people make to support or oppose it's best if the decision is fully informed. Rest up, and post when ready. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

May I clarify to make sure I got this right: you used your abilities as an admin to further an agenda you consider noble? Although that is a basic view, I just want to make sure that is accurate and I am not misunderstanding. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

• Having read the WSJ article and the explanation above,let me be very charitable and say that I don't trust John Riemann Soong with an admin account. I request an emergency desysop, so that he does not have access to private deleted (unoversighted) information, which he may choose for reveal/use for his own interest or from a personal pique - as he has admitted to doing once before. If my view is found to be in minority he can always be handed back the admin tools without any permanent damage. Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry you feel this way, but I am unsure how I betrayed confidential information. The strategy to succeed on the test is not secret -- in fact, it's available on the WSJ article itself. I chose to use the "show deleted edits" feature primarily to find out what had been deleted (whether it deserved to be restored), and upon finding that well, answer keys weren't really good for the article given their unencyclopedic nature, I did not seek restoration. However, I found Unicru's intimidation quite unacceptable, and chose to broadcast the data somewhere where I would not endanger the project. This is not like say, revealing the phone number of another user, or you know, further propagating sensitive information, or outing somebody *ahem*. Personally I find the comparison to using police privileges for my own voyeuristic benefit rather ridiculous. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• John, I am talking about loss of trust, not "betrayal of confidential information", which is a secondary issue that can be dealt by Unicra and/or wikipedia office, if they so care. My basic concern is as follows: You, as all other admins, were handed some tools, because the community trusted you to use them for the betterment of wikipedia and its editors. Instead you chose to abuse that privilege for a personal crusade/pique that was in no way intended to better wikipedia, but instead was liable to, and in fact did, bring the project to disrepute. This, for me, is sufficient reason for you to loose access to admin tools, while continuing to edit wikipedia as a "normal" editor (just like me). In fact, I am uncomfortable with you being able to access potentially private deleted information, while your recall/RFA/RFC is underway, especially since you can do so without leaving any trace behind - and would urge you to voluntarily renounce the admin bit while the process runs its course. That may even convince me to rethink and support you in a future RFA, although I admit that is unlikely. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I concur with John. The retrieved deleted content appears to be entirely unproblematic with respect to our project. That it may violate someone's copyright is a problem between the rights holder and John Riemann Soong, and not a problem of Wikipedia, since the content remains deleted here. We are not the world copyright police; there are many well-paid lawyers doing this job already.  Sandstein  07:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I heard about this on wiki-en.

It sounds to me like the people who want John punished are really objecting to the "cheating" or whatever (or are just too credulous when it comes to believing what a journalist writes about the Internet), and they're trying to catch him on a Wikipedia rule violation as a pretext for punishing him for something they're not supposed to be punishing him for. This isn't right.

And I'm not convinced it's a copyright violation either. Companies love to get criticism removed from the Internet by making insincere claims of copyright violation that may not hold up in court, but because of the unbalanced way the DMCA is written and the high penalties for copyright violation, usually result in its removal anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken and Sandstein, consider Mike Godwin's opinion on a related proposal.[29] If John were acting solely on his own behalf that would be one thing, but in his position of trust as a person who has the ability to read deleted edits, it appears the misuse of that trust carries more serious implications than ordinary user copyvio. Durova^Charge! 08:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like chiming ing. This is the most FASCINATING story I've seen on ANI in quite a while. It's very complicated, legally as well as ethically. I don't think Mr. Godwin's proposal is on point, is it? Here's the real issue: Durova and Sandstein could both be right - it's neither totally unproblematic, nor totally problematic. It's a gray area. Personally, I favor freedom of dissemination, but must admit I am persuaded by Soong's analysis (that the test is malarky, and deserves to be criticized). Now, though, we get into a fine line between DMCA and Fair use, and a fine line between opinion and tortious disparagement (a.k.a. trade libel). Law is not always just. Soong is obviously a very intelligent and ethical editor, but I wonder if he is aware that justice is not always results from legal processes - there are often serious financial consequences, even for people who did nothing wrong.

Then there's another problem: even if Soong did nothing illegal, or out-of-policy, if he did something technically legal, with intent of harming third parties, did he still act wrongfully? You could debate this. Maybe he intended to do more good than harm, but who here believes the ends justify the means?

One other thing doesn't sit right with me: if this test is such a secret, why would its creators put an answer key on wikipedia where Soong could find it? Did I miss something here?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Soong has been the unfortunate victim in this persecution. The copyright status of this material was likely sufficiently questionable to keep it from a public page, but that determination is solely an interpretation of wikipedia rules, not of copyright law. Plausible arguments such as ones based on the merger principle are available, and if someone wants to accept the legal risks of using this material on another website he should be free to do so without fear that some mob may try to restrict that right.

There should be no general rule against the use of deleted material, only specific rules regarding material whose further use would be clearly harmful, such as the invasion of personal privacy.

That the material may not be included here because of POV problems associated with the controversial nature of the personality test, does not imply imposing NPOV on any outside site. There is no disrepute or loss of integrity arising from Soong's action. He should perhaps be commended to keep up the good work! Eclecticology (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is likely that Mike Godwin's (and thus the Foundation's) very understandable opposition against allowing wider access to deleted material is mostly due to BLP concerns, which can give rise to slander/libel charges against Wikimedia. That is not an issue here, but, of course, if this particular episode does lead to legal trouble for the Foundation, then there would be a much stronger case for desysopping John Riemann Soong.  Sandstein  14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it, nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room here — it was conduct similar to this that got Everyking desysopped. Really, Everyking's case was more mild than this. --B (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Arbcom is explicitly not bound by precedent. There is no stare decisis rule on Wikipedia. In fact, we have a rule that says just the opposite: Consensus can change.

Secondly, the Everyking case was in 2006, and things were a lot different back then. Not a single member of the ArbCom remains from that era, and some of them were defeated at the polls by decisive margins.

Thirdly, the Everyking case isn't directly analogous. Everyking was accused (rightly or wrongly I do not know) of trying to reveal "sensitive personal information". See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Everyking desysopped for details. There are no such allegations in this case. Instead, it is claimed (incorrectly in my view) that the information may be a copyright violation. John Soong has denied that it is a copyvio, and, since it's not being hosted on Wikipedia, I am inclined to leave this decision up to him. If someone decides to sue him over it, that's his lookout, not ours. For what it's worth I do not think that will happen.

Fourthly, the Everyking decision was a disgrace and ArbCom should be ashamed of ever having issued it. Ideally, they should apologize and give him his sysophood back, but I know that's not going to happen. On the underlying issue (Gary Weiss/Judd Bagley), Everyking turned out to be right, and his enemies ended up having been duped by a clever sockpuppeteer. At a distance of three years, ArbCom comes out looking much worse than Everyking over this. *** Crotalus *** 15:08, 9 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)

You just missed out on full credit by failing to reverse your signature - had you gone the extra mile and signed "sbirtnoc | klat | recies" there'd have been a barnstar in it for you..._Gb^T/c 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"sbirtnoc klat recies" sounds so naughty! Like Russian for "Dirty little monkey" or something. Just sayin. No "reflection" on you at all Seicer. Unless you want it. All yours if you want it. Call me. Keeper | 76 02:28, 9 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)

So would that mean my new sock couldn't be User:67repeeK? I'm not too worried really, but do what you want. Keeper | 76 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ɔʇn) 9002 ʎɹɐnuɐɾ 8 '60:02 ʇuǝɔsǝpıɹı – ¡ƃuoɹʍ ʇı ƃuıop llɐ ǝɹ,noʎ 'ou

Now that's going to bug me..._Gb^T/c 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, no it's not. Got it. _Gb^T/c 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. Crick in my neck from reading that! The "2" wasn't turned upsidedown by the way, so no winner yet. How do you do this backwards and upside down text anyway? Or is that a WP:BEANS thing? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Considering a block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat at Katya y jairo

Resolved

 – User blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Alleged abuse of admin power

Resolved

Much sausage about nothing. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

---

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)

Note: per the Food Network special I saw on it, Ben's Chili Bowl is owned by an 80 year old woman. We already have a pretty well referenced article on the restaurant...and there is an entire book written on it. I'm willing to bet this person was a fan, not the 80 year old owner or her sons. --Smashville^talk 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair once again, there's no reason to flout NPOV and there was obviously some questionable action (leaving aside the whole admin bit), but Ben's Chili Bowl is integral to the half-smoke as it exists today; National Public Radio did a story on them and a follow-up on how they make their half-smokes, they are the official half-smokes at the Washington Nationals Stadium, et al. The rest of it needs to be expanded (and the sources I originally added shoot down the restaurant's fanciful claim that they essentially invented the half-smoke) but it's still worth mentioning in a restrained fashion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved

 – Blocked again, this time for more than a day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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 ([30]). 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)([31]), 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 ([32]). 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 ([33]).

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)

Have they been disruptive since the block has expired? — Satori Son 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes. Rgoodermote  15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Santori Son, yes. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's give him a chance to work on the article he just started and cool off. But, if he resumes his previous behavior, let's give him a long block. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth did not provide any source to the parts he wrote and the minute I removed it stating it is unrelated to the show, I got blocked. No explanation given on his part. I rewrote several sections and he just deleted it and edited to his liking although the whole idea of the article was totally distorted by him. I was translating based on the source which I provided and he just removed it to his liking, based on his own interpretation. Of course I am furious. Yes the show is based in Singapore, I have no idea why he is so enthusiastic about it when he couldn't even prove the need to make comparisons with another show. If you think I am unreasonable, for goodness sake, I am new. You don't give me a chance to learn the functions and you gave me warnings. This is a case of bullying on your part. I have edited the article several times and he is the only one giving me problems.

Read those articles before judging I am in the wrong. Shabushabu (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Shabushabu for 28 hours (31 hours minus the three from the original block, which IMO should have been a full 24 hours) for resuming this behavior. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First unblock request declined. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put a damper on your spirits, but now he's blanked the warnings on his page, and has replaced them with his version of the article, under the name: "How he stole my article". I think the block needs to be upgraded to he can't edit his own talk page. Elbutler (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Foundationforjustice

Resolved

This editor seems to be a single purpose account [34]. Furthermore, the edit summary to this edit [35] seems to imply a legal threat. As such, I have reported this on ANI. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE User seems to be blocked indefinitely. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:MacRusgail

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to talk about a complaint I have about User:MacRusgail. He is reverting my edits Scottish Chilean [36], Welsh Chilean [37], and Basque Chilean [38]. Those three articles were filled with original research, it had no sources, and with Scottish Chilean and Welsh Chilean the population is small and the contributions to Chilean society is also small while the Basque Chilean population is unknown. I found it appropriate to merge and redirect Welsh Chilean and Scottish Chilean to British Chilean, and merge and redirect Basque Chilean with Spanish Chilean. MacRusgail undid my edits without any explanations. I have reverted them back, but he undue them again. I gave him a message on his talk page [39] on why he is undoing my redirects, and he responded [40] with nationalistic rhetoric. I don't want conflict, but I don't know what to about him reverting my edits. I would like a solution to this problem. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit early for what appears to be a content dispute to be coming to AN/I. You were bold and redirected. No problem. MacRusgail disagreed and reverted. Still no problem. I think discussion should be given another attempt. --Onorem♠Dil 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unable to report at AIV because of multiple edit conflicts

Resolved

 – Blocked. _Gb^T/c 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Phaseitem1011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vnadal only, racist, vandalised main page article, claims to be testing a bot. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And now he's impersonating Raul see [41]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. _Gb^T/c 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An unblock request that actually might merit review

Resolved

 – User unblocked.

User_talk:Anywhere But Home#Circus.2FIf U Seek Amy contains an unblock request that may (emphasis on the "may") actually be worth reviewing. Fairly new editor, caught up in a situation where they were arguably correct, but wound up edit-warring. Seems properly contrite after a short discussion. I will point out that he made a few ineffective attempts (for example) to get someone to explain to him why a source he considered to be reliable was a problem.

I'm not going to argue strongly one way or the other, but it would be nice for someone to accept or reject the unblock request.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First step should be to drop a note for the blocking admin, he might be amenable to unblocking. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right ... dropped a note there.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna vote for an unblock. There is no obvious sign the user realised what they were doing was against policy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with sandman, give him another chance. This can be a confusing place to new people. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse unblock, certainly seems the best way forward. — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked based on the edit warring, and reverting an admin in this edit: [42], not for whether the sources provided in certain edits are reliable or not. As for the issue at hand, I am willing to accept an unblock on the condition that the user agree to not edit war again and in the future and make use of talk pages. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an admin is now blockable? DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in and of itself, but coupled with the ongoing edit warring, edit warring with an admin is certainly not something one should do. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, reverting an admin is not worse than reverting anyone else. I've not looked at the situation, but edit warring is bad no matter who with, and "edit warring with an admin" could imply that the admin was warring also and needs a block.  Sandstein  22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think the original block for edit warring was fully justified, which is why I told Anybody But Home "... you simply kept adding your change in, over and over, which is unacceptable." This just struck me as being one of those cases where a little bit of forgiveness in the unblock cycle might keep a new editor from going over to the dark side.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kww has the right nose for this(Good thing we didn't make him an admin....sigh). The justification for the original block was proper, but some lenience is appropriate. Hopefully any disruption has stopped and we have gained a productive user. Remember, only a small fraction of unblocks are outright repudiations of the original block. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

MBK004 said he would accept the unblock if another admin performed it. I think there's enough support for an unblock here that you should go ahead, obviously making it clear to Anybody But Home that he will be watched like a hawk for a bit, and absolutely should not rush in and repeat the edit.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, geez, I thought he was unblocked and this was the post-mortem. I'll unblock him now. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked for reasons noted above. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request for rangeblock

Resolved

 – Blocked as possible, deleted, oversight requested. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a range block hitting 88.108.87.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 88.108.112.101‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) feasible? A bit of harassment going on. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, see their deleted contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now hopped to User:88.108.47.88. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This would require a rangeblock on 88.108.0.0/17, which would cause a lot of collateral damage. WHOIS reports suggest that a /17 block may still be insufficient for this user (Tiscali DSL). Perhaps WP:ABUSE would be a better venue? caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a long-term abuse issue, I've contacted the harassed user privately and he will report this directly to the ISP. I figured it would be far too broad a range. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced additions

• Wikipersonwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wikiziggyman12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wikiwikimaneditor540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This editor (I assume all three are the same person) has been continually adding unsourced speculation into automotive articles. However, as far as I can tell the accounts haven't had any edits in overlapping time periods, so I'm not sure if I should report them to WP:SSP. This user has never responded to talk page warnings or discussions. All three accounts have edited Suzuki Kizashi, which was created by Wikipersonwiki (without any references, of course). Please help/advise! Thanks. swaq 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If none of the accounts have been on at the same time, that seems like it would make it more likely that they're the same person (unless someone's figured out a way to have multiple accounts online simultaneously); an SSP report is generally a decent idea if there's significant overlap in editing patterns, etc. GlassCobra 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews Importer Bot malfunctioning?

Is Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) malfunctioning? This diff suggests so, and the bot hasn't then corrected itself despite several hours in which it would notice the difference between the two pages if it were a one-off. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsensical info into Bad Boys Blue page by a russian IP-hopper

Resolved

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

---

User continues to re-insert a phrase (in german) to wikipedias of all languages. It was already reverted twice on english wikipedia, but the nuisance will most likely persist. Please intervene or monitor the page. Thank you. Lionscitygl (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that the edit says "Offizielle Website Herb McCoy" (no need to translate into English). Which is..actually very accurate however in German. Rgoodermote  22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. This should solve the problem. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rgoodermote, that site is in English, so, there's no need to use German spelling. I mean, why not use Japanese instead, then? The Bad Boys Blue page follows a format which acknowledges all 3 current formations. It makes more sense to keep all 3 external likns to to a corresponding formation uniform, rather than all in unnecessary and arbitrarily different languages.

Caknuck - Thank you. Lionscitygl (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that it was proper (because it really was the official site) "however in German". I also want to say..I do not like how you addressed my comment. I don't need an explanation on something I already know. It's kinda rude. Rgoodermote  00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody asked you to translate something that I already identified myself what it was in my post at the top. But thank you for your thoughtful comments anyway. Lionscitygl (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I always comment/translate on these issues...probably don't need to..but I have been surprised. Anyways, nice meeting you. I wish you well here. I got one request, can you put something on your userpage? You don't have to, but..a red link causes misunderstandings. Man sieht sich! Closing Rgoodermote  02:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

edit-warring at Horus

I've been slightly involved, can someone else take a look? The long rambles on the talk page might inform or confuse. :-) Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else think a full-protect is in order? DARTH PANDA^duel 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with a speedy delete please

Could someone please review the speedy delete at Timur Okutman. The article's creator and an anonymouse IP keep on removing the tag before an administrator comes along to review it. The article is a copyright infringement of [43]. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've actually reverted back to a version that User:Shanel cleaned up a few weeks ago where the copyvio was removed. The article needs some serious help with regards to sourcing, still, but there seems to be some notability there. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted this as an A7 but will userfy for anyone who asks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision Gwen. I was just going to nominate it for deletion. I have access to several different opera magazines, journals, and other publications both in the U.S. and internationally. None of them have reviewed him. An extensive media and internet search has also yielded no sources. I don't think there is really anything out there to verify the article's content. Thanks for all your help.Nrswanson (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw some claims of notability, but didn't dig much. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If he isn't notable, I think he ought to be: this item provoked me to go to his web page, and it started playing music at me, and, well, what can I say? To say he has a voice like chalk squeaking on a blackboard is an understatement. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

please speedy delete pages by indef-blocked vandal account

Created by Witticism (talk · contribs), I can't label the first one because it's their monobook.js page.

• User:Witticism/monobook.js
• User:Witticism/sandbox

(also, should I send his backlink-removal contribs to WP:OVERSIGHT, or would it be overkill?) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Presumably Enric think the WMF is afraid of being bombed or something. --NE2 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't see the contributions, just saw the two links. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Email sent to oversight. They can hide those revisions more simply than I can delete them. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • You buy the paranoia? Shame on you. --NE2 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't, but many people do and the foundation has already said: we don't want our address on wikipedia. Rather than delete the mess myself, I'll just move it along to oversight. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC

But, Jeremie, please note that you continue your previous flavour of edits that resulted in the 3RR. All I can see is that User:The Rouge Penguin is trying to point you towards discussing the new additions and articles you intend to create. prashanthns (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What he said. You're reverting without discussing. That is not allowed. You need to discuss. I'm tempted to mark this as {{resolved}}, but it may be worth an admin looking into your edits to see whether you need another block for editwarring. //roux   03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As do you. I haven't seen anything uncivil from either of you here. However, you were, and are continuing to edit war on pages like Odd Della Robbia, Ulrich Stern, and Yumi Ishiyama. These pages have all been merged into Code Lyoko per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code Lyoko characters and attempts to convince you of this, on Talk:Yumi Ishiyama, have all failed. These pages were merged by a common consensus and it is for that reason that The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) is trying to tell you to stop. His suggestion to put them in your userspace is a good one. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that you are required to notify someone if you are bringing up their actions here. The user has now been notified. //roux   03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

what you guys are not understanding is how he's being highly rude and impatient, he needs to be dealt with Jeremie Belpois (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rude? No. Impatient? Yes. And with good reason. You have had multiple people telling you that you have to stop reverting and start discussing. You don't do it. Instead, you were blocked. And as soon as your block was ended, you started reverting again. He was trying to explain to you what you need to do, and you wouldn't listen. So he got impatient. Not rude. You need to understand that you must discuss, not keep reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roux (talk • contribs)

He has not been rude, nor has he been impatient. There is nothing to wait for. If you wish to revert, you need to present your page, preferably from your userspace, and there needs to be discussion. You cannot just go ahead and revert continuously without discussion. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If any background information is good, Code Lyoko has been a frequent battleground for quite a while, of which no resolution is or has been in sight. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well of course. References don't exist, but Code Lyoko is a very popular TV series and therefore, subject to much interest. I'd really prefer if new users were directed to policy, but I don't think this has been happening. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To Jeremie, edit warring will get you nowhere besides another block. If you want to recreate the articles, then you must find sources on the characters that allow them to meet WP:NOTE. These sources have to be independent of the topic (can't be the source itself or something created by the publisher) and discuss the characters in a significant manner (beyond a name drop, a rehash of plot summary, or a throwaway statement). Then work, on the characters in your userspace and bring them forth for approval of the other editors that commonly edit the Code Lyoko articles. You will only move forward by following community consensus here and trying to change it in a method appropriate under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Continuing your current actions is simply going to get you blocked. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rogue Penguin has done a pretty good job keeping Code Lyoko stuff "safe". Back in Sept, they had a run in with RhoLyokoWarrior who was essentially trying to do the same thing with characters, and was patient in keep WP encyclopedic, even in the hands of a WQA filing against him. I'll try and dig up the previous WQA, but you can see my comments to RP on their talk from Sep 28. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar: Since when did edit conflicts become a basis for user complaints? --Smashville^talk 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed they actually meant "editing dispute" rather than "edit conflict". Terminology is sooooooooooo precise these days :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first: the complainant should have taken this as a discussion with the editor FIRST, and then to WQA SECOND. The last WQA report against Rogue Penguin that was related to Code Lyoko was here, which found no specific incivility against Penguin. Any concern by anyone else that Jeremie is a sock of the blocked-because-of-socks User:RhoLyokoWarrior ??? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering a block

Resolved

Anybody else agree that perhaps this user Ssjgoku420 (talk · contribs) should be indef'd based on the very offensive talk page (deleted once already), the repeated attacks on User:Larsinio (deleted) and no decent edits except for a few minor ones last august--Jac16888 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since he was warned for personal attacks, so I'm not so sure a full block would be in order. In the case that he continues, a block may be appropriate. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, as seen in his visible contribs, a block actually may be in order. He has repeated incivility even after warnings. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that '420' may be a reference to 20 April - Hitler's birthday (it's sometimes used by neo-Nazis in a similar way to 14/88). Considering this user's comments about Jews, I'd consider it to be a definite red flag. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah sorry should have said, this came to my attention because he created the User:Larsinio page earlier today, as an attack, although its his only edit since Dec. I'll also add that his now deleted userpage was a racist attack, albeit not a full-blown one--Jac16888 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. This is a no-brainer. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, Ssjgoku420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reminds me a lot of Learsi si natas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was just blocked. As a note, I've indef'ed his page, after he inserted in the sockpuppetry bit. See also: WP:ANI#User:Learsi si natas's. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any way to stop him from creating new accounts? If he starts socking, this could get really ugly. DARTH PANDA^duel 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any definitive reason to suspect Ssj and Si are one and the same? if so, I'll file an IP check and see if the CUs manage to ferret out anything more. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user Shabushabu circumvents block

Resolved

 – lengthened my existing block. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User Shabushabu, who was blocked by admin Daniel Case, circumvented his block by editing via the following IPs:

• 218.186.12.216
• 203.125.223.183
• 218.186.12.228

These IPs inserted essentially the same material that Shabushabu inserted in The Little Nyonya (diffs here), and also reverted my edits on Reunion Dinner without reason or explanation (diffs here). The user also accused me of stealing his article here.

Lately, 218.186.12.228 has resorted to vandalizing The Little Nyonya.

Violation of OWN notwithstanding, this user has severely, blatantly, and repeated violated NPA. This user is also disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, a violation of the rules as well. Also, what this user is saying is absolutely illogical. Yes, I am from Arizona, but is it a crime to edit other country's articles here, as long as I am doing it correctly, and according to the rules?

I am hereby suggesting an indefinite hard block on Shabushabu. This has got to be the last straw. Arbiteroftruth 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have lengthened his block to a full week. If he continues the sockpuppetry, it gets escalated and will reach indef soon enough

User creating account for defamatory vandalism

Resolved

 – Ghettoflava should be monitored for further unacceptable edits. User:Jake Wartenberg is active in the WP:ACC process and not responsible for the behaviour of the accounts he creates in this regard. –xeno (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a defamatory edit here [44] and warned the user here [45]. Noticed on the vandal's talk page that a user had sent them welcoming cookies. Then noticed on my watchlist that the vandal account had recently been created by User:Jake Wartenberg, who had then placed the welcome on the vandal's talk. Checked creation log, and Jake Wartenberg has created a number of new accounts in the past few weeks. Seems wrong to me, don't know if this is the right place to mention this, or what. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not likely anything to do here. Jake Wartenberg is an account creator. The user's talk page would've been a better place to start. --Onorem♠Dil 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know there was such a thing as an account creator. That's why I asked here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

An honest mistake. I've notified Jake of the discussion, but there's no further action needed except to keep an eye out for further unacceptable edits from Ghettoflava. –xeno (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:24.129.100.84

This IP user has been editing extensively in the area of animated films. He has been removing notability tags, often accompanied by a snarky comment (see here and here. It would be okay (minus the snark) if the user would add information that actually establishes the notability of the film, as the template requests, but invariably leaves the article unimproved and thus as mystifying to subsequent readers and editors why the article is included in the encyclopedia. The editor is tendentious and sarcastic here and here and has received several warnings concerning removal of the notability tags. Here.

Ah - since I began writing up this summary the editor is now engaged in an edit war and distinctly uncivil behavior. See this history. A brief block might be in order. JohnInDC (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With the escalation, I took this to WP:AIV. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks by an admin. He's been blocked several times now: [46] Just the edit editsummaries are a case: [47] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manhattan Samurai very suspicious "case" behavior

After a recent interaction with ThuranX (talk · contribs). Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) has been babbling on about a case, presecution, and defense. I beleving he was confused, asked him for more information. He has made severl very supicious comments that lead me to believe he is being coerced by an ooutside source that he believes may be an official wikipedia sources. Comments such as, "I'm afraid that this case is still ongoing. I have yet to receive word that it is over from the proper channels. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2009 " and "I have been told to cease interacting with you. I don't want to but unfortunately this will be my final comment on this matter as far as concerns you. I hope you understand. Sincerely,Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)" I have reviewed his edit history and he is not in any way involved with any forms of formal dispute resolution. When I asked him about it he became very dodgy and suspicious, again babbling about some, "case." he is working. I am mainly concerned for his sake that he is being duped. Perhaps somebody else can stop by his page and support this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My only comment will be that I can no longer comment on this matter in any form. This will be the last you will hear from me on this particular matter. I hope you will respect my wishes to remain silent on this matter as it is a directive that I cannot disobey under any circumstances. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, that is EXTREMLEY suspicious. I would love for osmebody else to review this. (note, he has now, "archived" all notices regarding this [48], however it was not archived, only deleted. I am wondering if this account has been hijacked? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this and other strange behavior too. I don't suspect account highjacking, but I do assume this user's history goes back further than the edit log shows. He's apparently been talked to about odd or disruptive behavior before, but you'd have to dig through history since it doesn't look like he archives his talk page properly. Maybe ignoring him would work, or maybe it'd be quicker to just indef block as troll account. Friday (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was leaning towards Friday. It is very obvious being disruptive. He also has a history of page blanking and some incivil comments. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)