Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Posting another editor's phone number

Just a query — if an anonymous IP or a newly registered account makes an edit saying in the edit summary "Admin Bishonen's home phone number is (telephone number redacted)" (I made that up, by the way, so if it really is Bishonen's phone number, that will be the most amazing coincidence) and putting that text into the edit as well, what is an admin supposed to do (over and above rolling back the edit and blocking the account)? I wouldn't hesitate to delete the page and restore all versions except the offending one if it's a page with a few hundred edits, and I know that one can contact a developer for removal of personal information on larger pages (or for removal of personal information so that even admins can't see it). But there's always the suspicion that it's a time-wasting hoax, and that the editor's number isn't that one at all. Last year, an anon posted my address and phone number to my talk page in the middle of the night (Irish time), and an admin (I wasn't one myself then) very kindly did a big delete and partial undelete. But in fact, it wasn't my address or phone number at all; it was just a made up one. I saw it happening with a talk page this morning (not Bishonen's number, someone else's) — it was rolled back by another admin — and I did a rough count of versions in the history. There seem to be approximately 6,000. I did a deletion/part-restoration of a page with over 3000 versions at the Easter weekend, and my arm was aching at the end. (By the way why doesn't someone invent a button that you can click that says check all boxes, so that you can quickly carry out the part-restoration?) I don't think I'd have time at the moment to do that job, and I'm not even sure I should with such a big page, as it could cause the server to crash. And, in all likelihood, it's a hoax. Comments please? AnnH ♫ 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a common problem we were having yesterday. The history that contains the phone number should be deleted, and the article should be restored without that history. This happened to all of the pages that are linked from the Main Page. I think the way to do this is restore only the offending history, move it to another page, and then restore the rest. You don't have to click the box.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Now why didn't someone tell me that at Easter Weekend (groan)? Many thanks, Kungfu. It's extremely helpful to know that. If done the job. I tried it out as an experiment on one of my own subpages first, so that I wouldn't lose anything that mattered. AnnH ♫ 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked about this myself on the Help Desk the other day. There is a way to check all revisions of an article so you can just uncheck the one you want to delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the link either, but I know it's out there. What you want is a bookmarklet that ticks all the boxes. Create a new bookmark in your browser and paste in the location/address: javascript:for (i=0; i<document.forms.length; i++) { for (j=0; j<document.forms[i].elements.length; j++) { f= document.forms[i].elements[j]; if (f.type == 'checkbox') f.checked= true; } } void 0. Then all you have to do is select that bookmark when at the restore page.--Commander Keane 16:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the database crashing thing, I've heard it happens but I'm not sure how much information there has to be. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid that's too complicated for a poor musical linguist. I did it the way Kungfu suggested. Maybe I'll think about your method another time. It sounds like something worth knowing. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just imagine all that hideous code (in the different font) actually says "Fluffy kittens, I love fluffy kittens, everyone loves fluffy kittens" and all you have to do is find out how to make a new bookmark and copy and paste "fluffy kittens" into the URL field. In Firefox it's 'Bookmarks/Manage Bookmarks' in the menu, then the 'New Bookmark' :button. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried my method on my sandbox and it worked like a charm! I suggest however, protecting the page before you delete it, and restore the protected version and the bad history. Move that to the Article name/bad then restore the rest. Revert to the reversion before the redirect, and you are done!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, don't forget to delete the bad version when you are all done.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't forget that! And just an update — I've tried what Commander Keane suggests, and it works! I didn't try it on a deletion. I went to my watchlist, and then to "display and edit the complete list", and then went to the "Check all boxes", which I had entered into my "Favorites" and instantly, they were all checked. Thanks again to everyone. AnnH ♫ 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another way is to shift-click the first and last boxes. Apparently the developers don't want to add a "check all" button; I've requested it, but it's been denied. Ral315 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Add User:Cryptic/toggleundelete.js to your monobook.js but I agree it would be good to have a button as standard. the wub "?!" 14:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just attempted my first delete/restore (after testing, of course) to Great Wall of China to remove a phone number (there was no area code, but it could theoretically have been traced) and it appears to have worked like a charm :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef-block of Avillia

I have indef-blocked Avillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after a string of very serious incidents. I'm bringing it here for review:

• 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• Reposting of private IRC logs onto Wikipedia.
• Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism.
• A similar thing was done with VandalProof, another piece of software that has a check feature.
• A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DCC exploits that affect me and others on the #wikipedia channel.

This is clearly not the kind of user we need to put up with having around. Please review. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Support completely. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

support blocking under the "exhausted community patience" section of the blocking policy Benon 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Cyde. This user has hacked AWB in bad faith, bragged about it on IRC constantly, and invited people to vandalize wikipedia with it. He has been given quite a few chances and has not reformed. In fact, the next time someone does this, I suggest we don't wait a month to block. pschemp | talk 01:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, note I was the one who was reverting Avilla on Criticism of Wikipedia and he was removing parts that he wanted from the article, even though I agree with Avilla on a few things though and removed them myself. That's not enough for a indef block but the other things are serious and I endorse the block. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, enough is enough. Avillia has made a few useful edits but the majority of his braggings "hacking AWB to bypass authentication" then complaining when an IP using the hacked version was blocked claiming we have no policy for it, to the freenode hacking, Avillia just raises major problems here and elsewhere. -- Tawker 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Another support here. Ral315 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I just accidentally stumbled upon Avillia's request for unblock, and I hate to go against so many respectable admins, but I have to disagree with this block. I've been fed up with Avillia since day one when he started harassing me about WP:VandalProof and posed serious threats to the project's survival; then I came across the FreeAWB incident and suggested that the user be blocked or taken to an WP:RfC; then I came across the IRC logs incident; then I saw the WP:RfC his opened for Tawker and Essjay; then I saw the personal attacks on his userpage, and I was utterly convinced that the user should be banned. However, since then the user has calmed down quite significantly, has removed FreeAWB links from his page and apologized for the incident, has apologized to me, and he has now actually begun helping me out with WP:VandalProof, providing a lot of very useful input about how to improve the tool. Maybe I'm just assuming way, way, way too much good faith here, but I feel the user may actually be making an honest attempt to improve. I feel he may be able eventually to contribute quite a lot to the encyclopedia, and I certainly don't think he is a lost cause. I understand that he has exausted your patience, and I don't blame you one bit, but perhaps a shorter block (maybe 3 months?) with continued probation thereafter might be more appropriate, rather than an indefinite ban. In any case, it's likely quite inconsequential--I have no doubt that after the user is banned, he will return again anonymously as a sockpuppet, and perhaps he'll continue down the same road or maybe he will actually help to build an encyclopedia. In any case, I certainly don't want this to appear as support for Avillia's actions; rather, I would just like to ask you all to maybe consider a less permanent "punishment." AmiDaniel (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is just wrong.

• 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
  • Support a 24-hour block for this.
• Reposting of private IRC logs onto Wikipedia.
  • Support a ban from #wikipedia. But he was trying to justify himself, not troll. Good faith.
• Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism.
  • I don't think this second claim is accurate. Also, anyone can do this. It's an open source tool that edits pages for you. This possibly is a stress on the community's goodwill but it is only tinkering. At most, this deserves up to a week-long block.
• A similar thing was done with VandalProof, another piece of software that has a check feature.
  • I don't believe he actually accomplished this.
• A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DCC exploits that affect me and others on the #wikipedia channel.
  • I would support a ban from #wikipedia.

Avilla is clearly an excellent hacker who could make good contributions if he were to be banned from messing around with semi-bots, or something like that. Ashibaka tock 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, what? We can trust him as long as the rest of Wikipedia stays on his good side?! With all respect, not even WP:JIMBO should have that kind of power... RadioKirk talk to me 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ashibaka (glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this is harsh!). He did threaten to remove authentication from VP, but as source code was never provided, he never accomplished this. I was also not sure about the anon who vandalized with FreeAWB (I was just returning to ask about that when I saw this comment), as I think that may have just been a rumor. I would entirely support a ban from #wikipedia, but his actions off-wiki should not result in his being banned here. I might also note that, when Avillia first began posting IRC logs, it had not been "officially" made policy that doing so was prohibited--the majority of his actions following that result from confusion regarding the, in his opinion, unprovoked deletion of the logs and threats of being blocked, for something he did not know was prohibited. Naturally, he didn't deal with the situation well, and he is kind of a hot-head, but I'm not sure that's a reason to be banned. Oh, and I didn't see this until the edit conflict--I totally agree that any future attempts to remove authentication from semibots, deface tools, or encourage others to do the same should result in an immediate block (call it a semibot probation). AmiDaniel (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Avilla has caused nothing but grief for essjay, tawker, shanel, pathoschild, firefox, freenonde and countless others, unfortunatley despite sometimes appearing to be working constructivley. I'm a great beliver that a user can change but a long forced wikibreak is defintly required here Benon 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also with regards to logs, it has *always* been policy that #vandalism-en-wp should only be privately logged although i understand there was some confuison. What I and others objected was to avilla then continuing to game the system by restoring them after deletion Benon 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Has it? I wasn't entirely sure about that, but I was under the impression that the policies were changed during Swatjester's RfA. In any case, I'll admit that I wasn't particularly involved in the conflict between him and Essjay, Tawker, etc. From the involvement I've had with them, I entirely trust their judgment (especially Tawker); thus, if they feel the dispute they had with him alone warrants an indef block, I will beyond a doubt support it. I just wanted to state that I no longer hold anything against Avillia for his disputes with me, and I don't feel the points about VP, FreeAWB, 3RR, and IRC made above warrant an indef block. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It has. The policy was clarified because rules lawyers like Avillia tried to scream they weren't given due notice, but I personally talked with Avillia before he was given access to #vandalism-en-wp, and outlined our rules specifically. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he was being given an extraordinarily rare second chance (he'd already been refused access by at least two others), and that it was his responsibility to make himself aware of and abide by all channel policies. #vandalism-en-wp does not operate under the same policies as the #wikipedia channels, and has always had a policy against logging, as evidenced by the dozens of people who came out immediately to tell him he was violating it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A ban from #wikipedia?! Hah! He's getting K-lined from all of FreeNode! Do we really want to allow someone to edit Wikipedia who has been banned from an entire IRC network for using malicious exploits to disconnect other users? --Cyde Weys 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that getting banned from some network or another doesn't preclude the privilege of editing... he has been a bit annoying sometimes, and his recent activity might be grounds for a block of some length, but I don't think he has actually harassed anyone. Ashibaka tock 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to actually undo the block or anything, it is all too likely that you're more knowledgeable about this than me. Ashibaka tock 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning from non-Wikipedia networks is not by itself a blockable offense. Presumably if a convicted murderer was making good edits we would let the murderer edit. On the other hand, disruption of #wikipedia is in its own special category because it is almost an appendage of the Wiki. The best argument for an indefinite ban is that Avillia has simply exhausted the community's patience by his actions. As to that claim, I am not convinced of that (having only actually seen the Wikipedia half of this problem and not the #wikipedia part). I would like to give Avillia one more chance and if any out of the line behavior occurs, an indefinite block will result. JoshuaZ 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAA, but I certainly agree with Joshua and was about to make a very similar case myself. Joe 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ as well. I feel that off-wiki actions should not be grounds for a block here, though his actions on #wikipedia do suggest a threat to Wikipedia itself. In any case, if Avillia is as good a hacker as he has made himself out to be, whether we block him or not will not disable him from disrupting Wikipedia. I also feel that his on-wiki disruptions seem to have been primarily provoked by the fact that no one, myself included, ever even tried assuming good faith. Nonetheless, I am very bothered by his earlier attacks on Wikipedia, claiming it is built upon a "cabal" mentality, and that coupled with his skill at hacking suggests that he may well seek to disrupt Wikipedia. Yet I feel we may just be poking a sleeping beast by blocking him, and his actions on-wiki, though frustrating and annoying, have not been sufficiently hazardous enough to warrant an indefinite block. As I said before, a ban really does nothing--he'll create a sockpuppet and return, perhaps quietly, perhaps not. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a block for a few months, and then let's give him a chance to make constructive edits--if he continues in this fashion, then we invoke an indef ban. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, those creators and users of peripheral software are, I would guess, already working on plugging whatever holes can be plugged. RadioKirk talk to me 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the connection until reading it here, but over the last 6-10 weeks I have been getting disconnected from Freenode (with a generic mirc error message), and I think Avillia is responsible. I asked in #wikipedia, and got a message shortly thereafter purporting to be from avillia in which he admitted responsiblity. Raul654 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the #wikipedia channel operator who has banned Avillia on that IRC channel. It was in response to an assertion by a Freenode staffer that Avillia was the user who had been maliciously disconnecting users from IRC using a couple of exploits. I will reiterate that banning from #wikipedia should not be seen as being at all related to a user's editing privileges. They are two entirely different spheres. There is not even 100% proof that Avillia was the offending user. So please do not even consider off-wiki behaviour in this instance. - Mark 05:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A freenode staffer has confirmed on the #vandalism-en-wp channel that it was avilla so im now getting confused :S Benon 05:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This has not yet been confirmed, as far as I've been able to find out. Avillia claims that someone faked his identity and hostname, and apparently Lilo will be able to confirm/disprove this tomorrow by checking logs. If it is found that he was not actually responsible for the IRC exploits, then the list of reasons for this indef block has been whittled down to: 3RR, IRC logging, and the removal of authentication from WP:AWB, which I personally don't feel warrants an indefinite ban. If he is found to have been responsible for the IRC trolling, then I could support a somewhat longer block, but again not an indefinite one. I might also note that Avillia is a self-admitted member of GNAA, though he has not participated in the trolling of Wikipedia, and he claims to have not been involved in the freenode trolling either. That may or may not influence this decision. I feel that most of the support for this ban has arisen from speculative and circumstantial evidence, and I certainly don't think any decision should be finalized until some of these points can be proven. I might note that two of these speculative points have already been disproven: no anon vandalized using FreeAWB, and the authentication was never removed from VP, and the final point has also been disproven insofar as no one has yet confirmed that Avillia was indeed involved in the DCC exploits. Morning may reveal more. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

lilo = Rob Levin = head of freenode Kotepho 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an easy way to settle the matter; someone who feels strongly enough that the block was out of process should file an appeal on his behalf to the Arbitration Committee. I'll be more than happy to make the case that he and any reincarnation should be banned indefinately. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Woa, I think invoking the ArbCom at this point is quite unnecessary--I thought we were just having a discussion about the matter. There's no need to get defensive, though I totally understand why you feel so strongly about this. I'm just asking that we look at this a little more closely and try to see if Avillia's claims are valid or not--then we can take it from there. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least; the Banning Policy specifically states: "Community-derived bans may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee". Avillia has been blocked, we assert it is a ban by the community; the appropriate resolution is for someone who believes the community is wrong to ban him to step up and appeal his case for him. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the idea of a community-based ban is that a user is blocked, possibly out-of-process, and absolutely no administrators are willing to unblock him. It is essentially a form of IAR that says we shouldn't keep somebody that nobody wants around unblocked just because there's no justification under the blocking policy. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is either excessive, unnecessary, or disruptive. Given Avillia's actions it makes perfect sense to bring this to ArbCom if, for whatever reason, this block doesn't "stick". --Cyde Weys 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom recently rejected a request to review a "community ban" citing that it is up for the community to decide. [1] It doesn't really matter what the banning policy says if they aren't going to do it. Kotepho 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't want to appeal the ban, but rather I want to wait for more hard evidence to come in, see what I feel after that, and see if the admins here still feel that a ban was necessary. The only reason for taking this to the ArbCom, in my opinion, would be if the admins could not reach a consensus after that point, and if it showed signs of becoming a wheel war (which the preemptive removal of Avillia's block already indicates might be the case). If the admins seem generally to agree that this ban is necessary (which they don't at this point, but may after more evidence comes in), I will certainly drop it. If, after the rest of the facts are made available, the admins generally agree that the ban should be lifted, then I'd assume others would also have the same decency to let it go. I certainly don't want it to appear that I'm debating, I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter. As I've said before, I totally understand why you so passionately oppose Avillia, as I've felt this same disdain for him as well; however, I still feel it necessary and decent to investigate the possibility that he may have been unfairly treated. AmiDaniel (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're conducting a character analysis of Avillia this Slashdot post may be relevant. Magnetism 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

the unblock and reblock of Avillia

I didn't read through the whole conversation, but it seems like some of the justifications for the block are for off-site incidents. IRC, sourceforge, hacking of other software. None of those activities took place here on en.wp, therefore indefinite ban based on them is wrong (no matter how harmful those activities may be). On the other hand, 3RR here on WP is a clear violation. Deserves a block, but not a permban. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading more comments here, and on the user's talk page, I see that there are some signs of reform, and perhaps even some evidence that some of the "crimes" were not interpreted fairly. The only on-site wp violation that I've seen alleged against this user is a 3RR violation, which is not enough for a permban. I have unblocked this user. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking without consensus is a good way to start a wheel war. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But I have a very conservative view about permanent blocks; they should only be undertaken when we're absolutely positive. The comments above do not reflect that, so I had to unblock. For what it's worth, the wheel war is underway; User:Kelly Martin has reverted my unblock. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert lethe's unblock; rather, I blocked Avillia for her edits after lethe's unblock. Let's be clear about this. Also, I remind people that blocked users may participate in an Arbitration case by email to any Arbitrator or clerk; it is not necessary to unblock an editor to allow an arbitration to proceed against them. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin has blocked Avillia for one week; let's leave it that way for now, please. I personally feel that removing the block entirely went against the discussion here, as I feel there are definitely grounds for blocking at this point and that most everyone here has agreed upon that. The only question is how long the block should extend, primarily whether it should be indefinite or not. Though there do seem to be a lot of people opposed to an indef block at this point (and people, like me, waiting to hear all of the evidence before making up my mind), it would seem few object to at least a week's block (though some have suggested a 24hr block instead). I'd just hope the admins here would refrain from wheel-warring, both from removing the block and lengthening the block, as that just complicates matters further. In a week's time, there may be consensus to unblock, to permablock (though that's looking less likely), or this may go to the ArbCom; in any case, it doesn't seem to make a difference whether she is currently blocked for a week or blocked indefinitely. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a one week block. Note that I think all parties involved should have discussed this before carrying out the blocks and unblocks, but on balance I think the one week block is the fairest. Petros471 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is serious objection to the block, then we can't consider it a community decision, can we? Since lethe objects, send it to ArbCom to reinstate the indef block (however long that process will take). ArbCom gets it right typically and why should we invite wheel warring when we have ArbCom? (For example, I am happy with how ArbCom stepped up with the new ruling in the StrangerInParadise case, instead of their leaving it to any random admin to decide whether to impose an indef block.) Until ArbCom decides something on Avillia, he can be blocked as any other user can be for infractions, just not indefinitely. In due time, ArbCom will make the right ruling. A one week block seems good for now. NoSeptember ^talk 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd hoped bringing in the ArbCom wouldn't be necessary, but as it's now turned to wheel-warring, this seems to be the only solution. As NoSeptember said, if the block is this controversial, it can't be a community decision. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I'd like to add that I personally believe that a one week block suffices, unless I see any evidence of misconduct to change my mind (including if Avillia is found to be responsible for the IRC abuse). AmiDaniel (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A week long block sounds fair. Indef seems excessive (blocking established users permanently should only be done after careful thought). BrokenSegue 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say fair opposition, I'd say its still 70/30 in favour of keeping the block up. If this GNAA posting on Slashdot is still the same user, it does bring very big questions about the users actions, I think its best for ArbCom to take a look here -- Tawker 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not clear on what Avillia's infraction was beyond 3RR, so 1 week sounds longish to me, but I'm not going to wheel war over it. And I'm not going to take it to court either. I can live with a week. Of course, just a comment to you, September: if we do send it to ArbComm, then we cannot reinstate the permban, as Avillia will have to be expected to be able to edit his ArbComm case. Isn't that so? -lethe ^{talk +} 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has in the past temporarily unblocked users so that they can add their comments. But that is up to ArbCom. Further, I doubt ArbCom wants to jump into a decision whether to indef block here. The case has to proceed through the normal dispute resolution steps as any other case does before they will even accept the case. NoSeptember ^talk 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The other steps in the dispute resolution process also require that the user be unblocked. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A seven-day block is not appropriate for this level of disruption. He must be blocked indefinitely; it's the only way to treat a troll of that type once he has shown his true colors. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a hater. Ashibaka tock 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate the silly troll. I just advocate indefinitely denying him access to our wiki. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've been waiting for some time for Lilo to get back online so I can ask him to confirm this (and I will post again once he has); however, as I have come to understand it, freenode officials after reviewing the case today have concluded that there is no definitive evidence that Avillia was involved in the IRC DCC exploits and the malicious and intentional disconnecting of several users from freenode. As there is no evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that his story, that someone impersonated him by faking hostnames and identities, is still a possibility; as such, I feel the claim that "A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DDC exploits that affect [Cyde] and others on the #wikipedia channel" can be disregarded as invalid. I might also note that, again to my understanding, Avillia is not currently k-lined, though he is banned from #wikipedia. In any case, I still feel that, even if Avillia were found to be guilty of this accusation, his actions off-wiki should not result in banishment on-wiki.

With the IRC issue disregarded, the VandalProof claim disproven, and the claim that FreeAWB was used for fast-paced vandalism left unreferenced, unconfirmed, and unproven (not even the IP address has yet to provided), we are now left with the following three reasons for an indefinite ban: (quoted from Cyde above)

1. 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. Reposting of private IRC logs onto Wikipedia.
3. Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage.

The links to FreeAWB were taken down by Avillia after being threatened with a RfAR, and Martin has expressed no interest in pursuing the issue further. Similarly, this user has made ammends with me over his threats to the WP:VandalProof project, and I no longer wish to pursue that matter further. (As I said above, the user has actually now approached me with helpful ideas for improving the tool and seems to have recognized that his earlier actions were misguided.)

I might also add that Avillia is a self-admitted member of GNAA and has participated in trolling on other sites, though he now claims to be inactive in the organization. At the same time, there are several members of GNAA on Wikipedia, even some who troll Wikipedia, who have not been blocked and have had no administrative action taken against them. Anyway, you all know my stance on the issue, so I won't bother repeating it--I just wanted to get the facts straight. Sorry for my long soliloquy, and this will likely be my last post (other than noting when the opening statement has been personally confirmed) on the issue unless it goes to ArbCom. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One more note. Avillia just contacted me and confirmed that he was the Avillia responsible for this Slashdot post. In response he said, "Yeah. It was a really stupid slashdot post...One first post on Slashdot with the GNAA signatory, watching a idiotic but hilarious movie filled with racial and ethnic slurs, and answering 20 questions about aforementioned movie, given by means of IRC bot" (republished with his permission). It certainly doesn't do much to boost his character sketch, but I still don't feel it's a reason for an indefinite ban. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal with IRC logs is. I note that wikipedia talk pages, wiki-en mail list discussions and USENET discussions are available to the entire internet in perpetuam. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that emails are publishable by either side taking part in the discussion. Given that the IRC cabal sometimes has an effect on WP policy, I don't see any reason why they should expect to have their conversations guarded in perfect secrecy. Just because people don't like having their IRC logs posted doesn't explain why it's a blockable offense. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on it either, but apparently it has to do with privacy policy violations and laws prohibiting the unconsensual logging and publication of online, two-party chats. This is, perhaps, related. It would be nice if someone could point to where this is outlined in more depth than it is in the IRC channel list on meta. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the prohibition on public logging of #wikipedia, it isn't outlined in depth anywhere. It has just been that way for a very long time. The policy is not made by the note on meta; the note is nothing more than a note. Since the channels are services of Freenode, rather than Wikimedia, they first and foremost follow the Peer Directed Projects Centre policies and guidelines. Notable in the guidelines is the following: "If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant." Wikipedia Policy is not made on IRC (or on the mailing list, for that matter), it's made on Wikipedia proper. Taking it a bit further, if admins knew each other in real life and happened to discuss Wikipedia policy on a conference call on the phone, would we not block if someone uploaded recordings of their conversations? I fail to see why one is wrong and one is okay. - Mark 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The DRV dicussion notes that that was a recent change to include that rule, even if it was an unwritten one beforehand. Even then, I fail to see how PDPC rules apply to Wikipedia actions. The channel in question is also #vandalism-en-wp, not #wikipedia (AFAIK, going from Pathoschild's DRV comments again). I don't think we should block someone for uploading a recorded conference call either, if they capitulate and do not persist in reposting it (AGF and all that) and I do not know of Avilia reposting the logs on Wikipedia after being told not to. Kotepho 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to weigh in on here except the unblock while discussion of the block was specifically ongoing and most people agreeing at least some block was needed is absolutely the wrong thing to do. No one should ever revert another admin's call (much less many admins agreeing with the call) unless there is consensus to do so. Following that would prevent all wheel wars. There are few admin actions so urgent they can't wait for consensus to develop, especially after the least risk option has been chosen. - Taxman ^Talk 05:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. I apologize for the o'erhasty action, and will be more careful in the future. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a complete unblock should not have been done, but the way community bans are normally described is that someone indef blocks them and no one is willing to unblock them, since lethe is/was willing to unblock it really isn't a ban then. It would make more sense to block for a week, post here, and if there is support for an indef block/ban go through with it. There is no rush to indef block someone. Even if consensus cannot be reached or there is some bizarre delay you can always reblock for another week them while discussion continues. Kotepho 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted troll, he glories in it. He must be blocked indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For those not watching closely, he's currently blocked for a week by Kelly Martin. I think that's appropriate for now, and we should revisit this discussion if he continues to be disruptive once that block expires. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've talked with Avillia on IRC today. I shan't reccomend a block or unblock, though I'm worried that if (s)he continues this way, (s)he will end up permanently blocked fairly soon. Kim Bruning 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

Minutes after I add Category:Kurdish inhabited region to a half dozen articles [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], User:Cool Cat nominates the category for deletion.

This is confusing, because Cool Cat contacted me via IRC to get me to create just such a category. Unless I'm misrembering (I _am_ getting old, you know ;-) this. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? It seems that his objection is not in the category's existence but in its use. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region

User:Cool Cat has a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds.

He has vociferously sought the deletion of all categories related to Kurds:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17#Category:Kurdistan
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3#Category:Kurdistan

plus the current votes:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Kurdish cities

During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me.

Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:Cool Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:Cool Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude.

I agree, he needs to change his attitude. --Moby 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree entirely with Moby's summary. Cool Cat's disruptions do it hard to write articles about anythings related to Kurds. And it is indeed not an extenuating circumstance that user themselve stated, as quoted above, that they intended to sabotage the Category:Kurdistan, as it during the debate for its deletion was clear that it would stay. I hope some action will be taken, since the alternative seems to be continuing of disruptive edit wars. Bertilvidet 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom verdict which you've posted above says that he should be blocked for up to 3 days if he engages edits disruptively in Kurdish related areas. We've got several people saying he has done so, therefore I block 2 days. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position here, Cool Cat invited me into the discussion claiming that he was having POV issues with Kurdistan related articles, implying that he had received death threats from other users as a result of the discussion getting heated (see here). I got involved and made some progress with the other users in getting some agreement over the inclusion of Category:Kurdistan in articles, and this I believe has led to some of the sub-categories such as those listed above being created. I have since stepped back a bit due largely to real life events. I will say that although Cool Cat had some valid points in his arguements against the inclusion of material in articles about the disputed region, the way he went about making his point was unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. I also stand by telling him that he needs to change his opinion, after he stated (and I paraphrase) that he would be unable to negotiate a consensus on certain subject areas. -- Francs2000 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the comments you're referring to as death threats were targeting you (for reasons I have no clue about) and had nothing to do with User:Cool Cat or anyone else involved in the Kurdish categorization discussions; I certainly made no such threats. And thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. As Cool Cat's mentor I'm banning him from editing articles, templates and categories related to the kurds. He may still edit related discussion pages. This ban is initially to run for one week, to be made permanent subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ban includes creation or nomination for deletion. See the announcement on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• If this is to be kept it should be called Kurdish inhabited regions as per the naming policy to use plurals in categories. How long was this ban on Kurdish related articles for Coolcat? (Mgm - not logged in) - 131.211.210.16 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of plural makes sense to me, I'll suggest it on the CFD. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a copy of a message I posted to Tony Sidaway:

While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (which is in my opinion even more disruptive -- bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?

I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited region was the action that prompted me to start this discussion here, but the disruption has been on-going on pages such as Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey for some time. He has removed Category:Kurdistan from many article (awhile ago...) and has been rather clear about his intent to oppose all efforts at categorizing Kurdish articles. Given his history, I would think a ban on Kurdish-related editing an apt remedy. An hour ago I left a note on his talk page and he screamed at me. I don't see him as willing to work with others on this subject. --Moby 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentors I see it as our main jobs to keep Cool_Cat (talk · contribs) editing effectively and to avoid another rendezvous with the arbitration committee. As always, it is not Cool Cat's judgement on content that is in question but the way in which he interacts with others on some subjects. Yesterday he was blocked for forty-eight hours by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a result of the complaint by Moby_Dick (talk · contribs). In Lethe's view, Cool Cat has edited disruptively on the subject of the Kurds so arbitration remedy 5 is invoked.

This isn't the first time since the arbitration that we've had trouble with Cool Cat over Kurds. From early March he has made some unconstructive AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan

and some unconstructive comments on others:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=44203127

There is an ongoing concern, and I think a valid one, that Cool Cat permits his edits on such issues to be influenced too strongly by his sympathies with Turkish nationalism. He repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia.

Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so.

It is for this reason that I announced the one-week ban.

However, User:MacGyverMagic is also one of Cool Cat's mentors, and although in this case I have acted alone I do not intend to take actions with which any of my fellow mentors disagree.

In view of MacGyverMagic's opposition, I rescind the ban pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting these other activities; the scope of the issue is greater than I was aware (and I now understand the restaurant references).

While I disagree with User:Cool Cat's judgment on many of the Kurd-issues here, it is his attitude that is most troublesome. In his response below I see no sign that he sees any validity to the objections others have raised -- he appears to be simply digging in his heels. If no action is taken on this issue, what's to stop him from continuing to obstruct efforts involving Kurds in the future? Presumably this whole incident will have been noted by a variety of people, but I don't expect many to involve themselves in the issue (which I would welcome).

I understand that banning someone is a serious step and should not be taken lightly. I will avoid editing any of the Kurd articles and categories against consensus. If a clear direction on an appropriate course to take on Kurdish categorization comes out of this whole dispute I'll be pleased. --Moby 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's response to all of this

It is quite pathetic when one has to defend himself to his mentor... I'll list the articles, categories, and templates I have placed for deletion below. I am going to include ones Tony Sidaway did not include as well.

I'd like to point out the reason why we do not do polls for deletion. All deletion processes are a concensus gathering process. However on occasions disruptive behaviour such as Vote Stacking do happen.

Hence I will explain all of the deletion votes I started or participated. I will try to be brief for all of them.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
  • Article was originaly talking about two countries that have supposively existed. One only lasted 2 years while another lasted less than 6 months. The article(s) barely occupy a paragraph and had two sections I believe.
  • Article at a point was comparing the british goverment with saddam as "the british goverment gassed the kurds".
  • I was in contact with Tony on IRC about this deletion, I do not recall the details but he did not say or imply such a deletion would be disruptive.
  • During the vfd the articles quality was improved sligtly
  • Perhaps article is much suitable to be a section on an article with the title "Modern History of the Kurds" as article cant grow much even when inflated with lists of cabinate members.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
  • When I placed this article up for deleteion it was talking about an insignificant restourant which two kurds supposively had been shot. At the time the article barely could be considered a stub. After the deletion article was slightly inproved and renamed. It became a historicaly significant incident and hence became article worthy as an incident rather than info about the restourant.
  • I discussed the possible afd of this article with Tony Sidaway on IRC and he said it was pretty useless and that he said it wouldnt probably survive a deletion.
  • The result of my Afd is a better article with a better title.
  • This article should be a section at "Modern history of the Kurds" as article is too short and cant grow as the incident was quite minor and all details have been presented.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan
  • Other editors, one being Gruntness feels this article exists soely as a pov fork. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for that reason
  • There was a case of vote stacking over 14 people were notified of this afd of which all but one voted favorably to the advertisier (user:Bertilvidet) with keep. My complaint about a vote stacking generated milimal response and no action.
  • Article currently gives a short intoduction to kurdish history which is a copy of History of the Kurds and a number of articles. Kurdistan is not oversized and we do have a Kurds in Turkey if we are to talk about the kurds. We can talk about Kurdish nationalism in its own article.
  • If we had a sensable deletion process this article would have been deleted. If you think otherwise please provide a rationale at what purpose does this article with pov titile, Turkish Kurdistan, serve that cant be achieved through Kurds in Turkey and Kurdish nationalism.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
  • It is a strange article. I believe this article is nothing but pusedo science and promotes racisim. When I nominated this article for deleteion there was a VERY LARGE dna picture and it was less than neutral. it might be a nice addition to a section under Kurdish people. BUT etnicity is a cultural concept not genetic. Genetic would be race and last time I checked Kurds were just an ethnic minority.
• Category:Kurdish terrorists
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurdish terrorist. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Category:PKK victims
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe PKK is a Terrorist organisation and anybody they killed is a victim. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Template:Kurd-politician-stub ^(vote)
  • I participated in this vote expressing why the stub category is pov. Stub types have very explicit guidelines.
  • I'd like to point out comments of some of the people voting keep... They are by far intruguing
  • I have not initiated this deletion
  • The "unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties" comment tony highlighted is in parallel with stub guidelines.
    • While a Category:Kurdish politicians may be approporate. I would however prefer a categorisation similar to the format politicians in United States is covered such as Category:African American politicians. Tagging a Kurd in Iraq and Turkey under the same category would be problematic and confusing. However I do not intend to do anything about it as my block is proof wikipedia is not worth my devotion anymore.
• Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub
  • Speedy deleted as per vote mentioned above.
  • User:Retau created this
• Template:Kurdistan-bio-stub ^(vote)
  • Probably will be deleted as a back log as per stub sorting practice.
  • User:Retau created this
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces and #Category:Kurdish cities
  • We do not categorise provinces, cities, or other landmarks based on ethnicity. I do not see why kurds are treated diferently from rest of wikipedia.
  • If demographic information about an ethnicity is avalible it can be presented in an article.
  • Who determines which article fits in these category or not? Kurdistan does not have defined borders nor are there any reliable data on Kurdish population.
  • Categories are navigation aids. The basis of such categories for provinces and cities is based on "who owns the place". Categories are not tools for territory grab. We do not tag every province and city in mainland china under Category:Taiwan just because the goverment claims it. Kurds do not even have a country to claim territory from.
  • User:Retau created both of the categories
  • See User:El_C's comment about User:Retau on the next section.
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region
  • Originaly intended to be a comprimise to Category:Kurdistan. I requested its creation from user:Ed poor via email and/or irc.
  • I later changed my mind as categorising based on ethnicity still is a poor practice. No example of ethnic tagging exists in articles like New York or California.
  • It is more problematic as we do not have any reliable statistics regarding the Kurds. We do not know how many kurds there are let alone know what fraction of the population they occupy as no census about ethnicity was EVER held in the past 7 decades at least to my knowlege.
• Categories I haven't touched nor intend to touch Category:Kurdish people, Category:History of the Kurds, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Kurdish politicians, Category:Kurdish writers,... List goes on I am well aware of many other categories, articles, and templates related to the kurds. So I am definaltly not trying to delete everything related to kurds at random.
• My actions are infact reactions to mass creation of many contraversial categories all only exist soley to grab territory. I also raise concerns about tiny articles that have no way of growing. None of my actions have "distupted" the articles in question unless you consider improvement as disruption.

--Cat out 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On at least one matter of fact I must correct Cool Cat. He and I discussed the article Mykonos (restaurant) and I edited to add a reference from a Time article. I told him at 2007 UTC on March 1, 2006, that, as with all deletion candidates I edit, "I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted." I had told him at 2000, "the case is obviously notable. It led to an international incident" -Tony Sidaway 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actualy interprted that as the article has a chance to survive as much as a snowball in hell. In any case my nomination was for a non-notable restourant. Overal the nomination improved the article, not disrupt. For instance it was renamed as it was not about this random restourant. --Cat out 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see in retrospect that my wording was unclear. I can see how this unintentionally misled you on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, User:Cool Cat has responded here while blocked [8][9]. His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him. --Moby 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would just like to say that I support Cool Cat on this matter. The Kurdish categories were deleted before by nominations because of the vagueness of the borders of the proposed "Kurdistan" region - which had lead to edit wars in the past, they were created again by the User:Retau (Who may be a sockpuppet of User:Xebat according to CheckUser [10] - who was banned recently for a year according to the Aucaman ArbCom [11]). I believe User:Moby Dick has turned this simple matter to something very personal which I regret to say that will not help the matter. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [12] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [13] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.

During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [14], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [15] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [16] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [17]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[18], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.

The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [19] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [20] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:

Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"

Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."

I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.

There certainly is a problem here.

At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [21], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [22], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.

I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, look who showed up. Yes, I opposed your RFA -- what were you thinking, with blocks just last week?

As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.

I do thank you for your praise of some of my edits; hope you don't take offence -- In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is a wonderful book.

Also, you did comment on the matter involving User:Cool Cat and Kurds -- remember now?

--Moby 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (who is not a troll, thank you)

You sound just like a pouty child trying to lie his out of a fix by pretending it's all Cool Cat's fault. Give it up. I'm not impressed. -Zero^Talk 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While I believe that CoolCat hasn't looked especially open to compromise, it is unfair to declare that all of these actions are "disruptive" - it is unfortunate that he changed his mind about a compromise category but changing your mind should always be allowed. There is no general consensus about ethnic-geography categories. Indeed, these Kurdish examples seem to be the sole example of the type; presumably because most people find the idea of an ill-defined ethnic-geography category a bad idea. I am open to the idea if implemented properly, but the three ethnic-geography categories CoolCat has nominated were all, quite simply, dire. They had POV issues. They were poorly defined. The most recent one even had a grammatically incorrect name! I do not believe it is disruptive to nominate for deletion something that, in the reasonable opinions of many well-respected Wikipedians (and there are many who agreed with CoolCat - see the votes), does not belong on Wikipedia. CoolCat has not been mass-deleting Kurdish-related articles. He has not been attempting deletions of neutral, generally accepted, Kurdish categories. He has made a contentious attempt to expunge ethnic-geography cross-over categories, but these have widespread opposition from many sources so I don't think that it is genuinely disruptive. Nobody should be forced to compromise on the issue of ethnic-geography categories, since many Wikipedians reasonably disagree strongly with their creation - failure to agree on a compromise isn't necessarily a sign of disruption if you honestly believe (especially with something as "binary" in nature as a category) that something is a harmful or damaging idea. The fact that many of his nominations were speedied is an indication that he isn't being entirely disruptive, perhaps the restaurant and genetics AfDs were the closest to that mark. The thing that seems to be the real problem is that CoolCat isn't making a secret of his personal views. While sometimes he edits in a way that shows he is actually being a "Good Wikipedian" and going against personal preference in the interests of the encyclopedia (e.g. with the Kurdish terrorist category) when he is making a positive, useful contribution that seems "in tune" with his views, he looks like a disruptive POV-monger. Which in turn makes people vote against him unthinkingly... It would be better, perhaps, if he kept some of these topics at arm's length and merely brought these instances to the attention of Wikipedians known to be neutral on the Kurdistan question, to allow them to decide whether to make a deletion request or not. I simply can not believe that anybody would have cut any slack to Category:Hispanic inhabited region for instance: it would have been wiped off the face of the 'pedia without any second thoughts; however, the fact that it is CoolCat and the Kurds has meant that this category has a surprising number of keep votes. However, whether CoolCat wants to take this degree of extra care (and restrict his editing accordingly) in cases which are fundamentally non-disruptive should really be for CoolCat to decide, not any of us. TheGrappler 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick (talk · contribs)

I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

1. User:Moby Dick has a total of 344 edits as of the preparation of this report.
   • I'd consider him to be new to wikipedia as he has been a wikipedian since december. This alone is not a problem though.
   • User:Davenbelle's last edit was on 03:20, 6 December 2005, User:Moby Dick made his first edit on 01:29, 23 December 2005
2. On 03:02, 26 January 2006 users makes his first edit into the wikipedia namespace and it is opposing my RfA [23]
   • He seems to have located my RfA conviniantly. It his his 84th edit. He also makes a very professional edit by incrementing the oppose counter. Its something often oldies fail to notice
   • We have not edited any articles in common meaning he did not know me at all.
   • He participated in a total of 2 RfA aside from my own. One for Megaman Zero (as oppose) and another for Khoikhoi (support). Both are figures I know. He is definately not a frequent voter.
   • User:Davenbelle had opposed my other previous two of my rfas.
     • One of these RfAs were filed by MegamanZero
     • User:Davenbelle managed to oppose it before the nominator, megaman zero, could support
3. On 07:57, 25 February 2006 MobyDick conviniantly discovered "forgery" on Megaman Zero's user page [24]
   • Long ago, on 20:05, 2 January 2006, User:Megaman Zero complained about User:Davenbelles behaviour on User:Davenbelles talk page. [25]
   • This is just 3 edits after him opposing my rfa. Mind the month long gap. It is strange to say the least.
   • User:Davenbelle gave User:Megaman_Zero the award.
   • This incident had made its way to the ANB. This is mobydicks first post to the ANB [26]
4. On 07:21, 10 March 2006, Moby Dick informs user:Aucaman about my RfAr [27]
   • It is possible that he could have learnt about the existance of the RfAr from my 3rd rfa nomination as I have mentioned it there. However a key question is why did he tell this to Aucaman. He has no edits in comon with Aucaman. Nor was he involved with anything related to the kurds.
   • This is his first post for 11 days, in the previous post he was complaining about megaman zeros award on the ANB. [28] [29]
5. On 02:41, 11 March 2006 [30] [31] user participated in his first deletion votes, both were initiated by Megaman Zero
6. On 05:09, 11 March 2006 this user oposed the copy vio nomination I made [32]
   • This is the first and last time the user participates in copyright matters
   • Davnbelle was involved with the Armenian Genocide article and was practicaly opposing anything I suggested. It can be said that was his entier contribution.
7. On 05:58, 11 March 2006 [33] user opposed the deletion of Category:Kurdistan which I initiated.
   • user had not been involved with any other issues regarding Kurds or any such deletion votes for that matter.
8. On 02:51, 13 March 2006 [34] user got involved with an article about kurds for the first time on Batman, Turkey article. He has repetively restored "Kurdish dominance" line by reverting my edit. This continued on
   • user:Bertilvidet is one other party desperately working to force "Kurdish dominance" to the lead.
   • Davenbelle also prefered to oppose me whenever possible. This might be too vauge to be considered as evidence but take a look at [35] and [36]
9. On 02:20, 1 May 2006 user created the KHRP redirect. [37]
   • There is nothing disruptive with that. however if you take a look at [38] you will see Davenbelle had initiated the article redirect leads to.

These are the coincidences I have found on frist sight. There are of course other cases I can post but I want to keep my report brief.

Among 6,895,645 many articles and 48,104,900 number of users, MobyDick's edits intersect with Davenbelle on more than one ocasion. Would make a great statistics research paper.

I wont come up with conclusions but I find the material I just posted very interesting.

--Cat out 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I actually liked this evidence gathering. Interesting indeed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Telex 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Too long, indeed -- however I felt obliged to read it. User:Cool Cat is making this false allegation in order to divert attention from the issue of his behavior and, it would seem, in order to entangle me in his arbitration case. It is also not the first time has has made this sort of claim: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cool Cat. While the factual details -- who has edited what, for example -- of his accusation appear to be accurate (I've not checked), his spin and interpretation are entirely self-serving.

I believe I first encountered User:Cool Cat on the first CFD of Category:Kurdistan and did not like his obvious intent of limiting Kurdish content on Wikipedia. I have used Wikipedia as a reference for years and its greatest problem is inconsistent accuracy of information and it is the behavior of editors such as User:Cool Cat that is responsible for this.

User:Cool Cat's implied accusation (which he makes explicit here) can easily be explained by the fact that articles and users he refers to are all related; they involve Kurds or they involve him. He expresses concern that my edits are too "professional" for one so "new" -- as if this were the only wiki in the world.

I would add again that he does not appear to be interested seeking a consensus. He efforts here only serve to make the editing environment hostile.

--Moby 10:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting argument. What wiki do you normaly work for? Tonikaku, I may have been wrong on Amask's case but that has nothing to do with your case. Amask has participated in only two votes and one or two articles. Lets consider your statistics.

• You have participated in a total of 3 rfas, the first one you have ever voted was my rfa and you voted oppose, just like davenbelle. Coincidentaly the other two rfas are people who I know about. Of that MegamanZero is the person that told Davenbelle to stop stalking (See User Talk:Davenbelle). The other RfA you participated was for Khoikhoi who at the time in dispute with me. Lets call all that circumstential evidence and discard them.
• You have participated in a total of 8 deletion votes. 5 of them opposing me, 2 of them opposing megamanzero. So thats 7 out of 8 deletion votes we have in common. Again lets call that circumstential evidence and discard it.
• There is this hole case of you and megaman zero. You were complaining about something megaman zero recieved from davenbelle. MegamanZero at a point modifed the bycycle award to an exceptional newbie award long ago at 10:50, 18 January 2006. I Had to dig through the userpage history to discover the actual modification of the award and I knew what I was looking for.
  1. So we have an award given to MegamanZero by davenbelle.
  2. We have MegamanZero warning davenbelle to stop stalking me on a much later date. (a motive for davenbelle to seek "revenge") as MegamanZero and I had been close and still are close.
  3. We have megaman zero modifying the given award in 12 january (hey he can its his userpage)
  4. We have you detecting and "correcting" it on 25 february.
  5. We know you never met megamanzero on any article, meaning you didnt know him.

  So among 48,104,900 registered users, you found Megaman Zero at random. You also discovered "forgery" of an award on his userpage which required me to load a dozen diffs even though I knew what I was looking for.

• You make edits such as this or this. While to an untrained eye it is a simple vandalism reversion. Davenbelle was also very interested in the contravercy surrounding the Southeastern Anatolia Project ^([39]), an article I mostly wrote. Among 6,895,645 we meet on the same article as davenbelle edited on the same section.
• We also have you removing/objecting a copyright issue I posted concerning a letter and the Armenian Genocide [40]. It spikes my curiosity how on earth have you noticed that post? And if you are so concerned about copyrights why havent you ever commmented on another copyright issue?
• I noticed recently. So you have randomly discovered an edit of mine and since it is a redirect that is among 4,190,567 pages. You have reverted an edit of mine from 04:20, 12 April 2006.

You are complaining about me creating a hostile enviorment... How productive is you complaining about megaman zeros award? How would you describe your attitude?

Coincidences? Sure. A striking question is why would a user who had only edited articles about the novel featuring the whale Moby Dick suddenly start to edit articles related to Kurds, Armenians, and Turkey practicaly opposing me on every opertunity?

I said I wouldnt come up with the conclusions and I wont, however if davenbelle made edits like yours... he would be considered stalking in my view.

--Cat out 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You think I'm stalking you? I want nothing more than to be rid of you. You are the one who seems to have studied every edit I've made, and who will spin any yarn it takes to minimise Kurdish coverage. --Moby 10:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget comments such as the one below create a hostile environment. Not just that, it is also very incivil.

As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.

Wikipedia prizes itself for its coverage on topics such as hard science as well as video games and Anime episode descriptions. Founder of wikipedia had made his view on this issue quite clear.

--Cat out 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There were a lot of hate around here

Like written, it seems no one have the right to write anything about Kurds, If you write anything about Kurds even with references it´s propaganda or bullshit by somepeople, this is not the Wikipedia I want it become a member of. If some people get as they wished I can say here and now that everything relaeted to Kurds is gonna be deleted.

OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm far from considered anti-Kurdish, but I looked at one of your edits and I found it problematic. El_C 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User is a suspected sockpuppet and probably should be blocked indefinately. [41] --Cat out 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? [note that I only managed to rather superficially touch on some of the issues in Ebdulrehman Qasimlo]. Thanks in advance. El_C 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A break? [Threateningly] I hope you mean the honeymoon! Bishonen | talk 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC).

I'm a bit too bruised from my fall for that (I'll see if I can get around to taking some pics of my injuries) and will need to rest my soar body, not to mention my fragile and now drugged-out mind. But the Dr says that in a week I should be as good as new! El_C 01:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC).

Re: User: Anwar saadat

Hello, I am User: Benzee. I think I have been wrongly requested for sockpuppetry usage. I am not sure but he has been vandalising my page with Image copyright messages Like This after deleting the copyrights himself Proof. He has also vandalized pages such as Vijay's article. Since his only plan is to do vandalism, I suggest you block him for atleat 1 week or 1 month so he can let other wikipedians get on in their wiki careers as well as persoanl. He is targeting me for no apparent reason and no, I am not a sockpuppet of User: Naan Kadavul, my contributions are worthy and I am personally concentrating on reaching a separate wikipedia landmark. Keep up your good work adminstrators! Thanking You Benzee 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) May the force be with you!

There does seem to be problematic edits of a recent nature. Also, somehow I originally mistook this to be about the article Anwar Sadat. El_C 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

El C, please have a look at Talk:Ajith and Ajith. He is running a one-man blockade against User:Zora, User:Ganeshk, User:David crawshaw, and User:Blnguyen (myself) for removing blatant POV such as the constant use of "!", "mega-star" and "mega-hit" the usage of a magazine review term "Numero Uno" as a fact rather than endorsement, a whole list of random vague assertions, and threatened to report us for vandalism and trolling (it's a POV dispute). User:Pa7, User:Plumcouch, User:Srikeit and User:Nobleeagle have all agreed on the page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema that Anwar is trying to run a hagiography. He then reverted Pakistan (User:Dwaipayanc) and Hindutva (Nobleeagle) citing "vandalism" in the edit summary, when it is about the POV of the content. In one edit summary at Ajith, he wrote an edit summary in Tamil, meaning "shut up" - see translation at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I left the user a note about civility and hagiographical concerns. El_C 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had problems with that Anwar saadat user as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? Thanks in advance. El_C 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prin/Benzee/Naan_Kadavul confirmed as a sock on WP:RFCU. Note that all of the accounts have been chronic copyvioers. --Rory096 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

en.wikipedia mentioned on FOX NEWS

described us as a 'joke' and 'left wing propaganda tool' that 'anyone with a modem' can use to 'rewrite history'! yay, expect more hit and run vandalism in the near future, how nice of them--152.163.100.65 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned, especially considering Fox News's demographic. Before you know it, we're illegal! D': —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fox News knows a thing or two about rewriting history. Remember - Media-matters did a poll and found Fox viewers were less informed about current events than people who don't watch/read the news at all. Raul654 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows that The Daily Show viewers are the most informed! On topic though, during which show/who said it? Kotepho 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's hysterical... do you have a link for that? Snoutwood (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about the survey source - it was U. Maryland's PIPA, not media-matters. Here are the links: [42][43][44] Raul654 01:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone would upload a clip of this to Youtube or Google, it would prolly be interesting. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Was it really necessary for them to give us such negative publicity?Ready to RRR 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fox doesn't know about NPOV. They seem to think something is either good or evil, not much gray area. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a new idea that is non-standard and as far as they are concerned that is a bad thing. JoshuaZ 01:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And of course, there's a grain of truth in their criticism. We do have a slight leftist systemic bias, in my opinion. And anyone with a modem can use us to rewrite history, and people do, leftwingers and rightwingers, though thankfully in most cases it doesn't stay around. I don't think it's reasonable to expect never to receive any bad press, and to ask FOX to refrain from giving it to us amounts to censorship. Let's just get used to and admit to our limitations. Then the bad press will be water off a ducks back, and we can get back to doing the best we can to overcome those limitations and writing our encyclopedia. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please... Fox News criticizing us for being biased (or for that matter, for Fox News to critize *anyone* for being biased) is hypocritical in the extreme. This is the same network FAIR labeled "The Most Biased Name in News" [45] Raul654 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem, tu quoque? --149.142.243.29 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Does someone else want to start chanting, "THE NO SPIN ZONE", or should I? --InShaneee 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

slight systemic bias? In any case, was this in a news program or one of the talking head opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes? If the latter, then stop hyperventilating and go about your business. No one expects Lou Dobbs or Nancy Grace or Chris Matthews to be NPOV so why do people act all shocked when a Fox host expresses an opinion on his or her opinion show? Thatcher131 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone over at Fox News happen to notice that Jimbo's own political views happen to coincide with their own? He's often described himself in the past as a libertarian (& has been very explicit that it is spelled with a small "L") -- which only makes their own bias all the more comical. Or maybe some of our left-of-center members dragged him off to a re-education camp when the rest of us weren't looking & made him see the errors of his ways. ;-) -- llywrch 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought objectivists hated libertarians? --Rory096 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is competition to the media outlets. When a breaking story hits, some people that used to go to a media website or TV for details may now go to us for details. I suspect media outlets on all points of the political spectrum see us as competion, and therefore as a good target to be attacked. I doubt their political POV has much to do with their basic attitude about Wikipedia. NoSeptember ^talk

• Their political pov may not be the root cause of their criticism of wikipedia, but I don't think the Common Dreams NewsCenter would accuse us of being too liberal just as easily. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a left wing bias? I wish some of those left-wingers would pay attention to the Adolf Hitler article!. Fox News certainly has no cause to complain about that article! They would probably say it is accurate, fair and balanced! Drogo Underburrow 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont be hard on fox news. They have every right to complain about us. We make their job much much harder with our content. How can you push bias when you have a rival with reliable source of information? Unlike Fox news we dont claim to be neutral. We however seek neutrality again unlike fox news. --Cat out 08:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Steven Colbert, Seabhcán 09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar and the community's patience

Has Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) exhausted the community's patience yet? She's currently blocked for the fifth time in two weeks for this sally. I might add that if she'd been blocked for every foul personal attack and other disruptive post in that time, it would be more like fifty than five. She's been a subject on ANI several times already, compare the thread "Wolfstar legal threats" above.[46] SlimVirgin, the latest blocker, has made some interesting observations on her lack of edits to the mainspace. Besides the personal attacks, thewolfstar daily expresses her politically motivated hatred of the project and the community as a whole. What are we, masochists? Indefinite block, anybody? Bishonen | talk 05:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

What is kizzle? What is firzzle? p.s. Marry me! El_C 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle! firzzle! swizzle! and wheeeeee!! are what happens when we do, hun! Bishonen | talk 08:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Bye...Bye. I tried to talk to her to get her motivated into some avenue of productivity here, but I guess my advice is worthless to her. Can anyone point out even one major contribution that has been positive? I'm not going to block her, but endorse at least a month long banning. Indef is fine with me too.--MONGO 07:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All my questions remain unanswered. :( El_C 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualms whatsoever with disinviting disruptive and unproductive people from the project. I have not personally investigated this case but I trust my fellow admins to make judgements on whether a users is going more harm than good with their presence. --Cyde Weys 07:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interiot's tool shows just 53 edits to articles, but 434 to user and article talk (338 to user talk), many of which are personal attacks or in some other way very aggressive. The attacks are unlikely to stop, given that her response to my pointing out the ill-advisedness of telling a user to "wipe the snot off his nose and the front of his shirt" was that it wasn't a personal attack [47] and "He WAS acting like a SNOT." [48] Time for the parting of the ways, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pull the plug. A random sampling of early edits shows only dubious punctuation-fixing and edits to insert her personal point of view, and things just seem to have become worse and worse. --ajn (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll give it a few hours more, to give the many American editors a chance to wake up, including some that unlike the above have normal, decent sleep patterns. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, for asking for community consensus first, instead of the all too common practice of indef blocking first and only then asking for ratification of the block. A short block can be used in these cases while we discuss things. It is the preemptive indef block that can create the conditions for wheel wars. I just wanted to thank you for doing it right. (Sorry I have nothing to add about wolfstar) NoSeptember ^talk 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been more than three strikes (as an American with decent sleep patterns, I can use an Americanism). I have all sorts of dark suspicions, and they're all irrelevant, because what's overt is simply beyond the pale (oops, and now a Gaelicism). We needn't forgive more than the offender is willing to repent, as the quality of mercy is not strained (and now an Anglicism). Geogre 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do it. —Encephalon 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support completely, this is not only appropriate but past due. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Good morning from the west coast. I've been a close follower of most of Thewolfstar's contributions for several weeks now. I've even grown to share some of Geogre's irrevelant dark suspicions. Thewolfstar is hurting a good bit and hasn't helped at all. Ever. Block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Time to act. This is exactly the kind of conduct that damages the community as a whole and skyrockets the levels of Wikistress of those truly interested in improving this place. There are no excuses for such incivility - I'll never understand why people who clearly hate Wikipedia choose to spend their time making life miserable for the rest, instead of investing it into something more positive. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, it is done. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

• • • My 2 cents: get her out of here. She's had her chance, and been slapped in the face with it enough times that if she can't realize how to fix her behavior she never will. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• I mentioned to her a few days ago that, although she's a member of Esperanza, her legal threats were definitely not Esperanzian. Apparently, that didn't have an effect -- and I suspect her continuing escapades were part of the recent meltdown at Esperanza. As far as the low number of article edits is concerned, that just indicates that she was mainly here to argue, or something. I'm not sure. --Elkman - ^(talk) 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfman has another account User:Macai, and is currently using it to edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Macai's user page says "Hello, my name is Luke Laupheimer. I live in New York."; User:Thewolfstar has always claimed to be Maggie Laupheimer, from New York as well. So if they share an IP it's not surprising. Looking at Macai's edits, which appear productive, I see little indication they are the same person. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg has check-user access, I'm assuming he means the technical evidence shows that they're editing from the same computer. Also, Macai's third edit was to Thewolfman's talk page. [49] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser has no means of distinguishing these users. Macai says he's thewolfstar's son. I've spoken with him on IRC, and assume good faith and believe him. I have just posted a message to thewolfstar urging her to stop trying to edit, as she keeps activating the autoblocker (I've been unblocking it several times), which stops her son from editing. Jayjg and others, please don't block the IP. Thewolfstar has referred several times, before she was in quite so much trouble, to her 18-year-old son that lives with her. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

If they are the same computer, they've made edits 3 minutes apart. Check user contribution time and dates.--Tbeatty 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

TWS has been lawyering non-stop to earn an unblock. Should she be silenced completely (her talk page protected)? 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the clout — less than 1200 edits for me, sadly. Cool Cat could definitely help you. Here, I do have something to say before I leave — hopefully it will not vanish! ~C

To any administrators

The charge leveled here is decently serious. What you are doing is only a few steps away from impartial arbitration. Have some food for thought.

Did you know that a person's stance on human rights reflects their assumption of good faith? Supposedly, liberals assume more good faith, while conservatives reflect bad faith. That amuses me, especially in the face of the comment above, asking for more American administrators.

Anyway, it looks to me like you all have been rather aggressive. I can see the politics running through all of your comments, interpreting her edits as politically motivated and responding according to your votes. I can understand bias — only the ignorant masses do not understand bias! But, I can't sit back and just let this happen without standing up and saying something.

Hah, silly to think that my words matter. You all are administrators, warriors charging into battle against the vigilant vandal, the persistent POV pusher, and the unctious usurper. You bravely go into the history and block logs, looking for places where the bureaucracy's policies tell you to block or ban. Above all, you do not question, especially when it comes to policy and opinion. You do not care anything for nothing, unless it is in the page or in your heads. That is you.

This is me. I'm an average editor. I've made roughly 1200 edits, according to Interiot. I usually don't do a lot of radical things. I'm not stupid, like the masses are. I'm well aware of your love of the block button, your tendencies to quote policy, your official bearing and high stature. I'm even aware that at the moment, your finger is moving towards the "Block Corbin" switch while you prepare to quote WP:NPA, saying "Your post at WP:ANI was considered a personal attack. You have been blocked for 24 hours," leaving me with a note on my talk page and a day of no edits or contributions.

The sad thing is, you would think that what I have just said is a personal attack. After reading your posts, I am not so sure anymore whether or not any of you would be capable of leaning back and assuming good faith from me. I am not so sure whether or not you could look at my words and think of them as a critique of the administrator system as a whole, rather than as an attack on each administrator individually.

Coming full circle, this is where we reach Thewolfstar. I'm not sure what to say about her. After all, I've only come to know her personally as a result of seeing a fellow Esperanzian under attack. I can't think of anything in official policy that can help her. These words, assuming they are not deleted, mean nothing when compared to the weight of the administrative community's judgement.

So, here is what I'd like. This may seem arrogant, and will certainly fly in the face of all the community has ever done or seen. I'd like to try something liberal (*gallery collectively gasps*) for a change. Let's have a talk. Not an attempt at concensus, not an arbitration, not a request for comment, not a plea for unblocking, but just a talk. All I want is for people to bring forth their grievances, and for us to see the entire issue laid out on one page. No attacks, no revenge, no anger, just talking. I want to see how much of the community really believes in the assumption of good faith.

After all, I assume that there will be no reprisals for me voicing my view of the issue here, where it stands for all to read and ponder. This is posted on User talk:Thewolfstar, as well as WP:ANI. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has just once again threatened Wikipedia and various editors with some sort of vague off-wiki reprisal. [50].

Not that it'll do any good because it doesn't really matter what you do or what you say. If they want to run an editor out of here they do. Look at Merecat and the harassment he has gotten. And there have been plenty of nice gentle people they have driven out of here through a campaign of harassment. And you have others like RyanFriesling and Kevin Baas and Jersyko that can do any underhanded thing they want and get away with it. Now that I have said that I will remind the admins and the many other cabal editors that I have a lot of resources outside of Wikipedia. The important thing here is the propaganda that is being pushed and the lies that innocent readers all over the world are reading. I won't stand for it. If you decide to long term block me and page protect me, you are making a real bad move. thewolfstar 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected. I'm going to sleep now; if anybody wants to undo the protection for some reason, they have my explicit blessing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

She noticed the same thing that I noticed: There is indeed a high level of corruption here. Her words are much stronger than mine, which is why she was selected for blocking. Of course, the implication that she will somehow get revenge against Wikipedia is against policy, and the implication that there is a cabal (There Is No Cabal) is why she must be silenced. I'm striving to stay neutral here, but the Orwellian implications of what has unfolded here are very hard to ignore. Don't make any bad choices, ladies and gentlemen. Before, I was just going to go to bed and check this in the morning, but now my curiousity is piqued and I just can't wait to see if anything happens after this. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to bed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Corbin, but from what I've seen, your fellow Esperanzan did most of the attacking, herself. I tried to get her to relax and take a wikibreak last week, when it might have done some good. She wouldn't listen, and went back to calling people names. For chrissakes, she put up images on her userpage comparing wikipedia to Nazi Germany, and she expects to be unblocked?? I tried to get her to shut up and give people time to cool off and forget about it. She wouldn't even reply to my latest attempt. I suppose someone must have told her I'm secretly the cabal's towel boy. :P Go to bed. Maggie's burned her bridges as far as I can see. Kasreyn 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Phone Convo with Thewolfstar

I had a long phone conversation with Thewolfstar. It's my personal opinion that her personal philosophy is incompatible with wikipedia and that’s why she has had so many problems here. We don't need to make up come cabal to explain what happened here.

I had hoped that I had made her understand what was happening here was (at the least) partly her fault. I thought she was going to calm down. It seems like she had corrected some of her behavior. She wasn't making personal attacks any more, right?

Theres alot about the phone call I'm not going to get into but if this comes up again I can offer my two cents feeling that I'm well informed. ---J.S (t|c) 16:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Resolving Clive Bull

Quick summary here: a number of IPs and newly-created accounts have been continuously reverting a rewrite of the article over a period of months. After the page was protected, they refused to work on the rewrite to address their concerns in the least, effectively halting all progress on the article. Currently it has been protected for weeks pending the outcome of a CheckUser, which has fallen through.

I consider "these" roadblockers to be one sockpuppeting editor: hoaxer, page-move vandal, impersonator and general troll ZoeCroydon, based on the fact that no other editors have taken this position, and similarities in style, including some dead giveaways - for example, always incorrectly putting a space after an opening bracket ( like this)[51] and adept wikilawyering (complaints that editors are breaking "the good faith rule" being a favourite). See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon and Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of ZoeCroydon. After these socks were all banned for hoaxing, they seem to have adapted to this more subtle form of trolling, with a host of new socks and a lot of edits from IPs.

Not many other admins have taken an interest in this, which I can understand. I plan to do three things:

• Block the following as obvious sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon: Kerry ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Joanne ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Uni student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Johntheclivefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Peter ( work IP address for DB) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also tag Clivefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked indefinitely for legal threats, as a sockpuppet - he avoided being RFCUed in the first round due to only making one edit and going unnoticed. He carried a suspected tag for a while before suddenly waking up.
• Post a notice at the top of Talk:Clive Bull explaining that the ZoeCroydon entity is banned indefinitely, and all edits from him/her should be reverted on sight (including edits from his/her anon IPs such as 66.90.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 147.114.226.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and all obvious sockpuppets blocked. Note that ZoeCroydon is not formally community banned at the moment, just prohibited from using more than one account, but unless I hear to the contrary I will assume his/her vandalism has exhausted community patience.
• Unprotect Clive Bull (currently fully-protected).

If anyone has reason to believe I am not acting fairly, please speak up, otherwise I will go ahead and break this deadlock. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go Sam! Block the socks and bann the "entity" per exhausted community patience. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Yah, I was just thinking about poor unchangeable Clive Bull this morning. Sound like a plan. --Syrthiss 13:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: it only took an amazing one day for Zoe's current IP to start posting and reverting again, and he also created another sockpuppet in an attempt to avoid blocking. Which failed, obviously, I removed the conversation (again, apologies that I removed the replies as well, but I don't think we should allow the troll any satisfaction of getting a rise out of us whatsoever), blocked the sock indefinitely and the IP for 48 hours (second 3RR block). I wonder if he's been checking back every single day these past few weeks to see if protection had been lifted yet. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Alienus

The above user posted an unblock notice over 36 hours ago - could someone please review his talk page and comment on the block. Thanks Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 09:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a one week block might be a bit harsh, but I do agree that his comment was uncivil, and immediatly coming off his last block. --InShaneee 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus is not on any sort of civility probation. He has apologised and it has been accepted. At the moment the block seems to be being enforced because he won't admit he intended to offend. He claims it was a badly worded edit summary that did not clearly make the point that Jakew does not agree with his view on Circumcision. At the moment he is being punished for not saying what others want to hear regardless of the truth. "Harsh" does not even begin to cover the problems this raises. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get right down to it, the fact is that Alienus is well aware of these policies, yet he keeps violating them. While I question the length of the block, there is no doubt in my mind that a block was the proper course of action. --InShaneee 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, he tried to insert POV in an article, ignored my Talk:Mutilation explanation of why this was unacceptable (which was stated in general terms, and did not refer to my anatomy) and reverted, with the edit summary "rv whitewashing; the foreskin is functional, except in the case of Jakew's". In doing so, he a) assumed bad faith ('whitewashing'), in spite of a perfectly reasonable explanation of the policy problems with his edit, b) took a general issue and misrepresented it as a discussion about my body, and c) even if was not intended as a personal attack, it is wholly inappropriate to comment on another editor's genitals in an edit summary. He has apologised but admits no wrongdoing.

The problem is not of what others want to hear, but the fact that the atmosphere is poisoned by such behaviour, and if he can't understand that, then one can only ask whether a week is enough. Jakew 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Jayjg? I didn't see anything about it on his talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked Jayjg to log the block himself as he has been in conflict with Alienus on related pages and therefore is not an uninvolved admin. He did not think it was necessary and has not done sp but in cases such as this PI needs to be respected. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking if you discussed it with him. He's the blocking admin, so he should be your first point of contact. Snoutwood (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked on his talk page [52] and he replied on mine [53]. I logged it here as I do think it needs to be discussed elsewhere so that other uninvolved admins can review the block. Am I the only person here who thinks a personally involved admin should ask for external input when placing a contested block? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lengthy discussion of this on Alienus's talk page, of which you are fully aware, since you have participated in it. As well, I am not a "personally involved admin", since I neither edited the article in question, nor was the personal attack directed at me, and I have indeed followed process. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus does make a lot of personal attacks, and made his recent one on the very day he returned from a one-week block. He has already been blocked eight times by seven different admins for editing warring and violations of NPA. At some point, the lesson has to start sinking in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the community feels a user who is trying to reform and made what he contests is a genuine mistake deserves a one week block then there is nothing more to add. To me the test of integrity of a system is how it deals with the least liked people which is why I have been following this one through. I will state that I think this decision is based on personality rather than facts and will ask how we are to encourage editors to behave civilly if the punishment for an offence is the same as for a mistake? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which begs the question: if this happens so many times, is it still a mistake? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has been blocked once previously for incivility which he did not deny - does this exclude him from AGF? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The record does not support Jayjg's claim that he is not a "personally involved admin". Alienus reverted Jayjg's edits to the Circumcision advocacy article at 05:54 on 6 May 2006 [54] Then Jakew reverted the article to Jayjg's version three times. Jayjg blocked Alienus at 07:21 on 7 May 2006. [55] There have been other differences on opinion between Alienus and Jayjg in the past regarding the content of circumcision related articles. -- DanBlackham 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that but I don't think anyone but us actually cares. Sad huh? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, someone else got into an edit conflict with Alienus on a different article, about a different issue, and somehow that makes me "personally involved"? Please return to reality. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus earned his block with his behavior. Jayjg's involvement, if any, does not change that fact. To clarify the matter I've unblocked Alienus and reblocked him myself. -Will Beback 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at the history of all the circumcision-related articles that Jayjg and Alienus may or may not have edited together, but have looked briefly at the history of the one that DanBlackham cited. I can't say that I consider the fact that Alienus reverted Jayjg's 2 May contributions on 6 May makes Jayjg an "involved admin". In fact, Jayjg did not revert back to his own version; he did not contribute to an edit war. Being on the opposite side on some issues is not the same as being involved in a personal dispute. I see here that Jayjg voted the same way as Alienus on article content, and the opposite way from me. Actually, I can't recall ever being on the same side as Jayjg on article content, but don't feel that there's any reason why I couldn't block him (or he me) for personal attacks in the (extremely) unlikely event that it proved to be necessary.

So are they involved in a personal dispute, independently of Alienus's 6 May revert? If I look at Alienus's contributions, I see a lot of attacks against various administrators, Jayjg being only one of his targets (and certainly not the main one). I see no evidence of Jayjg responding in kind, or indeed of taking any notice. We have had problems in the past with aggressive users insulting so many admins that they were able to claim that no admin who wanted to block them was neutral. In fact, I recall one user (now banned) who requested arbitration against an admin who had blocked him for really vile personal attacks against another admin, and who announced that two of the arbitrators would have to recuse themselves because he had had run-ins with them. One of the arbitrators accepted the case with the words: "Accept (Picking a fight with an arbitrator doesn't result in recusal)". Back to Alienus, if we take these three diffs, do we now say that Jareth may never block Alienus in the future? I personally would not feel comfortable blocking Alienus: I think he has been in dispute with me far more than with Jayjg. But I do feel that once an editor has been rude to more than five administrators, the X-isn't-allowed-to-block-me-because-he-has-a-grudge-against-me argument becomes less and less convincing. AnnH ♫ 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The blocking policy is clear that: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Jayjg did not gain an advantage in a content dispute, and there's no question that Alienus made a personal attack on the very day that he returned from a week's block for personal attacks, so there's no reason to question this block that I can see. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet

This user keeps reverting other users at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, insisting on using British English usage and spelling. In particular, he insists that we should use the word "transport" instead of "transportation", because supposedly the word "transportation" is American English. I already explained to him on his talk page that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly stated that "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change", but it was to no avail. He has deleted my message on his talk page, but you can find it here ([56]). You can also notice that Captain Scarlet created on his user page a special language tag that I am reproducing here:

AmE-0

This user does not understand the American English language and bloody well doesn't want to.

Other incidents involving Captain Scarlet were already reported, but they were archived without explanation. You can find the archived incidents here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94#User:Captain scarlet. Hardouin 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This naming incident is a misguided attempt. Tranportation was not changed to British English but brought in line with the article for transport Transport in France. It makes sence to have all articles refering to transportation in France to match the national article. I have been unable to have Hardouin see the importance of consistency throughout french articles in this matter. All messages from Hardouin have been kept and archived. The language template has been on Wikipedia for months and I am not its creator, the template was deleted (see Template:User_AmE-0, where its history is protected). Regards, Captain scarlet 13:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to get involved in the dispute: the Manual of Style says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." There is no official French dialect of English, so "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor was Hardouin (talk · contribs) here. If you wish to see the wording changed to match the main relevant category, Captain scarlet, argue for it on the article's talk page. But there is nothing at this point in the wikipedia namespace policies and guidelines to mandate your change, and edit warring certainly doesn't help. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (note: I am not saying that the section can never be called Transport, I'm saying that this is not the way to achieve such a change.)

This article is on a place in France, so European English (British English) should be used according to the Manual of Style. —Ruud 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Woah! That is a significant change in the understanding of English dialects. When did that slip through? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Koot, but I don't think that's accurate. The Manual of Style doesn't mention any sort of British dominion over articles pertaining to European topics. It's my recollection that the British ultimately lost the 100 Years War, so articles about French topics aren't held to either British or American English. JDoorjam Talk 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The two editors above me are right: there is no such mention in the Manual of Style. In fact, the only mention that comes remotely close to Europe is this: "Article on European Union institutions: British, Irish and Maltese English usage and spelling". In other words: wikipedia has no preference for British English over other dialects of English when it comes to Europe. The only thing in the Manual of Style that applies here is that "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor is Hardouin, and he/she used Transportation. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto what Aecis & JDoorjam wrote, I won't go any deeper. JackLumber 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems there was some discussion last week on clarifying the MoS on this point: Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style#EU. I made the same inference as Woodstone did in that discussion: the article is related to France and, if the situation is similar to that in the Netherlands, the French are thaught British English at school. That said, this edit war exceeds the usual lameness of spelling wars. —Ruud 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Another candidate for a job at the soup kitchen. The key is consistency within an article. Beyond that, the status quo has an advantage over any change. Anyone changing for pigheaded, chauvanistic reasons is no better than a vandal. If a person is changing not to correct mistakes in information, not to aid in coherence, but rather because he or she is a bigot about his own nation or a visionary who wants to assume what other nations should write like. What is the difference between someone rewriting an article that is consistent and clear to reflect his personal fetish for language and someone doing so to reflect his personal political views? Both are changes that do not aid anyone but the editor, and that's not what we're here for. Geogre 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because I have nothing better to do...okay, that's a lie, but I couldn't help myself. From Google:

• 1,810,000 for behaviour site:.fr
• 1,600,000 for behavior site:.fr

• 11,700,000 for licence site:.fr
• 6,170,000 for license site:.fr

• 84,500 for petrol site:.fr
• 44,000 for gasoline site:.fr

• 31,500 for "different to" site:.fr
• 509,000 for "different from" site:.fr.

• 44 for "estate wagon" site:.fr
• 26,300 for "station wagon" site:.fr

• 449 for rubber tyre site:.fr
• 10,100 for rubber tire site:.fr

• 60,000 for lorry site:.fr
• 367,000 for truck site:.fr

I'm not seeing a whole lot of dominance by any particular variety of English, based on this rough survey. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you take into account that "licence" and "tire" are also French words? This thwarted my attempt to see if the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. —Ruud 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but it might explain the bulges in their results. And since the French love Jerry Lewis, clearly the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My reason for changing Transportation to Transport had nothing to do with changing American to English but to appky consistency between Transport in France to a section of transport in France, as state in all of my edit summaries. Replying to Calton and as a parenthesis, English is taught in France rather than American, I'd know. The above debate if off topic since the reason for changing the chapter header was not the reason stated by Hardouin as seen in my edit summaries. It is though likely that I will report Hardouin on other matters of vandalism and unwillingness to cooperate with other editors, myself and others. Regards Captain scarlet 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Gpscholar and Petticoating

Gpscholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs some observation. This user wrote an essay on Petticoat Discipline (cut-and-paste moves at Petticoating, Petticoat Punishment, Pinaforing and now The Art of Petticoating that after discussion at Talk:Petticoat Discipline all were redirected to Transvestic fetishism pending a re-write.

The essay keeps getting re-created and transvestic fetishism is getting moved about. Dr Zak 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The user was blocked, but I've locked moving to admins only for the mean while Will (^E_@) T 17:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't those pages be deleted, recreated and then protected against recreation instead of making them redirects? I think it's unseemly to have activities that are child abuse be redirects to an article (unless its an article on child abuse or something else relevant). -- Kjkolb 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, salting the earth isn't necessary, but you just pointed out a problem with the article. I read "petticoating" as men going out dressed as boys dressed as girls, unfortunately the article makes no effort to distinguish fact and {{fiction}} and pictures it mothers dressing their sons as girls. We aren't censored for the sake of minors (and musnt't forget that we get away with it only because {{unsourced}} claims are fair game for removing). Dr Zak 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from talk page

Could someone look into User:Jachin and talk page history? He appears to be selectively removing personal attack warnings and the like from his talk page (see [57]). I've been steadily ignored so far, and I'd like another admin to look into it. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Zzzzz. I noticed him using popups to revert good faith edits, and asked him politely a couple of times [58] [59] to stop (as did User:Titoxd [60]). Zzzzz archived his talk page without the warnings on it [61]. I then told him to stop [62], and was reverted [63], upon which I gave him a warning [64], and was reverted again [65], along with a comment from User:Worldtraveller [66]. I know that Zzzzz is a good contributor, and I'm not sure what to do at this point. TheJabberwʘck 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Zzzzz has removed messages placed by User:141.133.153.2 and User:InShaneee [67]. TheJabberwʘck 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be archiving them now, immediately moving them over to his archives, which while slightly annoying does not seem serious enough an issue for admin intervention. JoshuaZ 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In my note to him I suggested he archive, at least it's better then having him delete them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's selectively archiving to edit out any warning messages or message about disputes he's been involved in even after many polite messages (which he's also removing)[68][69] . Archiving is just fine, even if it is immediate but selectively removing warnings and discussion? Not quite kosher either. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, user:Pcbcbc used to do that. It eventually got to be a very serious problem. It isn't illicit, but it's sure misleading. Geogre 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now placed a message on his talk page stating "NOTICE: Messages placed on this page are deleted at my discretion." I definatly agree now that this is the start of something problematic. He should know that warnings should not be deleted so off-the-cuff, as it makes it very hard to judge whether the user's been warned previously. --InShaneee 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, now that gives me an idea! (bad faith gaming of the NA policy in the first place.) Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment - if we want to continue making an issue of 'removal of warnings' then it should be written into the policies. Currently this view is founded on WP:VAND, which says only that removing vandalism warnings is considered vandalism, and WP:TALK which says that removing messages without responding may be considered "hostile" or 'uncivil'... but that restoring such removed messages is "not proper" and edit warring. That's pretty weak grounds on which to base a claim that 'all warnings must be retained'... it actually makes the repeated restoration of such (as has been done) a blockable offense.

That said - I'm not a big fan of this approach. Nobody likes 'being scolded' and then being told that you have to keep the 'scarlet letter' on your talk page in perpetuity? It looks like, and sometimes is, harrassment. They've been warned. They saw the message. Mission accomplished. Forcing them to keep warnings on their talk page for every visitor on completely unrelated issues to see is unneccessarily punitive. The only 'plus' from such is to allow admins to see that the person has received prior warnings, but I don't think that's worth antagonizing people further. We can always check the history... use edit summaries like 'Warning: <whatever>' and they'll be easy to pick out. --CBDunkerson 11:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone is pressed for specific links to policy on the matter, here are three: Help:Talk_page#Etiquette, Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "removing warnings". Stifle (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, this is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has been out at the barn wall with a can of paint again. Setting aside that it's usually a good idea to make the proposal before changing policy pages... this is still just a proposal. Which I (amongst others) strongly disagree with. The minor benefit of 'making it easier to see that the user has been warned before' is far outweighed by the negative effects of the antagonism inherent in the proposed procedure. Warnings ought to be friendly reminders or notifications of 'the rules' rather than scarlet letters used to humiliate people. There is no epidemic of people getting away with repeated policy violations because no one notices that they have done it before... and thus no need for this policy change. We have plenty of tools for keeping track of 'troublemakers' currently without needing to add one which causes more problems than it solves. --CBDunkerson 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is a big difference between having to retain scarlet letters and immediately transferring selectively to archives. The question is whether we're talking about normal talk page behavior and an overt intent to mislead. It's a judgment call. Until the issue that generates the "warnings" gets up to RFC or mediation level, the transferring to archives is just a symptom. Once there is an RFC or RFar or Mediation attempt, I would say that those assessing behavior should see the transferring to archives and assess whether or not it is a piece of evidence. For me, it would be a heavily weighted piece of evidence of an intent to operate outside of consensus and against policy, whether the archiving were itself an offense or not. Geogre 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jachin's reply is here. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

metric first or Imperial first

ThurnerRupert (talk · contribs) has begun making what appears to be unilateral changes to {{standard gauge}}, which is one of the templates used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains to present the information in a standard format. His complaint is that the metric units should always be listed first regardless of the source document or subject matter. I have commented on his talk page and tried to engage him in conversation on the project talk page to come to a consensus. I have reverted {{standard gauge}} once on May 7 and once today, and I am requesting a review for page protection of the template until a consensus can be reached in the project. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Uniformity and consistency on a volunteer project the size of Wikipedia is a pointless and, in the end, self-destructive aspiration. Find something more important to argue about. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony in reality, but I must say that, if the world were perfect, everything would be in Metric. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I put metric first, sometimes only metric, in the earliest articles I created, but somebody else started changing them to English first, so I've been using English units since. -- Kjkolb 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Imperial should be first for article relating to places where imperial is or was used. If Metric was to be first, then a 4ft 8inch template (similar to the other feet wide rail lines) ought to be created to cater for both parties. Captain scarlet 09:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue was also recently discussed at Category talk:Conversion templates. There are some valid arguments for not always being consistent with this. If an approximate measurement of '5,000 miles' is given it doesn't really make sense to show that as; 8046.72 km or with the metric first followed by the imperial... the non-round number and decimals give the impression of an exact measurement instead of an approximant. If a measurement was originally taken in 'cubits' it would be misleading to pick one of the common estimates of that length and display the measurement in metric/imperial. Basically, the measurement given in a source should probably be shown first or even alone in some cases. That said, if it is a straightforward constant that can accurately be displayed in different units then I think metric first followed by imperial strikes the best balance between international and local standards. The category above has templates for performing these conversions now (I used {{subst:conv-dist|5000|mi|km|3}} to produce the kilometer conversion above) so it should be fairly easy to include both types of units where appropriate and put them in whatever order makes sense. With the train gauge... I believe the original standard was set in imperial units and thus I'd think that would be the proper measurement to show first, but it probably doesn't matter much so long as both are given. --CBDunkerson 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the original measurement or definition should be first and any conversions second. In this case, since standard gauge was originally defined in the Imperial system, that measurement should go first. Conversions often lose accuracy and it's often good to know the original measurement system used in any case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

user:AlexPU: maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki

AlexPU (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has recently popped up after a long wikivacation which, unfortunately did him no good. Before taking a vacation, he turned his user talk into a disgusting attack page and shortly after his yet brief return, he intensified the attacks posted there just with the aim to assault his opponents.

He then made this first upon return entry at the user talk space. I've been around here for quite some time and I have seen a lot (including from him) but this message beats anything I've seen at Wikipedia. This was quickly followed by a whole bunch of other attacks posted to several talk pages. At that point he has been explicitly warned by an ArbCom member who noted that his "almost every single edit since then has been uncivil." The warning received this defiant response and was followed by another personal attack. Due to an incredible patience of the admins who took it upon themselves to deal with him, he still didn't receive a block but instead another two "last warnings" [70] [71]. Still, the very next two entries by this user to the talk space were another set of personal attacks [72][73]. Only then he was blocked for 24 hours. However, judging by his very first entry as the block ended, he still didn't get any message as he instead claims to be issuing the "last warning" to the blocking admin(!), and unleashes another attack against another Wikipedia editor.

This story may seem longinsh but it seems so plain to me that I decided to post this here rather than to start an user:RfC with this or post it to an ArbCom page. From what I've seen at the ArbCom, such cases get rejected with arbitrators' saying that there is nothing to spend time on as the evident block is in order. I could post this message unaltered to an RfC (and this would have been the first user RfC started by me) but again what's the point of waisting some many people's time on commenting on this? Instead I am posting it here directly to the attention of the Admins, as this seems to be a case clearly calling for an admin action rather then the continuation of the endless discussions. --Irpen 06:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU was blocked 24h for WP:NPA violations on 8 May and has only made one edit since, a defiant but tolerable comment on his Talk page. I suggest a longer block for subsequent violations, and if he continues we can raise a user RfC. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

JzG, while I agree with your suggestion to not rush with a longer block (while I disagree that his message was "tolerable"), I see no point in user RfC should this continue (as it most likely will). The point with the user RfC is to bring the issue to a wider audience. This issue has already received a wide prominence as you can see from how many people tried to talk to the guy at his and the article's talk pages where he scattered his offences. By the post above I simply wanted to let others know that the user needs watched since the Admin who blocked him and was in return accused in whatever may perceive that, as the person being attacked, it is unethical for him to block the offender on his own.

As this continues I am prepared to post the diffs above straight to ArbCom as I know that ArbCom members have little tolerance to obvious malaise. It's just that I thought that the case is too obvious to even bother the ArbCom which is already slow due to an overload with the cases much more complex than this. Anyway, let's see what comes next. --Irpen 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Luka Jačov keeps deleting very important reference

Hi,

Luka Jačov keeps deleting very important reference on page Serbs of Croatia. I proved that they speak Serbian, not Serbo-croatian, and he keeps deleting the reference that proves this and reverting related changes I made in the article.

Please, stop him!!! --Ante Perkovic

Brent Corrigan

Can some admins please put this page on their watchlists? It has a rather determined vandal. SchmuckyTheCat 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

More information: User:Melbedewy appears to be including copyvio information to this article from several different IPs at will. Indeed, the user claims "I am now going to post the complete article EVERY SINGLE DAY in the text. Don't bother with your whining, I will not respond to you any further. If they ban me I will set up new hotmail accounts in 1 minute flat. I do not have a static IP number so you will not win.". Obviously, blocking won't do any good, and this page already already was protected, then undone after two weeks. I have re-protected pending further review. RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call to me. Best way to prevent mass vandalism is to head it off at the pass. --InShaneee 03:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The user has requested that the article be unlocked "and that the censored information about the public federal court case Cobra video vs. Brent Corrigan be permanently locked in to end future vandalism." Here is my response. (The link to that story already is in the article—twice.) RadioKirk talk to me 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Naan_Kadavul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Everything this guy does is copyrighted. All of his images and at least some of his contribs (still looking at the rest). Note that he also forged User:Jayjg's signature in his RfA. --Rory096 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked him indefinitely for the forgery. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting diff. --Rory096 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Mccready for Wikistalking

User:Mccready has been Wikistalking and generally harassing User:SlimVirgin. He originally got into some dispute with SlimVirgin over the Animal rights article, adding that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family! [74] When challenged over that, he decided to rewrite the consensus intro instead, and when SlimVirgin reverted, he threatened to open an RfC on her, and proceeded to revert every day while issuing a second warning and third warning, accompanied by more threats on the talk page. He then complained about her on WP:AN/I, [75] because inter alia she had "introduced her views on Israel into the animal-rights page" by referring to the State of Israel, and had violated 3RR by reverting four times in 60 hours. [76] [77] She requested protection for Animal rights, which left him with nothing to fight about, so over the course of the next few days he stalked her to Lauren Slater [78] (which she was working on and he had never edited); New anti-Semitism [79] (which she was working on and he had never edited); and Rat Park [80] (which she'd created and he had never edited). He then noticed she'd reported Gene Nygaard for a 3RR violation, so he stalked her to the WP:AN/3RR page and reported her for a violation which she had already rectified. [81] At this point I warned him that he needed to desist from Wikistalking her: [82] He stopped wikistalking her, but continued to make frivolous complaints about her on this page (e.g. [83] [84]) As she refused to rise to his bait, after several days he decided to again wikistalk her to a new article, Hamas, which she was editing extensively (including a couple of hours earlier) and which he had never edited before: [85] At this point I blocked him for 24 hours for Wikistalking, which is forbidden by policy. He has objected to this block, as has one other editor. Wikipedia has over 1 million articles; Mccready has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Like we didn't see this coming... Wikistalking has been an ongoing problem with Mccready. He's had many warnings and none seem to have made an impression, so a block makes sense here. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd rather see him blocked for something he actually did wrong. There were earlier complaints that look well justified, and he's been blocked before. But I cannot agree with a block simply for editing the same articles as someone else. The link presented as stalking evidence is a good, although minor, edit. If blocking is warranted, surely there will be a better example of blockworthy behavior forthcoming. Friday (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether you want to call this wikistalking or disruption, I support a short cooling off for him. He's been acting out in similar ways for long enough that I've certainly noticed it. The issue isn't that he's making bad edits (necessarily, though some of them might be), it's that he's deliberately, purposefully inserting himself practically everywhere SlimVirgin edits, presumably as some form of payback for whatever his beef is with her. It's just not acceptable behavior. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it a horribly bad precedent to set that sensible edits can be considered wikistalking due to our speculation about bad motives behind it. I see reasonable behavior in his latest edits. If he was leaving edit summaries like "revert idiotic edit by >whoever<" or something, I would consider that strong evidence of stalking, but I don't see anything like that. If he was starting to get the hint, we're not helping by throwing another block at him. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, he cannot be an editor- he should be community banned instead. If a community ban is what's really going on here, let's be up front about it. All I see so far is people continuing to take him to task for which articles he's edited, and I find that unhelpful- it's only going to reinforce his belief that he's being unjustifiably picked on. Friday (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be considered speculation if they randomly turned up at the same articles. That's not what's happening here. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday (Mccready emailed me too, BTW). There is no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to. In my opinion, the reason why someone is editing a particular article is not important at all. If they're harassing someone and/or attacking them constantly, then I think they should be blocked (and banned and get their backsides kicked), but if 'wikistalking' means editing the same articles as someone else (as long as the 'stalker' is being civil), then I can't see a problem with it. - ulayiti (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase User:JoshuaZ, it must be just a coincidence that Mccready is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right- there's no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to, but there is for wikistalking. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By Jayjg's own explanation here, the wikistalking was a few days ago. Then he stopped. The only evidence provided that he's been stalking again is that Hamas diff- which clearly shows a harmless edit, yet Jayjg still used it as justfication for a block. Are we punishing him for what he did a few days ago, or is there an ongoing problem here? I have yet to see any diff which shows evidence of an ongoing problem right now. Friday (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying "harmless edit" as if that makes a difference. The harm was in the stalking, not the edit. The ongoing problem right now is that he wikistalked SlimVirgin to yet another article. This needs to stop. Wikipedia has over a million articles; Mccready does not need to "just happen to edit" the ones that SlimVirgin has just been editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How does it harm anyone if they just happen to edit the same article as someone else? Is someone going to block me for wikistalking, say, JIP (talk · contribs), for editing some of the same articles as him just because we have some similar interests (eg Finland-related articles)? Maybe I could block Obli (talk · contribs) because he's edited both IB Diploma Programme and Extended Essay, both articles that I've created? Most articles are edited primarily by people who are interested in the subject, and people share similar interests. That is not 'wikistalking' And Hamas is also not exactly a particularly obscure article that nobody edits. (I might have edited that too, does that make me a wikistalker?)

In my opinion, wikistalking can't be just editing the same articles. There has to be something else into it as well, like personal attacks, edit wars, systematic reversions or something like that. A minor grammatical change doesn't count as any of those. - ulayiti (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Mccready says he's not doing it on purpose. What happened to assuming good faith? - ulayiti (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, AGF loses to Occam's razor. Thatcher131 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready emailed me about this. I half expected to find some kind of rouge admin abuse, and it was no surprise to find just that. He needs to stop it. I don't know the best way to achieve that, but this is a way. Just zis Guy you know? 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much involvement in articles that SlimVirgin edits, but even I have noticed that Mcready was stalking her. I can understand Friday's point about setting a precedent by blocking someone for sensible edits that just happen to be on the same article that another editor has edited. But I think it could be even more dangerous not to be allowed to block for that. I've seen a lot of wiki-stalking since I arrived here, and on many occasions the stalker denied it — explaining that he had found the article by clicking "recent changes", or by following a link from another article, etc. Since this is something that we can never prove, a block seems quite appropriate when it's "beyond reasonable doubt". If someone stalks another editor ninety-nine times, and then makes an innocent edit on the hundredeth time, without realizing that his opponent has just edited it, well, he doesn't really have grounds to complain if he gets blocked, does he? I'm sure that finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. We need to have the ability to put a stop to it, and if the block is an unfair one (which I don't think to be the case here), by all means let's review it at this noticeboard. AnnH ♫ 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• "finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. " This is my sentiment exactly; even if the edits are harmless, do you want someone hovering over your shoulder all the time? I support a short block, this is obviously not a coincidence. Thatcher131 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and there's always an "explanation"; as I said above, as Mccready claims it must be just a coincidence that he is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The crime of wikistalking is not editing the same articles as another editor, it is harassing them. Based on this editor's history, it is clear that user:Mccready has targetted user:SlimVirgin. That these edits, often minor, came after numerous complaints about SV shows an intent to harass or intimidate her. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all combat zone. Users more interested in fighting than editing should be blocked. -Will Beback 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is more to the story. User:Mccready followed User:SlimVirgin to my RFA FloNight's RfA (she nom me). He made negative comments about admins in general and me in particular. He also sent emails directing users to my RFA. User talk:Mccready#Emails? I believe my response to his actions was respectful and restrained. Going forward, I planned to ignore the incident until I received an email from him today. I found it troubling and needing a response from him. I left a message on his talk page giving him an opportunity to correct the problem. User talk:Mccready#Your email request is troubling I will discuss this further if needed. FloNight ^talk 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of behavior that's apparently continued until today. Jayjg warned Mccready that if he stalked SlimVirgin to one more article he'd be blocked. He did it again, therefore was blocked. Friday argues that Jayjg has essentially produced one edit and that can't be used to justify "stalking," and in another instance I'd probably agree. But this one edit was the one step over the line it took for a block (for which he was warned). It was bound to happen if he continued this behavior; good faith isn't limitless. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, making an edit 3 hours after SlimVirgin is considered stalking? He removed 1 word. One word. Does he have to check every single article he copyedits to make sure SlimVirgin has never edited it? In case you folks are a bit behind on wikipolicy, let me quote it: "a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons." Looking at the diff, Mccready removed the word "out". Wow. What a disruptive edit. I bet it made SlimVirgin extremely distressed that Mccready removed this essential word.

Maybe this is what happened: Mccready saw something about Hamas on the news, and decided to read the article. He thought the word "out" was out of place, so he went to edit it. I have done this exact same thing many times. Whenever I see something interesting in the news, I immediately go to Firefox and type in "wp [whatever]" to see if that news is in the article, and often I read it and I see something strange, I copyedit it. I don't go into the history to make sure that certain editors haven't edited it. That is simply unreasonable. Is that what you expected him to do there? Whether or not he meant it in bad faith, I don't know, but this isn't "zero tolerance", this is "negative tolerance". You folks were just looking for the perfect excuse to jump on him. Jayjg says that his edit occurred "within minutes" of SlimVirgin's edit; SlimVirgin's previous edit was a full 3 hours earlier than Mccready's. That's certainly not "within minutes", unless you are referring to the alternate definition of "minutes" - and I doubt you were making an issue out of Mccready's relative geographical location. – ugen64 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was the third last article on her Recent Contributions list, and she'd edited the Talk: page 130 or so minutes earlier. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out Ugen64, unless you're trying to wilfully deny reality for some reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to opt for a less heated, more composed preamble, Ugen. I find this sort of tone to be clearly unproductive and that it does not contribute positively to the discussion. At any rate, it appears that this user largely focused on articles SlimVirgin edits in order to cause her grief, and that this has been going on for quite some time now. Thus, his edit history, and its specific pattern vis.a.vis SV's needs to be examined in its totality. With the final straw not being viewed in isolation but in the context of prior edits. El_C 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them:

• he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [86];
• threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [87] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [88]);
• issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [89];
• issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [90];
• issues a "second warning" to me [91];
• issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [92];
• issues a "3rd warning" to me [93];
• threatens to "report" Justen [94];
• threatens to report Seth as a vandal [95];
• Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [96] [97] [98]

On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited. Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing, and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from McCready (who I'd never heard of before, apparently because I'm well respected- huh?!) to ask me to help him mediate against SV. Well, A quick look around the place suggests that I'd better not take up the request. Did anybody also get a mail from McCready to back him up at animal rights? For the record, the argument at Animal rights seems rather trivial in terms of content?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me as well. But the wording is more terse. Kimchi.sg 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He even e-mailed me to ask me to unblock him, which was bizarre given it was me he was following around. He did this over FloNight's adminship too: e-mailed a lot of people he didn't know in the hope of pulling in a few opposes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been many "yes but" reasons given here. It's clear that there's no evidence that the diff Jayjg labelled as stalking is a disruptive edit. And many have said, "yes, but look at all the other bad things this user has done." What you're arguing for with these reasons is a community ban, people. It may even be time for such a measure, but it should be discussed honestly, not disguised as something else. This editor has been a nuisance, certainly- nobody is disputing that. What we're disputing (and I continue to strongly feel is a terrible precedent) is the idea that editing the same article as someone you don't like is wikistalking. This would be a ridiculous, unworkable standard. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, let's be honest and call it community ban- that's what it effectively is. Maybe I have unusually strong feelings on this, having been repeatedly accused of stalking myself (and the evidence presented was, "Look, you edited an article that I edited!"). Anyway, this whole argument could easily have been avoided by doing one simple thing:do not block people for made-up reasons if there are good reasons available. If there are no good reasons, don't block. I suspect there would have been far less disagreement if this had been presented as a general disruption block. The moral of the story is simple: When you block a user, leave a note on the talk page explaining why. The reasons given should be sufficiently explained that an uninvolved, impartial observer will agree that the block is justified. I would have expected that this standard would have been obvious to anyone who's been given the block button. Friday (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Who said anything about a community ban? This is a 24 hour block. Thatcher131 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And if 24 hour blocks for harmless edits are what he's going to continue to get, this is effectively a community ban. I'm just suggesting we be realistic and recognize it for what it is. If he's not going to be blocked again for harmless edits, that's another story of course. Friday (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No wikistalking edits are "harmless", because they damage the victim of the wikistalking, and all wikistalking edits must be discussed in the context of "all the other bad things this user has done", because wikistalking is a pattern of behavior. As for the claim of a "community ban", that's just nonsense; this was a 24 hour block for wikistalking, and, as has been pointed out many times before, there are over a million articles Mccready can edit, he has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just edited. Finally, the block was indeed explained, and all sorts of uninvolved, impartial observers have agreeed that the block was entirely justified. The real moral here is that some people will deny reality regardless of the evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. You're continuing to assert that [this edit was harmful to SlimVirgin. To me, this is such a bizarrely incomprehensible belief that I can only assume that your own prior involvement is impairing your ability to look at this situation neutrally. The reason I keep bringing up the community ban issue is just common sense: we have no article ownership here. If he's going to continue to be blocked for edits like that, he cannot be an editor. It's that simple. If we're deciding that he cannot be an editor, let's actually be honest about what we're deciding. Friday (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What explains the fact that most of the other people who have commented here also share this "bizzarely incomprehensible belief"? Do they also have a "prior involvement" which is "impairing [their] ability to look at this situation neutrally"? As for your other claim, it's equally nonsensical; I'll just repeat - there are over a million articles out there. All he needs to do is stop wikistalking SlimVirgin to the paltry few she has just edited. It is absurd to claim that this means he "cannot be an editor" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You put articles you edit on your watchlist, right? So how would you feel if every time you edited an article, it jumped to the top of your watchlist with the same name attached? The name of an editor who has argued with you, filed arguably false complaints and made threats against you. At the very least you say, "oh no, not again" and you have to check the diff because many (but not all) of his edits are disruptive. How would like to log on in the morning to see the five or six or ten articles at the top of your watchlist all with the same name on them. If that's not stalking, then tell me, how many more would it take? If you think this is going to turn into a series of blocks amounting to a community ban, you are conceding more about Mccready than you think you are. Thatcher131 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just had a couple comments and then hopefully I'll shut up. I'm not a fan of admins inventing new rules for users and enforcing them with blocks, but if it must be done, let's at least be reasonable about it. I know, "no wikistalking" isn't a new rule, but "no editing pages that user X has touched" is a new rule and should be treated as such. If it's actually true that Mccready can edit as long as he follows Jayjg's orders, what are those orders, exactly? Is he never to touch any article that Slim has ever touched? Or is there a certain timeframe involved? These are fairly extraordinary requirements; they should at least be spelled out, or he has no hope of being able to abide by the rules. I dislike such specific rules myself- I'd rather just base decisions on the actual edits, but there appear to be people who want rules along these lines. If orders are going to be invented and enforced, explaining this situation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mccready and on his talk page is probably a good idea. I have to admit I'm far more comfortable with editor-specific restrictions being imposed by the Arbcom than by just one admin. I apologize for posting so much here- it's possible I've been doing nothing but feeding the troll with my objections here, but I do feel it's important to nail down what is or is not wikistalking. Friday (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That may need to be done, but this isn't the proper place for it -- the wikistalking page is, or some other place such as that. Many, many people have commented here and agreed that what Mccready has been doing is harassing and disruptive, and his continuing lack of recognition of the reason why his behavior is being censured is just as disturbing. So in this instance I think the block was well justified. The straightforward direction Mccready can follow is simple: stop doing what you've been doing. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I know for a fact that you mean well, because you always do, and I respect what you say, but you've unfortunately hit the nail on the head with your "feeding the troll" observation. I hope you realize that he e-mailed a large number of people and told many of them, and perhaps all, that he was writing because he respected them so much, even though he doesn't know them. It's important to take a long, hard look at who's acting in good faith here. You're welcome to e-mail me if you'd like to discuss it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Undermining wikipedia foundations - new definition of wikistalking

This block undermines wikipedia foundations. Read on and you’ll see the claim is not overblown.

Jayjg’s accusation lacks substance and makes incorrect assumptions, particularly in regard to Gene Naagard. That a senior admin can jump to conclusions, accuse me of “baiting” and making “frivolous complaints” (they still haven’t been dealt with), and believe I should not edit articles which Slim has edited staggers me. Once again, there is no demonstration of harassment here despite requests to provide it. And this is where the foundations are being undermined. Jayjg and others want to stop me editing pages another person has edited. There is no examination of the quality of my edits, no examination of whether I have harassed. No. Only “you shall not edit pages which Slim regularly edits – if you do, we define that as wikistalking”. This is a serious attack on the principles of wikipedia.

SlimVirgin’s version of history (above) needs commentary. My comments are interspersed:

::::I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them: + ::::*he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [99];

Xtra said to me “You may see Joyce as an extremist, however, from the way you are talking, he appears far more to the centre than you….Or is free speech only reserved for left wing people? I am sick of this hypocracy (sic)…. I am sick of defending articles about normal people against morons ” Tell me Slim,is that a personal attack or is that a personal attack? Should Xtra apologise?

+ ::::*threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [100] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [101]);

Steth (not Seth) had begun an unsuccessful and, I discovered, secret RfC against me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I joined wikipedia there was a box at the top of WP:LEAD which said it was policy. That box no longer appears in the history because the history doesn’t store deleted templates. Like I say, I could be wrong. [102]. Also Slim’s link to me being told “numerous” times is one link on 9 May. Are there others Slim?

+ ::::*issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [103];

David Nortman had reverted in bulk numerous times. Other editors had also asked him not to.

+ ::::*issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [104]; + ::::*issues a "second warning" to me [105]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [106]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to me [107];

Ombudsman , like Slim, had reverted more than once and not used the talkpage despite repeated requests to do so

+ ::::*threatens to "report" Justen [108];

What I said was “Justen you have reverted in bulk and will be reported if you do so again without properly considering all opinions calmly on the talk page”

+ ::::*threatens to report Seth as a vandal [109];

What I said was “"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy.” Steth had waged a campaign to delete scientific findings from the article.

+ ::::*Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [110] [111] [112]

Guilty as charged

+ ::::On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited.

Do you seriously argue that I should not edit articles you edit?

Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing,

disappointing? What I said was (and it took a while to track down the correct link, Slim), “I think there are too many admins and I would like to see a code of conduct in place and enforced before new ones are created. Some admins are rude, revert legitimate comments by other editors, block pages they have edited and violate WP policies. My specific reasons for opposing include

• She deleted comments and when asked on her talk page why, did not respond. [22]
• She deleted legitimate comments from her talkpage without explanation[23]
• Deleted more comments from her talkpage.[24]Mccready 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)”

Flo responded and some of her response satisfied me, though not all

+ :::and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ll let this one through to the keeper

• Thank you Slim for finally removing from your list of my faults the gram-positive error I made and acknowledged as soon as it was discovered. I am still not happy that my legitimate criticisms of Slim have been removed from my user page and user talk, but hey ...

• Blnguyen, you misquote me. You don’t mediate against someone. Tell me which of my six points on Animal Rights doesn’t belong. Yes it may appear trivial which is why I couldn’t understand SlimVirgin’s constant reverts and refusal to discuss. Your sarcasm does you no credit.

• Yes I emailed admins; the blocking template suggests I do. Now I’m attacked for doing so. Come on people. Yes I emailed people who appear to bear a grudge, appealing them to look objectively at the facts. I am attacked again for doing that. It takes all types.

• Thanks to those admins who supported me and stood up against groupthink, including those who did so via email. To the others may I ask you to consider that the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment; it is simply absurd to ban someone from editing a page when they have had disputes with a person who also edits that page – no matter how you ASSUME they arrived at the page (check SlimVirgin’s actions on chiropractic[113] – perhaps she didn’t know I was a regular editor there, and it was much more than a “tweak” – it sided against me in an ongoing controversy AND without her discussion on the talkpage). Jayjg’s comments on this would be particularly welcome. And to those who find my broad range of interests sarcastically “interesting”, yes the world still has polymaths, or as my father used to say “Jack of all trades, master of none,” and some of them, usually, enjoy editing free encyclopedias.

• Given the good job done by AnnH ♫ 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) on Timothy Usher’s block by Sean Black, I’m a bit disappointed she didn’t spend the same time on my case, though I understand how complex and boring it may be.

• Thanks Friday for your comments. I am no troll. I had come to the same conclusion as you long before your post, as a look at my posts will show.

• Finally, if I may be allowed a small rhetorical flourish, and in the light of those who continue to rely on assumption, this will go down in the annals of wikipedia: the day a user was blocked for removing, correctly, one redundant word from an article which had been edited three hours before (not minutes before as first hastily alleged) by the blocker’s friend who had refused discussion with that user.

• AND May I or may I not make sensible edits, as I do, to pages Slim edits?

Mccready 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You already have your stable of articles that you've wikistalked SlimVirgin to (Lauren Slater, Rat Park, etc.) Don't follow SlimVirgin to any new articles she's recently edited, and stop spamming this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And your reasoning? Are you saying you are banning me from making sensible edits in wikipedia if Slim has edited there previously? If so, by what authority? Please stop abusing me. My post was not spam. Mccready 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I really believe the best thing to do here is for both sides to just drop the issue and get on with life. Mccready, you feel you've been mistreated. I'm sorry for that. Some folks agree with you, some do not, and many feel your past bad behavior is a mitigating factor. This is how it goes here- editors get in disagreements. Part of being a functional editor is to move on and not dwell on the past. If you'll agree to edit like a functional editor, I hope the rest of us can agree to not punish you for making decent edits. For the record, this edit you made is perfectly fine, regardless of who has or has not edited that page before. Talking about article content is perfect- talking about other editors is less helpful. Friday (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Most folks here agree that the block was justified; a tiny minority of the dozens of people Mcready e-mailed do not. Mccready has not been "punished" for making "decent edits", he's been blocked for persistently wikistalking another editor, even after being warned to stop. There are over a million articles on Wikipedia, and Mccready does not need to make even "decent edits" to articles SlimVirgin has just edited, and which Mcready has never edited before. This will be my final statement on the subject; I will not respond to Mccready's lengthy misrepresentations and wikilawyering, nor will I respond to his or your strawman arguments; however, if he wikistalks SlimVirgin to some other article she has recently edited, I will certainly block him again (if someone else hasn't blocked him already). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. FeloniousMonk 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Friday. I hate to harp on, but the fundamental question which goes to the ethos of wikipedia remains open here. Does Jayjg have the right to ban me from making sensible good faith edits to articles Slim edits? If I do, will he block me again? Mccready

I know I will, if Jayjg don't get to it first. You crossed the Rubicon for disruptive activity at the project long before this thread and your rant. FeloniousMonk 15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I sound like a broken record, but what you guys are talking about is a community ban. If that's what you want, do it. But please don't keep picking on this guy. If he's trying to be a functional editor, he doesn't need people following him around saying "You did bad things last week!". If he's not trying to be a functional editor, this will become clear soon enough. Friday (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said I wouldn't respond, but that was a bit too much. He is not being banned! There are a million articles on Wikipedia, he can edit all of them; he just needs to stay away from the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has recently edited. And no-one is "following him around" saying anything about him. Rather, he is following someone else around, and people are telling him to stop. These are two more fundamentally dishonest arguments, along the lines of the previous strawman argument you made that people were proposing that editors should blocked for making just one edit in isolation (rather, people correctly pointed out that that edit was the culmination of a long campaign of wikistalking and harassment), and the equally dishonest "it was a decent edit" red herring, since the issue was never the quality of the edit itself, but rather the circumstances surrounding it. Please do not use any of these fundamentally dishonest arguments again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, specific edits of Mccready's are red herring here. He was blocked for wikistalking, not editing. There are 1,129,346 articles at Wikipedia. All Mccready has to do is not show up at the 10 or so that SV is editing at at any given time and he's free to edit the other 1,129,336. It doesn't get any more simple than that. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom defines wikistalking as INCLUDING harrassment. Three cases are listed. In one Jimbo said "Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list" was unacceptable. Have I done that? No. In the second case the harasser placed unacceptable edit summaries "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor". Have I done that? No. In the third case a group of editors "hounded" another editor, dogging his every step. Have I done that. No. I have edited articles I am interested in which Slim is also interested in. I have given reasons on my talkpage during my block and was met with sarcasm, not good faith, for my efforts.

So do we have a new definition of wikistalking, devoid of harassment, invented by Jayjg? Sad for the project if true. I say again, this is fundamental to the wikepedia ethos. That Jayjg should fail to address the arguments is disappointing. Am I cast, horribly, in the mold of a Randian hero by Felonious’s insult that I rant? Have you examined my responses to Slim above, Felonious; if so which parts do you find unacceptable? Slim and I both edit many more articles than the few we intersect on. Does “tweak” to the lead, in the context on ongoing discussion on the talkpage, fit the new definition of wikistalking[114]? I find it sad if you really want to redefine wikistalking in this way and thereby redefine the ethos of the project. The argument that I can edit millions of other articles is unacceptable for the reasons already given. Mccready 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes harassment is in the eye of the victim not the accused. Certainly SV felt harassed. Give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project and you have nothing to worry about. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issues F. Do as I say or else? Whatever happened to logic, good faith, and the wikipedia ethos. Are we to have a new definition of harassment too? I feel harassed therefore I am? Mccready 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal reached limit

User:207.74.25.131 had last warning from someone else. I stumbled upon today's Phish and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn vandalism. An admin to block would be helpful. BabuBhatt 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:198.237.180.60

I thought I would point out that User:198.237.180.60 (talk | contributions) has vandalised the Grateful Dead page (which I have since reverted). Please take any appropriate actions, since based on the users talk page, this has happened countless times. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

216.13.88.86 (talk · contribs)

He keeps removing the proposed move tag from Lieutentant Governor (Canada) and not properly moving it, and without consensus. Ardenn 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new editor just drifting by. I decided to edit the Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) article, only to have the above user revert my contributions without reason. I have also been making worthwhile edits that have nothing to do with his spat with other editors regarding the hyphen in the title. This is not encouraging. 216.13.88.86

The problem seems to have stopped. Ardenn 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple page move help needed

User Fearboy3 (talk • contribs) has done a large amount of page renames with no apparent discussion on the talk pages, and is continuing to move pages despite being asked not by others, which is causing some problems (e.g moving martyr to Martyrdom (where the article is written about the topic martyr, moving Alexander The Great to a misspelled Alexender. Not a standard request, part content dispute, part move protection request, part requested moves, so thought I'd post here for some help. Regards, MartinRe 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of really bad, fairly serious moves (Quantum Leap to Sam Beckett? Death (personification) to Grim Reaper?), and his constant typing in all caps does little to inpire faith in him. I'd recommend moving most, if not all of these back and trying to explain to this guy that page moves should not be done lightly. --InShaneee 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just left a warning and I'm about to try to undo some of these... --ajn (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I may have just ballsed up Death Deity and Death deity - would someone else like to take a look, please? --ajn (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. For the record, this isn't the only questionable edit of this user's. He's also been removing tags from pages (as he most recently has here) with no explination, nor any apparent rhyme nor reason. --InShaneee 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I think I've got all the {{redirect|name}} back on top of the articles again, but double checking never hurts :) Regards, MartinRe 17:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This user should be blocked indef. A pagemove vandal has moved Death (personification) to Grim Reaper before; this is obviously a sock. --Rory096 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, it looks identical to indef blocked user Stoneboy3 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Regards, MartinRe 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously the same person, but I'm inclined to assume good faith for a little while longer (well, to assume stupidity rather than malice, looking at the extremely poor quality of the non-pagemove edits). Can anyone see a good, constructive edit from either user? --ajn (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(to clarify above, I was agreeing that it was a sock, not to the indef ban) Also, User:Painboy3 (no contribs yet) was created by Fearboy3, so would it be correct to block it to ensure that at least we are talking to just one account? (I see a trend in usernames, is it possible to search for username matching "*boy3"?) (edit conflict, I see this username has already been spotted) Regards, MartinRe 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can expect that the next user will be User:Painboy3, which he created immediatly after making this user account. .Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this guy gonna stop movin pages, or what? I went to look up the how to move pages article and that page was moved for Chryin out loud!DRRty 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope he doesnt move a single page any more because that would be extremely bad. Oh, the horror..DRRty 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have very little doubt that his time could be better spent.His time would be better spent working to cure cancer, for instance.DRRty 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him first for 24 hours and I thought that might calm him down. I am not adversed to an indef block now.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Diligens blocked for 3RR

I blocked Diligens (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 3RR at Traditionalist Catholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), specifically for repeatedly re-inserting the term traditional Catholic, rather than traditionalist Catholic or Traditional Catholic, per ongoing discussions on the Talk page of that article. Diligens has also repeatedly removed warnings from his Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can go there and see that the admin JzG was the one in violation, but apparently because he was himself partisan in the discussion, he used his powers of blocking to make himself feel right. You don't even have to know the issues to see it there. My explanation fell on deaf ears and I got blocked. The article was in status quo when I came there on April 30th. The discussion was still going after 11 days and JzG edited the article ON THE VERY POINT OF DISPUTE, making a edit of what was well-accepted even all the way back to January. JzG, as an admin, does not know the simple rules and is abusing his powers as an admin. It is like a citizen who points a gun at a robber, and the police take away the citizen. Any admin should know that in an RV skirmish, the person who FIRST makes the violation, is the ONLY one who violates the 3RR rule, NOT the citizen who is RVING to correct the violation. I got blocked as that citizen. Incidentally, JzG put in an RFC at the beginning of that discussion. And his summary in the RFC shows that he didn't even understand what the objective of the discussion was about, which may be the reason why he later violated by editing the article out of step with the discussion. (Diligens 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I count five reverts, violation of 3RR, endorse. A grammar change is not obvious vandalism Will (^E_@) T 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't a grammar change. There is no grammar or spelling book that supports it. The very edit was conceptual and the point of contention and no consensus was attained yet. Flaunted by admin. (Diligens 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Help with large undelete?

Someone posted an admin's personal telephone number at Talk:Abortion twice today, and since there are over 5000 versions in the history, the undelete is going a little slow. I've undeleted back a few weeks, so the current discussion isn't messed with too much - can someone with an automatic box-ticker on their browser help with the rest of the history, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be helpful for the UI of Special:Undelete to have a way to click all the version boxes for you, and then you just uncheck the ones you don't want to keep? It could be a button next to Restore and Reset... ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To check all boxes, check the top one, then hold down "shift" and check the bottom one. Don't know if it works in all browsers. Alternatively, have a look at this which I discovered very recently, and which I find absolutely wonderful. AnnH ♫ 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ann, how do you get that to work? I can't figure it out, and the bookmark thing doesn't seem to work for me. Oh, and note that some Firefox users have to Ctrl-Shift-select. Snoutwood (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

oooOOOooo. I couldn't add a bookmark, but I made a bookmark, edited it, and it works like a charm. Thanks, Ann! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that did the trick! I'm going to add that into the MediaWiki page. Snoutwood (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, I was just coming back here to mention that trick, it's mentioned at the top of the watchlist edit page. Cool. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What I want is an option to selectively delete edits, rather than having to delete the whole page and then restoring selectively. That has the added advantage of being able to use the diffs to find which ones you want to delete. Snoutwood (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made a bugzilla report for that. See bugzilla:5901. Snoutwood (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rockage. I think special:delete (we're talking about deleting edit history/versions) may be a bad name though, once I get an account set up on Mediazilla I will comment further on the bug. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I delete all, restore the bad version(s), move it to /bad and restore the rest. Then I delete /bad. This is quick and works for me. However, these pages with 5,000 some odd edits are tough to undelete because of all the edit histories that have to load.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I use that stratagy normally, but if it is a really busy page, like the article of the day, I've started using this method, with it the page is only down for a second or two. Prodego ^talk 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's "easier"??? holy smokes, that's complex and devious. I love it, but doubt I could do it correctly... ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone would do something so complicated when you can just delete, protect, restore the good edits, and unprotect. If you really want to (I personally think it's a Bad Thing) you can restore the bad edits first, move them and delete them there. FoN's way just seems like that with more unnecessay steps. Snoutwood (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was easy ;-) Prodego ^talk 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also add a step, restore the three edits deleted in the move from Page/bad to Page at the end. Prodego ^talk 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Phone number of Admin

User:Jumphoop has posted the home telephone number of an admin that I have reverted. Can an admin please delete it from the history? - Ganeshk (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do people get admins phone numbers, it's really bizarre... Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins who aren't as close to the vest with their personal info as they should be, and Wikistalkers with too much time on their hands, probably... RadioKirk talk to me 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of us have been online long enough that we've left an indelible digital trail. Before the Eternal September, my .plan had my name, phone, even my address, and it could be accessed by anyone who knew my email. I gave up any chance of anonymity a long time ago. It's just not an option for some of us. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And the people who have been online that long have a greatee tendacy to become admins.Geni 03:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue with Anomy User George Tames Article

Hello, I'm having a issue with an Anomy User 195.93.60.66 [[115]] who keeps changing the categories in article George Tames. I have requested that he/she discuss here any changes or concerns regarding this article but he/she keeps ignoring all my Talk Requests. Any help here would be much appreciated, since I am trying to avoid an edit war with this individual. Thank you in advance. ~ Mallaccaos, 10 May, 2006

The first thing to do is to assume good faith, and talk to the other user, they might have valid concerns and/or disagree with you. I think your inital comments to them were on the harsh side, it is not vandalism to have a dispute about content, and the edits didn't look complete nonsense to me. They might be incorrect, but even well meaning editors make mistakes. (Be careful not to fall into the trap of feeling you "own" an article that you create, as on that path lies chaos.) MartinRe 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the responds. My comments were not meant to be harsh sounding, I was just frustrated that he/she keeps making the changes without discussion them first when it was requested of him/her both at the George Tames discussion page and at the anomys user's discussion board. It seems this individual is specifically taking out the Greek-American category for some reason without saying why, even when there is a link provided which shows George Tames claiming he comes from a Greek and Albanian family. I have requested to the individual to discuss his/her edits several times and never got a response back. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006

If discussion with the other editor is not improving the situation, look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other things to try, like getting a third opinion, and so on. These admin boards aren't the place to come for content dispute, as outlined at the top of this page. Regards, MartinRe 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's my whole issue, I can't get the editor to discuss the situation, which is why I came here. I just didn't want an edit war to get out of hand with this situation. Thank you for pointing me to the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other things to try. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006

There is no requirement to discuss before making changes, Be Bold! is our motto! I still suggest asking the user politely about their edits, accusing someone of vandalism in your first message to them isn't exactly going to make them want to reply! Ask them calmly about their edits, point out where you differ in opinion, and see what happens, it's way too early for dispute resolution when you haven't tried talking calmly to the other editor yet. Please remember to assume good faith and always be civil. Regards, MartinRe 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is no requirement to discuss before making changes. I want to discuss with the individual why he/she is making the same exact changes which he/she is doing but the individual has so far ignored all request for a discussion. I have taken in consideration the assume good faith and have apologized to this individual if he/she took my first comments as too harsh and have requested for a civil discussion here. Hopefully this can be resovled without any more issues. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006

That's great, thanks. Hope it works out, and remember if there are further content disputes, please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes as that's the best way to proceed. (posting here for content disputes will simply refer you to there anyway :) Regards, MartinRe 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin (Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs)) (Snowspinner) first participated in an AfD then deleted the AfD outright

Hi folks. If this is no big deal, please excuse the interruption. However, it's my understanding that one general rule-of-thumb is that admins should not delete or otherwise 'administer' pages on which they have contributed substantively as editors. Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) has just done so, on an AfD brought by a user. Phil voted 'speedy keep', another admin marked it as a 'speedy keep', and then Phil deleted the AfD. I'd like to get the response of some admins (from a policy perspective, not a 'Phil under attack' perspective) to whether such activity in essence amounts to unfair or excessive use of an admin's powers during the course of their routine editing of Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I cannot provide a link to the now-deleted AfD page (it was here), but here's a link to the talk page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the article that was nominated for deletion, 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities, and it looks like a whole bunch of people all marked it "speedy keep"; the person who listed it was User:Ham_and_jelly_butter, who has been indefinitely blocked. He also listed George W. Bush for deletion. I'll back up Phil on this one: I would have done the same thing he did. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This nomination was a violation of WP:POINT and was rightfully speedy kept. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's two admins who back Phil so far. Thanks for your opinions, admin folks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keeping the article is one thing. But what about deleting the AfD? Isn't it important to have a record that the article was AfD'ed and speedily kept? -- noosphere 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing it is a record of is the rejection of a bad faith nom by an indefinitely blocked vandal. Not valuable in the least imo. Arkon 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is valuable as a record of the community's will that the page not be deleted. -- noosphere 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good speedy keep. I agree with Phil's practice of deleting the bad faith nomination, though the obvious benefits of doing so in a case like this somehow hadn't occurred to me before. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad we can't nominate notices for 'Bad Faith' deletes. --Tbeatty 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Or comments, for that matter. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was just the nomination that was deleted I'd have had no problem with it. But a number of editors had already voiced thier opposition to the AfD, and the AfD was closed as a speedy keep. It's the record of the rejection of the AfD that I value and object to being deleted. However, I will say this is not a huge deal for me. I just wish it hadn't been deleted and allowed to be kept to serve as a record of the rejection of the third AfD against this article. -- noosphere 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree completely had this been a real VFD. It was speedy kept because of who nominated it and how, in a very short time, by a very few people. I still see no value. Arkon 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the Afd (created by a blocked user) would be valid under WP:CSD G5, and as the afd was "closed" as speedy keep/bad faith nom, it would seem reasonable (if not recommended) to delete the afd as well once the banning was discovered. (otherwise we could have a DOS attack by Afd noms :) MartinRe 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. If deleting the AfD was valid I have no more objections. Thanks for looking in to this. -- noosphere 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, folks, I agree, too, but it's nice to have some consideration of the AfD voters who aren't monitoring the block logs. It would be a little bit more than courteous to put a note on the AfD page, or the AfD Log page letting folks know that the nomination had been done by a blocked user. It would have prevented some confusion and potential offense. Geogre 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history a little more carefully, it looks to me like he wasn't blocked until a few minutes after the voting ended (but a few minutes before the thing was deleted) ([116]). Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So he wasn't a blocked user when he started the AfD ? Does that mean that the AfD itself was not deletable per WP:CSD G5 after all? -- noosphere 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is customary to clean up the vandalism of a user you block for vandalism. I did so. My apologies for not leaving a better paper trail - my loathing for them continues to know few bounds. Phil Sandifer 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not technically have been a G5, but the nomination was clearly in bad faith. To prevent trolling, these things should be deleted--otherwise, a vandal could nominate any article for deletion and say "But your policy says you have to keep records, so you can't delete it!" This has happened before, and so I think Phil was totally in the right deleting the page per WP:IAR. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't just clean up his vandalism, Phil. You also deleted the responses to the AfD, and the record of the community consensus on the matter. Again, if you'd just deleted his nomination when he'd made it, I'd have had absolutely no problem with it. But a number of editors voiced their opinions in that AfD. So all I'm saying is that it would have been nice to have had a record of that... even if the AfD itself was originally initiated in bad faith. After all, I do believe most AfDs that result in a speedy keep are usually kept for posterity on Wikipedia, are they not? -- noosphere 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that insofar is would not have done much damage to keep the AfD (though I fear such actions would futher encourage trolls rather than deter them). Nonetheless, I don't think Phil's actions were in any way wrong, and it's not a deletion that I would contest. And I would also argue that even an AfD that resulted in speedy keep could reflect poorly upon an article, in that someone felt the need to nominate it in the first place. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to again point out, that this is hardly 'the record of the community consesus' on the matter. Even disregarding who nominated it and why, it was still ended extremely early, on the very basis of it being a bad faith nomination. Arkon 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A speedy keep is rarely (ever?) the result of a long and drawn-out process in which a great number of editors participate. But a result of a speedy keep does demonstrate that there was enough consensus for the AfD to be rejected virtually immediately. I believe a record of such an event is valuable. But I won't belabor the point further. It's done. And the consensus here seems to be that Phil did nothing wrong by deleting the AfD, even though it may not have been done strictly according to the rules. I'll accept that and move on. As I said before, this is not a huge deal for me. -- noosphere 04:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The speedy keep was correct; deleting the debate was suboptimal but not wrong. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on Incest talk page?

There are several articles which seem to have been inserted in full (or if not then large blocks) on the talk page.--Anchoress 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just delete the offending sections. Pages only need to be deleted as a copyvio if the first thing in the history is a copyvio.--Peta 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I just don't like to step over other editors without knowing what I'm doing. I *think* I know text copyright law as it pertains to the internet, but I didn't want to just blank all the text without checking with a more experienced editor first. I'll know better next time, thanks.--Anchoress 06:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Include in your edit summary the source of the copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

70.27.45.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He keeps adding factually incorrect info to Algonquin College and refuses to cite sources. Ardenn 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now removing tags and blanking sections of pages such as this. Ardenn 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48h for repeated violation of WP:RS while refusing to discuss with other editors. This should probably go to WP:AIV, by the way. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The return of the permanently banned User:Irate

Admin User:Samuel Blanning has asked that I place a note here, as he has banned blocked the IP User:84.9.210.236 (amongst others) as a sock of User:Irate, but is not familiar with the case history.

User:Irate who was hardbanned by Jimbo Wales, and has had multiple sockpuppets such as User:IanDavies and User:Son of Paddy's Ego has come back using the IP's User:84.9.210.236, User:87.75.131.249 and User:84.9.193.224 to edit articles on British counties, on which he has a fairly extreme view, after User:Lancsalot made a few changes (which admittedly didn't follow the naming conventions, but could have been quickly rectified). When challenged he produced several personal attacks and created a vandal category into which he placed three users, including myself.

The main evidence I can offer for identification purposes is from User:David_Gerard's block log here; if you look at the bottom he blocked a lot of IP's in the same 84.9.x.x range for being his sockpuppets. The spelling mistakes, frequent attacks and style of editing are absolutely identical when compared them to the contributions of User:IanDavies, for example here and here and the anon contributions [117], [118] and [119]. Most admins who have dealt with this user previously (eg User:David Gerard, User:Morwen, User:Matt Crypto, User:JzG) would confirm his identity.

More background on this editor, look at his posts on wikien-l which led up to his ban.

The charge sheet just for today reads as WP:3RR, WP:NPA and editing as a banned user; it would be useful for other admins to verify this block and keep an eye out for further activity. Aquilina 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• To make something clear, I only blocked 84.9.210.236 as the most recently-used IP for a month (no-one else was using that IP). I also deleted Category:County Watch Vandal and permanently blocked the sock that created it. I didn't claim to ban anyone - the distinction between banning and blocking is quite important in this case. I haven't blocked the other two IPs for now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies, correction made. Stressful day. Aquilina 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This user keeps coming back with new IPs and socks. So far he's used:

• 84.9.210.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.75.131.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.75.130.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.75.131.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and
• 84.9.193.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Can someone with the technical know-how block his entire range? All of these IPs have had no previous contributions, so collateral damage is unlikely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism is ongoing, see 84.9.210.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); any help with the IP range block would be very gratefully received. Aquilina 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how to do it, and I can do it, but I don't understand why to. Could you explain what is going on more clearly? Prodego ^talk 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This editor, who should be blocked on sight after his indefinite ban, has spent today making repeated personal attacks on editors who have challenged him [120], [121] [122]...etc. Each time one IP is blocked, he comes back on a new one and replaces all his edits - look at the contribs above, and then at User:84.9.195.184 and User:84.9.210.134, his latest two IPs. At the moment this is having to be cleaned up each time he reoffends on a case by case basis. As all the edits come from two ranges, it would be far quicker to put a shortish block on the ranges concerned. Without the block, there's not much other option - it's not a case for AIV, and AN & AN/I are massively congested. Aquilina 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He started yesterday morning [123] and the most recent edit I know of was this evening, 24 hours later [124]. So no, he hasn't stopped, we need to block his range to stop him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three hours. Prodego ^talk 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How big a range are we talking about, and are there good contributors coming from it? Phil Sandifer 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

/22 (1024 addresses). According to the above users "collateral damage is unlikely". Prodego ^talk 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the block should just be 1 hour, do you think I should change to that? Prodego ^talk 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the vandalism has occured over a period of 48 hours so far, I'm actually surprised the block wasn't for longer. There's a good chance he'll be asleep for most of it (I assume he's English and it's 11.30pm right now). I appreciate that a range block of 1,024 IPs has very significant potential for collateral damage, but none of the IPs used so far have had a single contribution before Irate started using it. I can continue blocking individual IPs when he returns, of course, but when it takes him about 20 minutes to switch IPs, what does it matter whether they're blocked for 1 hour or 1 month? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Range blocks and sprotect are the solution. Block enough ranges and he'll eventually have to reboot 10 or 20 times to get a working IP, which is quite discouraging. Sprotecting the pages he's editing means that even if he does, he still can't get his stuff into articles, which is also discouraging. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also blocked his sockpuppets User:RunningMan and User:TrackInspector. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The following dynamic ranges have been used:

CIDR	Range
87.75.130.0/23	(87.75.130.0 - 87.75.131.255)
84.9.210.0/23	(84.9.210.0 - 84.9.211.255)
84.9.192.0/22	(84.9.192.0 - 84.9.195.255)

These might be possible to use, but have not been:

CIDR	Range
84.9.196.0/22	(84.9.196.0 - 84.9.199.255)
84.9.200.0/22	(84.9.200.0 - 84.9.203.255)
84.9.204.0/22	(84.9.204.0 - 84.9.207.255)

Prodego ^talk 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User 140.239.109.3

User 140.239.109.3 works hard to vandalize seemingly random articles. I suggest an immediate block in order to protect the content of Wikipedia. Maybe a permanent ban, since it seems like this IP is used for vandalism only. /Magore 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat by Doug Copp / User:Amerrescue

Sadly, user Amerrescue (claiming to be Doug Copp) has threatended with legal action in the article [125]. I believe that he is serious in his intentions. I do not know the process when something like this happens. In addition, I will be away for a week and will not be able to do anything. Can someone help? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for legal threats. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He is at it again. Now using a sock puppet User:24.224.197.109. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. Feel free to revert such threats as you see them (in addition to reporting them) in the future. --InShaneee 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Christian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) vandalized and left protected

This userbox used by hundreds of users has been vandalized by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs) and protected in the vandalized state by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). An userbox of the size of a full article (full of heave calibre POV) is obvious vandalism to me. BTW, none of the two vandals uses this userbox. To add insult to injury, one of them added a rotating crucifix as the image (now deleted). A user Rexmorgan (talk · contribs) who tried to revert this obvious vandalism has been blocked for 24h by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). Friendly Neighbour 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call anything here "obvious vandalism", but it does look like a silly edit war. FWIW, Tony Sidaway has dealt with this in a sensible way, putting the template back to a simple version and unprotecting. Friday (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not obvious? A userbox with the height of my screen? C'mon. Look the definition in Wikipedia:Userboxes: "A userbox is a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages". Anyway, thanks Tony! Friendly Neighbour 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the other version was accurate :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree this was absurd, I wouldn't call it anything worse than a content dispute. He certainly meant well, at the very least. --InShaneee 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A classic case of the wrong version :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was no mere vandalism. Changing a message hundreds of people have already chosen for their userpages is megavandalism of hundreds userpages. I believe long blocks are the only appropriate penalties for such mega-vandals. Friendly Neighbour 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Megavandalism, huh? The problem is, if people had just subst'd their templates, they wouldn't have known about this at all. --InShaneee 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is hundreds of people did't. Can they be vandalized because they never heard of "subst" (like me until very recently) or simply preferred the uncluttered versions of their pages (also like me)? Maybe we should also replace our userpages with uploaded screenshots of them, not to be the 3RR guilty party when a vandal gets the idea of a "content dispute" on our pages ;-) Friendly Neighbour 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This reeks of POINT and it certainly isn't civil. Furthermore, I am astounded that someone would actually block for this case of 3RR and not block Cyde and Gmaxwell. You shouldn't get to edit war by virtue of having one more person than the other side and get away with it.

“ You reverted the rotating crucifix. I do not understand. That change was made to make the image more NPOV by showing it from all angles. --Cyde Weys 08:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ”

Seriously, this was wildly inappropriate, disruptive, not done in good faith, etc even if I think it was hilarious. Kotepho 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur here. I thought it was funny too, and I am the one that got blocked over it. However, "funny" is not really appropriate when it is affecting many users on The Project. With regard to InShaneee's comment - subst is not, as far as I know, official policy or even suggested guideline regarding userboxes at this point, so it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have already worked together to come up with that solution to the problem. Rexmorgan 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not have been the best move, but I still wouldn't call it vandalism. First of all, the simple fact is that without transclusion, you're open to whatever happens to the template, like it or not. Secondly, although the gif was a bit over the top, the new text was NPOV, and as silly as it came out, I don't think it's something he should be punished for; rather, he should simply be overruled on the talk page. --InShaneee 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Every time I see one of these userbox squabbles, it makes me want to tear out my eyes. Whether intended or not, they always end up waltzing with WP:POINT. Keep the blasted thing at Tony's version. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "vandalism" necessarily, so much as a massive WP:DICK move. These are admins behaving like little children - very disappointing. Isn't there an encyclopedia around here you could be writing, guys? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell started it again. This time a "compromise version". I reverted him once. I would prefer a better solution. Anyone ready to block the vandal? Friendly Neighbour 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a talk page there. These things CAN be discussed. Blocking isn't always the answer. Neither is reverting a 3 word change and calling it 'massive vandalism'. When two users refuse to discuss a change, BOTH are at fault. --InShaneee 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users link to their userpages (as userbiox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the difference between an article about a person/thing/idea and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is no need of template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. You do not own that template, nor does anyone else. It may be freely edited just like anything else here. Compromise is not only needed, it's expected. --InShaneee 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not get my point my point. You can't "own" an article exactly because there can be only one on a given subject. You actually can "own" a template because anyone can create a new one (for example adding a number to the name). Friendly Neighbour 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't own ANYTHING, period. Templates (such as userboxes) included. If you want your own userbox, subst it, or just create it wholly on your userpage. Once it's put in the Template space, it's subject to all the usual policies. --InShaneee 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Friendly Neighbour, in your haste to defend against evil you managed to revert text suggested by someone who appears to hold your position. As InShaneee said above, compromise is a core aspect of wikipedia. Please discontinue your allegations of bad faith and join the discussion rather than attacking. --Gmaxwell 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to qualify, reverting discussed, agreed upon changes can be considered vandalism. --InShaneee 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Holy War

Saying this as a non-religious person, I am both appalled and offended at some of the actions being made by two administrators, Gmaxwell and Cyde at Template talk:User Christian. This far oversteps being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. They clearly have no interest in this template other than to offend, disrupt, and probably see to it that the template is ultimately deleted as a result of their offensive disruption. 207.200.116.138 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AGF as soon as possible, please. --InShaneee 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He should assume good faith when someone writes a whole article inside a userbox, ruining many userpages? There was no good faith, just admins vandalizing. Lapinmies 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want anyone being able to change what appears on your userpage then you oughn't be transcluding templates. Please read up on WP:OWN while you're at it. Also note that calling an established Wikipedian a vandal because you disagree with them is far, far beyond the pale. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that they can't be changed, it was that they should not contain a whole article. Lapinmies 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no guideline stating that. As I said before, if anyone had a problem with it, the talk page is the first place it should be brought. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no guideline stating that you should not stick peas in your nose. Lapinmies 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I, along with many of my fellow users, strongly support other user's right to do so, along with anything else they may choose to do outside of wikipedia, where we have no control over them. --InShaneee 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that anyone thinks this comment is anything other than trolling. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So we can assume good faith of someone who (as an obvious joke) replaces a userbox with an article, but we can't assume good faith of someone who considers that action a violation of WP:POINT? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We can assume good faith in EVERYONE, if I'm reading the policy correctly. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was sort of my point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that anyone is calling an online content dispute a "Holy War". Millions of people have died in real Holy Wars. That's like calling the New Years Userbox deletion "The Userbox Holocaust". --Cyde Weys 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• For those late to the party, this is where it started. Thatcher131 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See Flame war#Holy wars --Carnildo 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that Mackensen has speedy-deleted the template under T1, I'm sure that everything will calm down. (rolls eyes) Everybody, brace for impact — it's going to be New Year's all over again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was dividing people in a big way...I'd consider that 'divisive'. --InShaneee 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

... nnnno it wasn't. Cyde and Gmaxwell having fun with the content at the expense of everyone who put it on their page was being divisive. There is absolutely nothing divisive about the content that was at {{User Christian}}. JDoorjam Talk 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah — the only divisiveness came about when Cyde and Gmaxwell started their joke. The same thing could be done to any userbox, not just political or religious ones. To take an example at random, Template:User male could be replaced with an essay on biological sex differences and the sociological deconstruction of gender. (Of course, I wouldn't do that, because unlike some people I respect WP:POINT.) I really think this was ill-considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which, of course, comes back to the issue of userboxes. Should they be wiped off the face of the earth? No. Should they be subst:'d? Yes. After all, this is an encyclopaedia, and saying "This User is a Christian" is unencyclopaedic (although I find Cyde's version still too restrictive in its definition). As for size restrictions on userboxes - have a look at the one at the bottom of David Gerard's page. Now that's a userbox. Guettarda 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I agree that userboxes should be subst:ed. I just don't think that this is the way to go about it. If we're going to subst: all userboxes, then let's formulate an appropriate policy and do it. This maneuver (starting an argument, and then deleting the template because it's divisive) smacks to me of pushing someone into the mud and then condemning him for being dirty. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For historical purposes, it was RexM's fault for editing it to say "This user claims to be a Christian". Having said that, despite how hilarious the Gmaxwell & Cyde version of the userbox was (I miss the animated crucifix; I'm actually considering using the userbox in my userspace, although I really am a Christian), they were definitely violating WP:POINT. I won't go as far as WP:VANDAL, but this was definitely disruption (even if meant well, and done in an absolutely hilarious manner). Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Cyde and Gmaxwell why they thought a userbox was an appropriate place for an essay on Christianity, with a big animated crucifix gif, no less. Thatcher131 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is all well and good, but now that the userbox has been axed, shouldn't this debate move on to WP:DRVU? –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just like to point out that we still have Template:User Catholic, Template:User Protestant, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Buddhist, Template:User Jewish, and probably a lot of other ones. If "This user is a Christian" is division, then all of these are, too. Either we need to delete them all, or an infobox saying "This user is a Christian" needs to be reinstated. — BrianSmithson 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to let folks know that I've substed the userbox on all the user pages it was used on. I can do the others too, if people want them gone from Template space. I've expressed my opinion on the edit war itself already on the WikiEN mailing list, so I won't repeat it here. It's not particularly polite, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what should happen, frankly. Substed code on a userpage isn't subject to anyone's petty whims. I can't say I'm happy about the last 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the template at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates#Template:User Christian. The debate can move there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No legit T1. Nothing to debate.Geni 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Constanz

I have blocked this user for 1 hour for disruption. (S)he created Template:User no Marxism, a recreation of Template:User No Marxism, which was deleted under t1 and endorsed yesterday by DRV. This was disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and I have fired a short warning shot. --Doc ^ask? 16:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

205.158.140.77 request to block self

205.158.140.77 has requested to be blocked from editing. Claims the IP address represents a school, and given the number of vandalisms from this IP, I think this is probably true. Rexmorgan 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty infrequent. Maybe a month off would do? RadioKirk talk to me 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I'm not really the one asking for this, I am merely relaying 205.158.140.77's request for blockage. I agree with the request, but as far as duration, that is up to the admins of course. Rexmorgan 18:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be WP:BOLD. Others can review with my thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What someone behind that IP were to become a positive contributor? There was almost no vandalism, so there isn't much of a problem. Plus, "requested blocks" are not in the blocking policy. I don't think the IP should be blocked. Prodego ^talk 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hence this notice—still, I'll happily defer to anyone who overrules. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also be wary of allowing one student choose to get everyone else blocked. Plus, we have no indication whether or not it's a static IP, or whether the school is covered by more than one IP (there are contributions from adjacent IP addresses). Until an offical request comes in, I'd suggest dealing with as normal and leave unblocked. Regards, MartinRe 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This could just be a troll trying to keep his friends from editing as some sort of pranks. --InShaneee 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, that occurred to me; the IP's history belies that, however—it's virtually all vandalism. These were the reasons why I went with a one-month block (as opposed to something stronger) and the note on the talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the French military history article

Please don't revert this edit. Nobody in the military refers to service rifles as "assault rifles". Thanks. --129.2.176.2 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Post your concern at Talk:Military history of France. Contributors to that article are considerably more likely to see it than here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitso Bel

User:Mitso Bel is trying to add his personal views into the anti-Arabism article. Such views include Arabs destroyed Iran and mass-murdered Iranians [126], Arabs are jealous of Persians and are hostile towards them, and that "Traditional Egyptian hostility toward Persians has been very well documented" [127]. I have reverted his edits twice and asked him not to push his POV into the article, but I don't think he is going to stop. Also, would his edits be considered vandalism? --Inahet 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, content dispute. Does he have sources for these assertions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it is borderline. Either way, without sources to which these assertions are attributed, its OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal arts colleges vandalism and sockpuppetry

Latinlovinglatino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in a particular pattern of vandalism in the last month and a half, replacing mottoes on Haverford College, Swarthmore College, and Macalester College with a latin phrase that translates as "Our students are very dumb". (Diffs: [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135]) He was warned, including a final warning [136], after which he turned his attention to questionably appropriate images, not actually against any policy (except WP:DICK) (see his user page for an example.) Today, I_majored_in_classics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized Bryn Mawr College in the same manner as described above (Diff: [137]). It seems clear from contribution and username evidence that User:I majored in classics is a sockpuppet of User:Latinlovinglatino, used in an attempt to evade a threatened block, and as such, User:I majored in classics should be permablocked and User:Latinlovinglatino should be temporarily blocked for vandalism. --CComMack 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dc9 (talk · contribs), Dc10 (talk · contribs)

The only edits of the above two users have been to add {{sockpuppet}} tags to the talk page of GO WHARTON (talk · contribs). The tags have changed several times, as if the tagger can't decide what exactly GO WHARTON's alignment is, which makes them somewhat suspicious. The names (Dc9 and Dc10) are obvious indicators of some sort of socking. Isopropyl 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

True jesus (talk · contribs)

I first came across this user a couple of weeks ago when he was moving True Jesus Church to multiple absurd locations and creating POV forks of the article, to satirize and criticize the church, which he continued despite several polite warnings from User:Jose77 and myself. He then went on a rampage repeatedly blanking his talk page of the warnings despite the requests of many that he stop. Now he has begun trolling my talk page, Jose77's talk page, User:Hoary's talk page, and, given his history of attacking everyone who contacts him about his behavior, I'm sure he'll soon begin attacking User:Prodego. Beyond that, his username is also potentially inflammatory and quite inappropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I might also add that he has been vandlizing several userpages, including my own. So far, I've seen only vandalism from this account. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a disruptive account. I didn't see anything going on that looked like trying to write an encyclopedia, but I place this notice here in case some other admin wishes to review the block. Syrthiss 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever disputed an indefinite blocking, and I am sure as hell not going to start with this one! --Cyde Weys 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAA, and I don't think the username issue to be altogether significant, but I do think it's clear that the user's principal purpose is disruption, and so I think an indef block is likely appropriate. Since the user is a relatively new user, I accept that he/she was acting in good faith in moving the True Jesus Church article (although one worries that the user registered expressly in order to make such move, in view of the user name selected), thinking Wikipedia to be endorsing the church (when, in actuality, we simply use the name the church ascribes to itself), but his/her subsequent actions show, at best, an inability to work constructively with others and to learn Wikipedia's policies, especially with respect to consensus. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should post a note to the user page to the effect that if the user agrees to comport his/her behavior with Wikipedia's policies, the user may be unblocked, with the caveat that any further vandalism/trolling/page blanking will result in an indef block. Joe 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Syrthiss. I'm usually adamently opposed to indefinite blocks, but I think it's quite clear that his account existed from day one to troll the True Jesus Church article (given the username), and he's made quite clear that he does not want to contribute positively. I was thinking more along the lines of a 48hr block just to make it known that we're serious, but I'm certainly not going to object to this decision! AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Before he created that disruptive account, this user was already persistently vandalising TJC articles (especially the True Jesus Church in India article & talk page) under the IP addresses:

128.113.18.225, 128.113.18.228, 128.113.18.207, 128.113.64.65, 128.113.64.29, 128.113.64.63.

-- Joseph, 05:28 Friday 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. I'll go tag the sockpuppets, and we might consider blocking those accounts too, though I'm still not sure we want to consider this block as an indefinite "ban." He still might some day give up his past and decide to contribute effectively, and blocking the IPs may cause unnecessary collateral damage. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:KymeSnake

WP:RCU confirms that this is Iasson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). KymeSnake is quiescent, but not blocked. Septentrionalis 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Henceforth, it is quite inconsequentialPatrick J. 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to contribute an idea to not tolerate this sort of behavior. "Block 'em with a smile"!(tm)Woody'sAlwaysSmilin'! 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here, two first comments from new user accounts? --Cyde Weys 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Our old friend the AN:I troll again. Both indef blocked. --InShaneee 00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to sprotect this page, then? --Cyde Weys 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If by this page you mean WP:ANi, then no I can't edit things that are sprotected--152.163.100.65 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See the edit summary? I wouldn't want to try to delete this page. Prodego ^talk 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:I'M THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!!!

This user has been blocked for their username and they are repeatedly attempting to edit, filling up the Blocklist with autoblocks. DOS vandal? Anything we can do about this? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Not really.Geni 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You could reset/blank their password....hopefully, seeing as how this is the 4th time in the last hour I've hit one of their autoblocks--64.12.116.65 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You could suggest on the talk page that, without a comma, this username implies that the user is either the juggernaut bitch (i.e., an unstoppable bitch), or the bitch of The Juggernaut (sounds painful), and that they consider the syntax of the next moniker they choose. Beyond that I got nothin'. JDoorjam Talk 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction to the above: the name indicates is that it belongs to the female dog that is a juggernaut of having sexual intercourse with its own mother (or some other mother). Everyone needs a talent, I suppose. Geogre 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction: IT refers to The Juggernaut Bitch (now defunct) it's a nonnotable amateur video that got famous for a few days. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I found myself forced to unblock the Juggernaut, along with a crapload of autoblocks, in order to release yet again the very unfortunate AOL user User:WBardwin, who's had precious little opportunity to edit in the past few days. See User talk:WBardwin. See my recent unblocking activity here!I did the same with another AOL block the other day, and I believe a few other admins have done the same. If anybody has a better solution than undoing those autoblocks by hand, and especially any suggestion for avoiding letting the vandal walk free, please share. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

Seconded! Geogre 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (a victim of such "collateral" damage as a victim of Netscape ISP)

Yet again with admin telephone numbers

FWIW, a number purporting to be that of Alkivar is in an edit summary in this page's history (viz., here). Joe 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten out of hand. Wikipedia needs to take specific legal action against this user, as its obvious that they're not going to stop on their own. Daniel Davis 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone done a CU to determine if it's coming from a static IP/IP range? --InShaneee 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's dynamic: Bell Canada. Prodego ^talk 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I fully support initiating legal action here. Can Danny do something about this? --InShaneee 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what legal action you suggest be taken. There's almost surely nothing illegal about one's posting the telephone number of an admin; at worst, such posting is in contravention of Wikipedia policies (and, to be sure, possibly of Bell Canada's terms of service). I don't think postings such as that relative to Alkivar are particularly egregious, inasmuch as he provides his full name and city of residence on his user page; it's not wholly unreasonable to assume that thence one will find one's telephone number. That is in no way to countenance the posting of the number which is surely against policy (which policy exists for important reasons), but only to say that, notwithstanding that there is no legal action to be taken, I'd not support the use of WF resources for any such action. Joe 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. The posting of unauthorized personal information by a third party is against several US (and one would assume) Canadian laws concerning privacy, and is actionable. Daniel Davis 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As applies to telephone numbers, IMHO, you're mistaken. Someone probably should remove the egregious edit from the page's history, but an admin will need to tackle that. Joe 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried delete/restore; page history's too big, it times out RadioKirk talk to me 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, NEVER try to delete/restore a page this big. Talk to a developer on IRC, but NEVER try to delete/restore a page this big. Ral315 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the rate at which posts are made on this page, it might not even be necessary to remove the edit. It's almost off the top 50 as it is, so it's quite unlikely that a prank caller will stumble across it (the user's information is also on his userpage, so the risk is probably higher that a user would get his num there, rather than off the ANI history). As for the legalities, I'm not sure of exact laws, but I know such actions go against Wikipedia's privacy policy. It's probably not necessary to bring the guy to go court, but a threatening letter would probably be in order as this is happening again and again and again... AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Google and others provide phone numbers, so I really doubt there's anything illegal here. Further, we ought to observe NLT for the good guys as well as bad. However, Bell Canada's ISP surely has an abuse account, surely has procedures for dealing with users who do this stuff. We ought to be contacting them and explaining the vandalism being done and how it amounts to DOS if done in a particular way. Geogre 11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. Google uses a database of numbers provided to them by whichever phone company the individual signs up with- at sign time the person has to explicitly and clearly state that they want their number published in the phone book (which is then at Google's request given to them). Giving out personal, private telephone information (or any other information) without the individual's consent is a violation of several harassment laws, at least in the US. Not sure about Canada. I know this because I did telemarketing for a while, and they made SURE we knew both the laws AND the loopholes regarding personal info. Daniel Davis 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some usernames in this category that ought not to exist. I know that normally users can't be deleted, but is there a way for developers to delete these users or change usernames of the sockpuppets? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody help Johnleemk?

Would somebody here be able to mentor Johnleemk? As the result of an arbitration case, he posted these words on a talk page: "Lou_franklin is banned from editing this article... The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." [138]

Since it explicitly said "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", I did. As a result he blocked me for 48 hours! He apparently made a mistake posting the wording because he changed it to "the user is prevented" after he blocked me. Obviously since the talk page said I am "not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", it is not appropriate to ban me for doing so!

Other users [139] suggested to him that he "ask for clarification at the relevant ArbCom page" and "I think it is advisable to ask clarification" and "since the template was misleading, the block should probably be lifted", but he flatly refused saying "there is nothing to clarify... Specific rulings overrule a general template." I asked him to post a link to the Wikipedia policy that states that. He could not provide one, and responded by saying "you should know better than to rely on a general template".

This admin is making up rules as he goes. If an admin posts that it's OK for a user to add to the discussion, it's really not reasonable for the same admin to block the user for doing so. Is there an admin here who would be able to explain that to John? Lou franklin 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Something wonky is going on here. Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is supposed to be under a seven day block for violating the terms of his personal attack parole. I don't see any reason why he should be unblocked right now – when Johnleemk blocked Lou, Johnleemk cleared the previous block before reblocking – but Lou has been able to edit this page and User talk:Jimbo Wales].

Can anybody figure out why this block isn't sticking? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please address the actual issue? Lou franklin 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying unblocking, then reblocking again. --InShaneee 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was unfairly blocked for over 48 hours. Maybe the system has a fairness quotient built in Lou franklin 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And maybe you're wikilawyering. The arbcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin case pretty clearly says (in the first remedy) that you are banned from the article AND the talk page. That Johnleemk put up the wrong template is regrettable, but the arbcom findings, in my view, overrule minor procedural errors like that. You need to stay out of that article AND its talk page, indefinitely. It would also be helpful if you didn't post long rants about the sad decline of Wikipedia on the talk pages of all and sundry, but we can't have everything. As for the topic, I don't see where Johnleemk needs any help, he's doing fine. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be thinking that since John told him he could edit that page, it meant he was free to do as he pleased (including calling other editors sexist slurs). I think it was rather big of John to give him a chance in the first place, and he most certainly did the right thing when Lou stepped way out of line again. I've tried unblocking/reblocking Lou, hopefully it'll stick. --InShaneee 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has shown nothing but bad-faith, and I endorse this block. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Threatened to get me desysopped if I didn't rollback his disruption on ArbCom members' talk pages. Will (^E_@) T 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Support mentoring, Johnleemk is clearly new and inexperienced with this admin thing that he's supposed to be doing, and clearly needs an experienced mentor to help guide him along this path. [140] --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're all newbs to me :) Raul654 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And me too. :p (Although I'm definitely a newb to Raul -- when I arrived he was already a juggernaut on Wikipedia.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of laws

Jurisprudence has a concept called conflict of laws.

I've noticed that this concept and some other legal concepts are not well understood in wikipedia, including by arbcom. But that is to be expected in a young project and one which inevitbably reflects the power of appointing members to arbcom. Nonetheless, in this case, and even if Lou is gaming the system, the rule of law should be respected and applied.

Since I'm a legal positivist in my thinking and training I argue that the law is applied to suit the outcome desired by those making the decision. It would be better though, in this case, to give the benefit of the doubt. The 48 hour block was thus unjustified.

As to the 7 day block. Excessive. Homo is derogatory, yes but not as derogatory as some words. Lou should be unblocked and templates should be improved.

To put the matter beyond doubt, my comments should not be read in any way for support of his views. Mccready 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Laws occurs when two different nations have different laws, that contradict each other. This is not within a country. Same here, this is within wikipedia, and there it does not apply. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we don't do legalities here. We go (or should go) by common sense and the good of the project. Friday (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:NOT a micronation. We don't make laws; we make policies and principles and expect editors to use their common sense instead of lawyer their way out of trouble. Also, I find this emphasis on the homo thing strange; to me, it was secondary to the massive bad faith Lou placed in his post to Jimbo's talk. As the arbitration committee insisted that special attention be paid to bad faith, and in light of Lou's recent violation of his article ban (I've already explained on his talk why he can't use the template as an excuse), the 7 day block is justified. (Even if it wasn't and we want to hew to policy, bear in mind that the arbitration committee set the maximum block at 7 days -- if Lou even slightly deviates from what he's supposed to do, any admin can wham him as hard as they like provided the block does not exceed 1 week. I was lenient with Lou the first time, so the second time round...) Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

Sorry to troubel with a "trivial" issue, but I'm trying to avoid being blocked. I have been criticised on several occasions for breaking process: my understanding is that editing one's own talk page to remove "negative" comments constitutes breach of process. My problem is that my talk page has been edited by someone else, not at my behest, and in doing so has removed "critical" commentary. On the other hand, I do not wish to revert this without some authority, in case this is treated as improperly reverting a senior user's edit. Advice, please. I have ceased any editing on Wiki for the time being, just in case. -- Simon Cursitor 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? Also note: there are no "senior users". We're all equal here. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his edit, as he was removing the section because the DRV was over, I guess (though it seems odd that it was an account that wasn't even in the conversation, and considering socks were mentioned...), but anyway, talk page messages are generally kept (and [[WP:ARCHIVE|archived when the page gets full), rather than removing sections that aren't necessary anymore. As it was your talk, people shouldn't be removing comments anyway, especially if it's not their own. --07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS3 edit war

PlayStation 3 has been the subject of an edit war over whether to use a free image Image:Sony PlayStation 3.jpg or a fair use one Image:Ps3stock.jpg. I protected the article recently to stop the war, but soon after unprotection somebody uploaded Image:PS3 Large Final.jpg, which is a slightly smaller version of the original fair use image, only it's been tagged as being CC-BY instead. I find this claim highly dubious, and have deleted both the fair use image and the almost-certainly-a-lie image (WP:AGF only goes so far). As far as I'm concerned, the issue was quite clear: a "fair use" claim can't override a quite sufficient image simply because the FU image is purdy, and re-uploading a FU image with a CC-BY tag is inappropriate. However, I await the community's brickbats, should that be the result. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And now Dodgyc (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images "© Sony, all rights reserved" with CC-BY ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what you've done. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Kill copyright violations with fire. Warn repeat offenders, then block. Nandesuka 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous bot?

68.34.13.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think I found the bot owner--152.163.100.65 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was right behind you finding that, and edit conflicted with you trying to delete my post here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Is Cyde claiming ownership of the bot? The bot is replacing {{fact}} with {{citation needed}}. Has the community decided that this is a template requiring replacement? - there's nothing at Template talk:Citation needed. I'm not asking for a reinstatement of the block, but what's going on? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's a template redirect, so what it's doing is basically good, but I don't know why he's running it incognito. I've asked at User talk:Cyde. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm thinking that was a goof, based on this, looks like 68.34.13.103 (talk · contribs) is supposed to be Cydebot (talk · contribs)--152.163.100.65 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again...

Seems like Peter Ruckman is once again, editing his own barely notable biography--152.163.100.65 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobaboba

I just permenantly blocked this user who was doing classic Willy on Wheels page move vandalism, random pages moved to "... on wheels". He (she?) has been editing since February and with no vandalism history. They are asking to be reinstated, claiming "my brother did it". I've told them to go away for 24hrs at least. Any thoughts on whether we should give them a second chance? DJ Clayworth 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My thought is "absolutely not." Nandesuka 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest 24 hour block, then watch carefully and reblock indef as soon as another "on wheels" page move is made. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there have been wonky things coming from this account today. Meddling with other users' reports at WP:ABUSE and impersonating other users together with the page moves warrant not lifting the indef block you've imposed. Kimchi.sg 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cro..Scream

Cro..Scream (talk · contribs) has admitted in two AFD pages that he is creating hoax articles. This on top of his repeated edit warring and possible sock puppet voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue makes me wonder if a day or so time out might not be in order. I won't do it without support, however. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is again evading his indefinite block as 216.194.2.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [141] for evidence). Can an administrator block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat removing sockpuppet warning from user page

Merecat, who was found via CheckUser to be a 'likely sockpuppet of Rex071404', ([142], [143], [144]) has refused to acknowledge the finding and has deleted the sockpuppet warnings from his user page. As Mackensen said:

Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Likely that he's also Rex071404 (talk • contribs). Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the limit to this community's tolerance of outright trolls circumventing policy? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please tell Ryan to actually read the policy page before continuing along this line of inquisition. See WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.". Also, there is no such user a "User:AnonTexan" and Ryan knows that. The phrase "AnonTexan" was invented by another editor and is not a user account. Merecat 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Put a space in the name. You have been proven to be the Anon Texan. 'Likely' means beyond a reasonable doubt. And respond to the RfAr and the numerous users who have asked for the truth. Your behavior is more of the same from Rex... trolling and a lack of good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I restate: Please tell Ryan to actually read the policy page before continuing along this line of inquisition. See WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.". Also, there is no such user a "User:AnonTexan" and Ryan knows that. The phrase "AnonTexan" was invented by another editor and is not a user account. Merecat 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The accusation happened more than 7 days ago and the tags can therefore be removed per policy. Merecat is not blocked. Checkuser was not conclusive. Ryan is abusing the tags and has been harrassing Merecat. Ryan should be warned about abusing the tags and blocked if necessary. --Tbeatty 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Anon Texan is a redirect which was created by User:Jonathunder. I did not create the user account User:Anon Texan. Merecat 18:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was clear. Likely socks of Rex and Anon texan. The timing of the accusation is irrelevant. And duplicating posts is disrespectful and dismissive of the points raised in response. More trollery. You are a likely sock of a blocked user, evading an ArbComm ban. I suggest it is you who is in clear violation of numerous policies. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag used by Ryan clearly said "suspected" and as per WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.", was removed. In any case, 7 days from now, according to policy, I can remove it regardless of whay Ryan argues here. So, if we disagree on WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.", I'm happy to wait 7 days before removing it from my user page. Merecat 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You may not have read the policy, but Checkuser confirmed you as a likely sock. The tags (which you have violated 3RR by removing) were appropriate and your behavior is just more grist for the RfAr. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR on my user page, but I am reasonably sure you are harassing me. Merecat 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You have thus far refused to answer the Checkuser, or other editors asking you in good faith. Trollsome behavior. My conduct (tagging you as a sock) is hardly harrassment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Informed opinion posted on my talk page by other users informs me that User:RyanFreisling is in error demanding answers of me. I ask that Ryan be advised to leave me be. He/she could do better making actual edits to articles, rather than trying to gin up complaints against me. Merecat 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)