Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

How long should Appleby be blocked?

Multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed for Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details). 12 confirmed sockpuppets were blocked indefinitely, but Appleby, the main account, got only 24 hours. We need to assess the proper block periods of time.

Some information for making a decision:

1. Appleby violated 3RR several times. Previously he's been blocked up to 72 hours.
2. And now, multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed
   1. Appleby circumvented 3RR with sock puppets. One case was reported by Endroit (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Appleby reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:)) but some seem to be left unreported.
   2. With sock puppets, Appleby also created the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details.

Any comment? --Nanshu 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Appleby is likely to reform? Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note:He's been blocked 8 times in 10 months for 3RR violations. He's not getting that message. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would go with an indefinite block as exhausting the community patience. 12 sockpuppets is ridiculous. Certainly no less than 2 weeks. JoshuaZ 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Disruptive, unrepentant, unlikely to reform, show him the door. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for a further 24 hours pending the outcome of this discussion. Given the above I certainly wouldn't oppose anything up to and including an indefinite ban. --kingboyk 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that, despite multiple blatant rules violations, he's made some good contributions as well. It's unfortunate that he doesn't learn to play nicely as I think he could make a good editor if he'd put forth the effort to do that instead of edit warring and puppetry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Get over it, Nihonjoe. Appleby is not just Appleby. This guy's a full time revert-warrior. Just look at the actions of Dollarfifty (talk · contribs), HSL (talk · contribs), Damool (talk · contribs), and the other socks. Appleby inherited some good traits by dumping some of his bad traits on to his other sockpuppets. But look at the number of Dollarfifty's reverts on June 13 (there's over 50 reverts on that day alone, perhaps?). This proves that Appleby is a full-time revert-warrior. If you're not going to indefinitely ban Appleby, you have to think of a method to monitor and restrict his reverts.--Endroit 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go jumping all over me, Endroit, especially when it appears you've misinterpreted my comments. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone that Appleby shouldn't be blocked for longer. I've already said I agree that he should be blocked for a much longer time in order to cool his heels for a while and think about how to play nicely in the future. I was just expressing some regret that it came this far since he obviously knows how to edit in an acceptable fashion, and yet chooses not to. You don't need to convince me of Appleby's indiscretions. I've been around most of them, so I have first-hand knowledge of what a pain he can be. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't condone what Appleby did. In fact, he messaged me once with his sock Dollarfifty, presumably to make the sock look more legitimate and I don't particularly appreciate being used (there's probably a better word) like that at all or wasting my time writing a response to someone who didn't need to read what I wrote. But I agree with with Nihonjoe that Appleby has made some good contributions, especially in an area of Wikipedia that is often neglected. I think a long Wiki-break for Appleby is probably a good idea but I don't think an indefinite ban is the solution. I can't speak for Appleby myself but my suggestion is if he/she promises to be good (taken in good faith), a last chance should be given in my opinion (After a long break.) Tortfeasor 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Appleby's writings were reasonable and it means he/she knows how to behave him(her)self. Now that all other accounts were blocked, and the main account's warned, I think he/she can do good job from now on as it was done under Appleby. It doesn't harm to give it another shot and see. Therefore, I object to indefinite ban. 2 weeks will do. Ginnre 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Decision

Based on most of the comments above, as well as Ypacaraí's comments here, it seems that a block of at least one year is in order. Given the long history of repeated policy and guideline violations with no indications showing a possible change of ways in the future on the part of Appleby, I've indef blocked him. Thank you to everyone for their input. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why was Ypacarai's comment so important? I checked his user page and it looks like he might be too pro Japan. And where is no indiations of possible change? Giving Appleby another chance is that unreasonble? Ginnre 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not "pro-Japan" or "pro-Korea," and I've had plenty of problems with Appleby's POV-pushing. I think it's sad, because he's entirely capable of writing good articles and contributing positiviely, but this effective betrayal of the community's trust means the decision to block is more than justified, I think. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A block for about a month certainly does teach him a lesson, but not an indefinite one. It is certainly far too harsh. Furthermore, see his contributions to wikipedia. The vast majorty are constructive, not destructive. I have never seen him violated any other laws other than this. People do make mistakes, you know. Perhaps he is not even aware of this law and he happened to find out that a computer terminal can create multiple accounts, without being aware of the law. Ypacarai himself, on the other hand, is quite a controversial and stubborn figure in the first place. Currently, even I had problems to pull him in just to enquire him for reasons only on why he removed the Korean naming conventions on goodwill basis. All of you might want to take a look at Talk:Tsushima Island to see the progress of the discussion. Mr Tan 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he is unaware of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. He once commented "obvious sockpuppetry and way way way beyone 3rr" in a edit comment[1] and there, he himself circumvented the 3RR policy using his sock puppet Dollarfifty. --Kusunose 12:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....you do have a point. But I'm sure that besides this violation, he is not a mere vandal and has made many constructive edits as shown on his contributions page and his user page. I certainly do support a one to three month ban just like an armed robbery being prosecuted to ten-to-twenty years jail under Singapore's laws, but an indefinite ban on him directly just like an exceution of a murderer in the gallows is certainly way too harsh for such a valued contributor. I am sure that every other moderate user holds a similar view of my standard, and that few months is certainly more than enough to let him reflect on his violations. Mr Tan 13:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia editor using English Wikipedia as "experiment"

A German Wikipedia editor has admitted here that he is using the Bad Nenndorf article as a social experiment to bring out the neo-nazis and right wing extremeists on the English Wikipedia in a direct violation of WP:POINT and one that I think is serious enough to warrant an indefinite block. He was engaged in a dispute already in the German Wikipedia about the subject, and brought the edit war over here, to what was a previously quiet article. Next he claimed that his actions were a grand experiment to test the right wing extremist bias on English Wikipedia, a kind of behaviour that is disruptive in the extreme and should be completely disallowed. It has been claimed I was in a content dispute with him, but I did not block until the issue was resolved with a complete rewrite of the article in question, at which point I was no longer disputing anything, nor was he. Another administrator has already support this block, as his actions set a very bad precendent of playing with the English Wikipedia just to prove a point. pschemp | talk 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The block should remain. Perhaps Germans should stick to the German Wikipedia, if they are just going to play games here. Adam Bishop 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the user named should be block, I caution against the suggestion that other germans are not welcome here. In regards to the block, perhaps a note to the admin staff on de might be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Anyone is welcome who will contribute constructively rather than destructively.pschemp | talk 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I did not mean to suggest all Germans are not welcome, just this guy :) (In fact, we should aspire to be more like the German wikipedia in some ways...) Adam Bishop 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is particularly interesting that that this person has an account at de: -- they're not at en: to help work on the encyclopedia, so they don't need to edit here. Jkelly 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A block sounds appropriate for the situation described... but which user are you referring to? joshbuddy, talk 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's User:KarlV. Same username on de.wiki. pschemp | talk 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For information, according to KarlV, ‘An eventual block was part of the experiment.’[2] So the block is scientifically sound. ☺ —xyzzy_n (German but not usually playing any games here) 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Block him until his ears bleed. We expect that kind of stupidity from clueless n00bs, and we're ready to educate them nicely. We do not expect that kind of thing from our fellow Wikipedians. I do not imagine that anybody from here trying that kind of stunt on dewiki would receive a kind reception, nor would they deserve such. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Until his ears bleed" would be exceedingly useful in fact... —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pschemp has indefinitely blocked User:KarlV, allegedly for WP:POINT. The evidence of WP:POINT seems rather weak to me; specifically, this statement, which seems to say he was trying to find out if extreme right-wing editors had indeed been made admins on English wikipedia, and that he felt, once they discovered him, they would block him. Furthermore, Pschemp was involved in a content conflict with KarlV, as is obvious from this edit and the Talk: page there. In addition, KarlV's edits seem to be absolutely correct in this case, and Pschemp's wrong - the sources did, in fact, not describe Bad Nenndorf as a "concentration camp", and Pschemp used original research to insist that it be described that way anyway. I think this block should be undone. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The content dispute was over as the wording had been changed to neither concentration camp nor internment camp. I blocked long after this was settled. Since when is its said that if you ever edit an article you can't block someone? I didn't "insist", I tried to stop an edit war while we worked on it. I'm not allowed to think? Don't characterize me as insisting either, If I had "insisted" I wouldn't have changed it from both of the original words to a third solution, nor accepted the final ChrisO version. I didn't use any word not already printed by The Guardian, and debating which term should be used doesn't mean I'm a neo-nazi, it just means I'm at least trying to figure out what is the best term. pschemp | talk 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with this block too. First, it appears that User:pschemp was part of the conflict dispute and therefore shouldn't have blocked. That aside, if KarlV was here to find out whether far-right German contributors had become admins, that wouldn't necessarily imply that he was editing disruptively, so I see no grounds for a block. On the contrary, if there's any truth to what he's saying, it would be important to find that out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlV edit warred in the context of a ‘test’. For what it’s worth, I find the underlying purpose—to eliminate subtle neo-Nazi POV-pushing—admirable and the allegations up on which the user appeared to be following worthy of investigation by the community, if there is more to them than the user’s statement. However, User:KarlV was clearly making a point, was making a point by the disruptive means of an edit war and, being experienced, should have known better than to do that, there being enough venues on Wikipedia whither the issue could have been brought to be dealt with in a regular manner. I think WP:POINT is established thusly and the user’s understanding of the consequences is also established. Furthermore, the user already had been given an entire day to read the English policy pages. Call me a square bourgeois armchair eser, but I don’t think that guerrilla methods should be tolerated here right now, no matter how just their cause. What remains is the formality of who imposed the block, and if this bothers you, then redo it properly. (…Sorry about the length of this.) —xyzzy_n 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If any of you think I'm a neo-nazi because I stumbled into an edit war and tried to figure out what was really going on here, then you are sadly mistaken. I looked at all the possible words, and over the course of this dispute educated myself on what should be used. The fact that this article is on its fourth term for the camp and that I tried to come up with a compromise (cited from the Guardian, not original research) shows this. Ultimately, interrogation camp was used, which NOBODY disputed. And my block happend AFTER the wording question was settled. Questioning wording is not a crime, nor is trying to stop an edit war while things are sorted out. And correct edit or not, KarlV started an edit war, broke 3RR and generally disrupted this article. pschemp | talk 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

‘If any of you think I'm a neo-nazi’ ← If this refers to what I posted above, I apologise. I did not intend to imply any such thing; my remark was meant to refer to User:KarlV’s stated purpose. —xyzzy_n 23:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

no, I was referring to Jayjg, but mostly making a general statement lest this turn into a witch hunt. pschemp | talk 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see where Jayjg said or implied that you're a neo-Nazi. What he said was you were in a content dispute with the user you blocked, and also that you were inserting OR; The Guardian does not call that camp a "concentration" camp so far as I can tell. Would you please consider undoing your block? Apart from the issue of it possibly being disproportionate, it's clear that admins shouldn't block people they're in a content dispute with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting back into the content issue, it was already settled. I was actually referring to the title "torture camp" there, and as for concentration, the word was used in the article, I didn't pull it from thin air. It was decided that the word wasn't used in a way that made it appropriate to cite it, and I didn't argue with that ultimately! Like I said before, the content dispute was over, and the block wasn't related to the content disupte. I will not unblock, nor will I reblock. I am done with this. pschemp | talk 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you not wanting to get back into the details of the content dispute, but I searched both the Guardian articles and they did not call it a concentration camp, yet you said they did. I think that was KarlV's point, and he was correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good block. No one has contradicted that there was no current content dispute. The user was trolling to out people and create disruption. It doesn't matter whether he was trying to out good guys or bad guys, and it doesn't matter if the user is a good editor on another project, it's still disruption and trolling. Let's not encourage the trolls. NoSeptember 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If he does unblock, I'd be more than happy to reinstate it. The guy has blatantly admitted to WP:POINT violations, and obviously is only here to stir up trouble. --InShaneee 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is so straightforward. User:Samsara was also involved, supporting User:pschemp, in the content dispute at Bad Nenndorf with KarlV. Samsara blocked KarlV for 3RR, which he should not have done because of his involvement. When someone else complained about that, pschemp supported Samsara, a new admin, saying "In such clear cut cases of 3RR such as that it is perfectly acceptable for any admin to block," [3] which is completely false. See WP:BLOCK and Talk:Bad Nenndorf. I think this block should be undone, and we should wait for KarlV to explain the situation before anyone redoes the block; and if it's redone, it should be in proportion to the disruption (if there was any) and not indefinite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed because he was also TRYING TO STOP AN EDIT WAR started by KarlV. There is a difference. 3RR was clearly violated.pschemp | talk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference. We are not allowed to block users when we're part of the content dispute. The exceptions are vandalism and libel. Please review WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

KarlV can comment on his still unprotected talk page, I'm happy to hear what he has to say. NoSeptember 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR situation as being relevant in the least. The user came here with the express intention of causing disruption to 'bait' certain admins. What more do we need? --InShaneee 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What disruption did he actually cause? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR. That's a 24 hour block for the first offence, but this guy not only PLANNED to do that, but ANNOUNCED it publically. --InShaneee 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't block someone indefinitely for a 3RR violation he's already been blocked for, especially when both of the blocking admins are involved in the content dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

he wasn't blocked for 3RR, he was blocked for WP:POINT.pschemp | talk 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked for a link to the actual disruption, on or off-wiki. You have so far not supplied one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone supply a link to actual disruption on Wikipedia, or harm caused to an editor or to the project off-Wikipedia? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to him announcing his plan to disrupt in the name of his experiment is in the thread above. Users are blocked for intent all the time, I only wish all vandals were so forthcoming. --InShaneee 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit history of Bad Nenndorf shows the disruption. Or is it not disruptive to revert without discussion multiple times anymore? pschemp | talk 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He made four edits. Are we now going to block everyone indefinitely for reverting four times? You say above that he wasn't blocked for 3RR. Now you seem to be saying he was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say anywhere in this link that he intends to cause disruption. He says he has heard there are far-right editors/admins on the English Wikipedia who also edit on the German one, and so he made a related edit to see what would happen. What happened is that he was blocked, first for 24 hours then indefinitely, by two admins involved in the dispute, which is a concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say he plans to make any useful edits here, either. He's here to bait admins, which is disruption, and I'll say again that I'm more than happy to block on those grounds. --InShaneee 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you weren't happy about it, InShanee, and I hope you'll reconsider. He said he had a concern that there were far-right editors from the German WP operating here. He made some edits that had been at the center of a dispute on the German Wikipedia (as I understand it) to see whether the alleged far-right editors here would respond. That is not disruption, and it's not baiting in any serious sense. It's trying to determine whether there's a problem. The response was that he was blocked for 3RR by an admin involved in the dispute, and then blocked indefinitely by another admin involved in the dispute. And there are two separable issues here: (a) the indefinite block is inappropriate; in fact I don't see he should have been blocked at all, though he should be cautioned not to play games, if that's his intention; and (b) regardless of any other issue, those two admins should not have blocked; otherwise we may as well ditch WP:BLOCK entirely. If we're going to do the latter, please let me know, because there are several users I'm currently in content disputes with that I'd love to be able to block indefinitely. If that's now permitted, I intend to be busy this evening. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the the involved admins shouldn't have blocked him; however, I maintain that he does need to be blocked. I deal with inexperienced users all the time, and this is EXACTLY what I tell them NOT to do; if he has a problem with POV, he should discuss it issue by issue just like the rest of us. --InShaneee 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The block happened AFTER THE CONTENT DISPUTE WAS SETTLED. How much plainer do I have to say that? There was no more dispute at the time. It was done, over with. Finished, and had been. pschemp | talk 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, how much plainer does it need to be made to you? You and Samsara were involved in a dispute with KarlV over whether to call something a concentration camp. Samsara blocked him for 3RR in relation to that dispute, and you supported the block, even though it was a violation of WP:BLOCK. A few days later, KarlV said that his concentration-camp edits were made to find out whether some editors alleged to be involved with the German far right (or words to that effect) [4] would respond. When you read that, you blocked him indefinitely in relation to the same dispute, which you had been involved in. Another violation of WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved in this case, but admit that I've been supportive of actions of pschemp and other editors in the past. I've reviewed this case and I think the content dispute is a total red herring. If we are going to argue that pschemp should not have made the block, ok sure. But the block itself is a good one. I think it's wonkism to insist that some other editor make the block, but, since I'm previously uninvolved, (have never touched the article or interacted with KarlV) I would be happy to unblock and reblock if that would satisfy the process issue. More importantly, though, it's clear to me that this editor turned up here to disrupt things. Whether for "noble reasons" or not, that's just Not On. There are far better ways to work for change or raise issues than by being disruptive. I tend to take people at their word when they say they ar here to disrupt, and hand out a block. That's the case here in my view. Support the block as is, reluctantly would be ok with a reduction to a definite (but long) term, and will reblock (once) if lifted completely. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a reduction as a compromise. What period would you see as fair, Lar? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar unblocks and reblocks

I've unblocked and reblocked so the block is in my name, a previously uninvolved admin, based on my review of the facts of this case. I'm not keen on a reduction to any particular definite term... but I think a month might be a good amount if we were trying to give this user a small amount of benefit of the doubt. That said I don't agree with your characterisation of why the block was handed out, it was not at all related to a content dispute, it was related to a stated claim of intent to disrupt. That's a blockable offense, and indefinite as far as I am concerned. The content dispute is a red herring, dismissable by a reminder that at the time of the 3RR violation, pschemp or samsarra should have asked for help, and nothing more... the recent block is completely unrelated except inasmuch as it gives a possible appearance of impropriety. Appearance only, there is no real impropriety here in my view. Let's not wonk out and avoid doing The Right Thing if we can.... (signed, a lifelong process wonk) ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a reduction to a month. I think it's far too long, but as a compromise, it's better than indefinite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --InShaneee 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's far far too short and really... we shouldn't be compromising, we should be reaching consensus on the right thing to do. Intent to disrupt, stated as such, is an indefinite. I snapped out a month just to say something... IF we were trying to give the user the benefit of the doubt. For stated intent, I see no reason to do that, actually. I won't wheel war over it though, not my style. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One month block sends the right signal. We have enough trouble with vandals and trolls, we do not need experienced editors disrupting the project on top of that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar, don't get me wrong here. I completely support indefinite blocks for disruption. I'm not at all policy-wonkish when it comes to that. It's just that, in this case, I honestly don't get it (i.e. don't see that it was disruption), but perhaps there's something about it that I'm missing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, it just strikes me that this editor was doing a breaching experiment, and disrupting things. I see no need for that here, and think indef is the right thing to do. pschemp is one of the admins I tend to see taking a hard line but who I trust because her actions, while sometimes pushing the envelope, are for the good of the 'pedia and she's willing to make herself unpopular in that cause... maybe her page hasn't been vandalised as much as yours but she's out there making the hard choices all the time. Should she have come here first? Sure. Sometimes expediency should win out and sometimes it shouldn't. But that's a side issue. The main issue is this is a disruptive editor, and as pointed out, a month may not really even inconvenience them in the scheme of things, or (more importantly) act as a preventative 4 months from now if they come up with another brilliant experiment... So I think indef is the way to go here. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a 1 month as well. This mess would have been easier to sort out and settle if pschemp had not blocked but brought it here first. FeloniousMonk 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree I pushed the line, but since my block has been redone by someone else, that issue is kind of null now. pschemp | talk 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A one month block is useless here. This "experiment" is the only thing this user has done here in more than 3 months. NoSeptember 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why bother with a block? JoshuaZ 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At some point he may decide to do another disruptive experiment or even continue this one. There are a lot of accounts with few edits out there that have been indef blocked for being used solely for disruption or trolling or vandalism. Why treat this one special? He has not offered an apology or a promise not to do this again. NoSeptember 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Translation is where? El_C 02:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • here, but pls cf my post below. --tickle me 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tickleme

pschemp: "The block happened AFTER THE CONTENT DISPUTE WAS SETTLED". Blocking post facto could well be interpreted as unwarranted revenge ...if unjustified - that's what counts. I'm having a more than unpleasent exchange on Talk:Bad_Nenndorf_interrogation_centre with pschemp, for several reasons stated there I feel his actions in the course of these events are unbecoming of an admin - IMO he's not to judge about KarlIV given the circumstances.

Besides, I concur with SV that KarlV edited proper: he tried to delete POV and "inadequate reading of sources" to put it mildly, pls cf. my unsatisfying exchange with pschemp on that very subject. KarlV's statement (it's in English) may show an unwise choice of words, however, he never announced anything that could be constructed as intent of obstructing WP: he saw severe shortcomings both here and on German WP and wanted them addressed - doing so via legit editing, he expected trouble from specified users. This happened, and that's what he wanted to find out: will they hinder me to do what's needed wicipedically. To call that a "social experiment" is unwise, arguably pompous - but undoubtedly just a metaphor. Like it or not, no reason for action. His outspoken wish to go for Neo-Nazi machinations is arguably not the ideal mindset wikipedically, but who has that mindset anyway? Eventually, he's to judged by his edits alone.

His indefinite block is unwarranted, as he violated WP:POINT only following semantical interpretation of words unwisely chosen. Both his edits and intentions don't allow for the assumption at all. As for his suspicion of here being editors trying to take advantage of others not being able to read sources, be it German ones here or English ones on Geman WP my experience so far corroborates this. User:I like Burke's Peerage's revert to a version containg a forgery is a prime example. pschemp is involved, I quarrel with him about it, and I don't like the way he handles the issue at all. Creator of the forgery's first, yet uncut version is User:Samsara, he should be taken to task:

"Meanwhile German politicians demanded an apology from Britain.<ref>http://www.ndrtv.de/panorama/data/panorama_060420_bad_nenndorf.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/14/bad_nenndorf</ref> The German newspaper Die Zeit claimed that there were other concentration camps such as Bad Nenndorf, but provided no proof to this charge."

Please Get your facts straight before you go accusing people of writing things that they didn't. That edit was a merge from Bad Nenndorf (concentration camp) and original author was not Samsara. pschemp | talk 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Historian Heiner Wember, author of the Die Zeit article states exactly the contrary: Neo-Nazis he cites made the claim, which he rebuffs as "utter nonsens".

Samsara, pschemp and User:I like Burke's Peerage either edited the above excerpt or helped to keep it in the article via revert. If requested, I'll have to sort that out on a timescale. And yes, I find it troubling that Neo-Nazi claims are smuggled into WP. German WP is constantly attacked like so, but over there all know to read German sources, so mostly it's to no avail. Karl is afraid that some folk switched to English WP as consequence. Good thinking. Some even start to reintroduce such edits to German WP citing their English articles as references. Absurd, but sometimes it works - sloppy sourcing is everywhere and attrition does wonders.

As for Karl's contribs here: he's a busy and respected editor on German WP, sometimes impetuous, and yes, his statement could be seen as loudmouthing; but he's reliable and, say, doesn' t forge - I assume several admins to speak up for him if that should help. He's only an occasional contributor here, that should not be an issue. --tickle me 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And again, none of this is relevent, since the new article was created by ChrisO, was accepted by consensus, and doesn't even contain the stuff you are going on about. It isn't incivil to point out that your comments are irrelevant, which is all I did. If you think I acted so badly, go file an RFC, but none of the above has any bearing in the WP:POINT block. pschemp | talk 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support unblocking and express an interest in reviewing the experiment's findings — link me Template:En icon. El_C 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More comments by Tickleme

1. I don't want you to post in my edit's, it's considered incivil - and again, you're an admin: you know how to cite and reply.
2. If you know that the original author was not Samsara, you know the original author.
3. I was asking "I like Burke's Peerage" since 09:41, 3 August 2006 to comment on the forgery, he didn't reply, you did. However, you didn't tell me what you know profess to know. I don't like that. Couldn't you have put facts straight on the "merge from Bad Nenndorf (concentration camp)" issue right away? Forgery is a serious accusation: you knew of it, at least now you know the author, you reverted to it, you didn't react, and you didn't help. Now you're yelling at me in boldface.
4. With your present help, if it merits the name, my original suspicion is confirmed again, it was "I like Burke's Peerage" alright, with another interesting variant. Should you know better - and I err, I would like you to inform me as soon as possible - this time. --tickle me 04:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but here on the English wikipedia, making a reply is not incivil, wherever it goes, that how we discuss things here. In fact your removal of my edit is the incivil thing, and I will reinsert it. Do not remove it again.pschemp | talk 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the comment is indented correctly and properly signed, it's generally considered acceptable to comment between paragraphs here. Please refrain from refactoring comments like that in the future, okay? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying this right out here in the open. What is your point? If you are trying to accuse people of making neo-nazi right-wing extremist edits, just come out and say it. Otherwise, this is silliness. pschemp | talk 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "And again, none of this is relevent, since the new article was created by ChrisO, was accepted by consensus" All I have is this comment of yours, that indicates something else: "revert edit made withou consensus or sources", so does the history. Please show where the consensus was reached.

   That comment was made BEFORE the new article was created. Before. Consensus here means no one is going around reverting. No one has tried to reinsert anything from the old article into the new. No one has tried to change the name the camp is called by (the orginal issue) since the new article was created. That whole talk page was the old discussion and was just copied over AFTER the new article was made. Since no one has disputed ANYTHING in the new article, that IS consensus. That's how it works around here.pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "none of this is relevent [...], and doesn't even contain the stuff you are going on about": it does not, I keep repeating this, merely because others interfered -> you reverted to the contended version.

   In the OLD article. To stop an edit war. That article was stubbed down when the new one was written. The old article doesn't even contain that infomation. Its irrelvant, as all the info was moved to the new article, where it was rewritten. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3. "If you think I acted so badly, go file an RFC": I don't know about the regulations, I don't know if it's worth the trouble, and I hope for more clarification. It sure is an option.

   Go nuts. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

4. "but none of the above has any bearing in the WP:POINT block.": On the assumption that you tried to hide your and "I like Burke's Peerage" involvement, it may well. I find this assumption plausible.

--tickle me 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to hide anything. I tried to stop an edit war. Like I said before, if you want to make accusations that I or anyone else involved is a neo-nazi, just come out and do it, but this ranting on and on about edits that don't exist anymore is silliness. Articles change, through discussion. That's the wiki process. pschemp | talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly welcome further clarification —hopefuly in a more comprehensible format— and make no predictions as to the outcome. El_C 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please don't post inside other people's comments, pschemp. It's making this hard to follow, and it's hard enough already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your're kidding right? It was one comment and is plenty visible. People do that all the time here. Even talking about this is less than useless. I tried to make this more comprehensible with section breaks, but nevermind. pschemp | talk 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

@Kylu: All I knew was this, which seems to be a good idea:

"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." (Wikiquette) If other -I suppose informal- guidelines apply here, I couldn't know. --tickle me 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's just the two of you involved, and comments are indented to appear seperate (not interweaved) and properly attributed, as she's signed each indented post seperately. Now, if you'd commented on hers, some refactoring might need to take place, but quite frankly this is starting to seem less like a noticeboard request and more like a potential mediation case. Since you're mentioning wikiquette, however, you might want to consider if your comments accusing pschemp of hiding edits is, perhaps, a bit on the incivil side. Personally, I'd rather see less of this arguing here. It seems awfully...how to phrase it...disruptive to the admin noticeboard, to me. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I certainly have nothing else to say, and continuation of this discussion is not neccessary here. pschemp | talk 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"incivil": You might want to ask pschemp not to ask me to "go nuts", and I don't cherish the address "dude" neither. "seperate (not interweaved)": you are straining semantics here. pschemp's ways of editing this thread makes it hard for others to follow - incidentally, that's why they complain. Talk about disruptive. --tickle me 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Karl asks to be temp deblocked to help in the process, he will refrain from other edits. I support this. --tickle me 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this too, though I ask that he bear in mind he's making serious allegations here (if I've understood them correctly), and so it needs to be handled carefully and with evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What "process"? Rooting out supposed neo-nazi admins here on enwiki? He can kiss my furry bum and that of each of my five cats before I agree to indulging in that kind of witch-hunt. Fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it. —Phil | Talk 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If the user is seeking an unblock, they shold place the {{unblock}} template on their user page per standard process, and uninvolved admins will review it. I see no sign of any such placement on their page yet. Since you're carrying messages back, make sure that when it's placed, it references this discussion, please. ++Lar: t/c 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Lar! There's "the intelligent process wonk that everybody loves", and then there's "mutant Lar come to eat your children". To suggest that someone cannot be unblocked — or have arguments for unblocking them espoused by a mate — unless they use a particular template isn't process wonkism. It's stupidity. Naughty, Lar. Naughty! Do it again and you'll be sent to bed without supper. Yes, even in your timezone. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. However "should" != "must"... if you want a new set of eyes, not already in this convo here on AN/I, that template is a good way to get them. My point is that, though, there is a drawback... people review and don't realise there's a big thread here to look at... that is all. NEVER would I say you MUST put it there to get unblocked, people get unblocked all the time without using it. Everyone here in this convo I would characterise as involved already. As for being sent to bed without supper... not gonna happen, and if you've ever seen pics of me you'd know it never has yet. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight…

Say I were to post here on enwiki "I heard there are some ultra-Zionist admins on hewiki, I'm going to take a poke at something, see what they do to me", and I went to hewiki and fiddled with something at the very least borderline controversial, and they blocked me for "disruption", would you guys here be defending me? Huh? Fsck it, I'd be blocking myself if I did anything that stupid. Get a grip, people. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anti-witchhunt sentiment, but it's hardly fair to compare Zionists to neo-Nazis (and I'm not sure what an ultra-Zionist is). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Meir Kahane. --Calton | Talk 09:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What? POV is POV is POV. What Phil said illustrates that nicely. I've done my share of stupid things when visiting en.wiki (I'm the rogue admin over on en.wikt:) but sheesh, nothing close to this. I agree completely with Phil; if I did that, I'd be blocking myself. I would not be surfing about, fishing for support (based on petty, incorrect policy loopholes) nor continuing the disruption. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The substance of KarlV's edits

We should surely look at exactly what KarlV changed. He repeatedly changed the term "concentration camp" to "internment camp" (see e.g. [5]). He was right to change the terminology (though wrong to breach the 3RR, of course): the term is highly POV and isn't supported by the contemporary sources. If I hadn't been busy rewriting the article, I probably would have made similar changes. Does changing POV terminology really constitute a violation of WP:POINT? This seems to me to be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. -- ChrisO 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit, because regardless of how wonderfully brilliant the edit is, the problem is that it's being made by a user who isn't supposed to be editing at all, right? So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter. This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia, and rather than it being a mitigating circumstance, ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

KarlV was blocked because of his announcement of using the English Wikipedia as a social experiment. That has nothing to with 3RR, or even what article he edited. This breaching experiment is the only reason he was blocked. Nothing else. We don't excuse 3RR if the edits were right for the wrong reasons, why would this be different? pschemp | talk 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about this. His actions certainly caused a small degree of disruption, but I'm far from convinced that it merits an indefinite ban. -- ChrisO 08:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear... He was reblocked by me for exactly the same reason as pschemp gave, after review of the relevant edits, in order to remove the charge that it was an involved editor doing the blocking, which is a red herring but distracting. So... If anyone have a beef about the block, your beef is now with me, not pschemp. ++Lar: t/c 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a red herring at all, Lar, but regardless, the issue still stands that an indefinite block for what amounted to a 3RR violation, no matter its intent, is harsh. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin to disagree: he provoked a interwikiwar. Enough is enough. I like Burke's Peerage 09:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if it was merely a 3RR I'd agree it was harsh, but it wasn't. It was a breeching experiment, admitted to as such by the user. We don't need that here, the user should find something else to do. This is a good block, because, regardless of what the inital violation was, the block is actually for breeching. I believe this has been explained quite eloquently by Phil above... and I'm surprised that you seem to be resisting the notion that when someone admits they are here to cause disruption and expect to be blocked for it that we don't oblige them. I'll note that there seem to be a lot of red herrings here, actually. ++Lar: t/c 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to support Lar's re-block. We really don't want to encourage this type of behaviour, and I still say it's absolutely scandalous that we should have to suffer this from someone who's supposedly a respected member of a sister Wikipedia. I'm thoroughly dissapointed. ~Kylu (u|t) 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted an e-mail from him below, where he explains, and apologizes for the misunderstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What can wie say for shure?

1. KarlV waged an edit war
2. KarlV violated 4RR (!)
3. after having been blocked for that he declared ex post facto to have made a social experimant
4. he provoked Godwins Law to fullfill

Do we really need to say more? Best regards I like Burke's Peerage 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please inform the German Wikipedia about Karl's infinite block

Karl and some of his adherents are still celebrating Karl as a kind of interwiki-heroe in social investigation; see [6]. It would be fair to let them know what happened here. I like Burke's Peerage 08:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kein Probleme... [7] ... ++Lar: t/c 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. A la prochaine fois. I like Burke's Peerage

E-mail from KarlV

He sent me the following e-mail with permission to post it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was travelling yesterday and today and saw now the discussions that break up on en:WP. I am very sorry about the missunderstandings that occured now, perhaps because I expressed myself not in a right manner (excuse my English). So I never had the intention to disrupt. The main motivation for all my edits in the past (and will be also in the future) is to create a wounderful encyclopedia based on realiable sources. I never intended a "social experiment", but I described in my statement more detailed my motivation for my 4 edits on en:WP (I called it test, because of the warning of the user Rufezeichen not to come to en:WP). So the main sentence of my 4 edits on Bad Nenndorf was not to test, no - it was a concret edit against the POV-label "concentration-camp", which was defended by several users on de:WP and en:WP. And as anybody can see now, I was right. No reliable source is talking about a "concentration camp" there. So, whatever you decided, at least WP has won, the article has won, and that was the most important for me concerning this issue. Thank you. Karl

I'm not sure I'd characterise that as an apology... it reads more like a "see, I was right" to me but I could be misreading it. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Me neither: By the way KarlV did babel himself as "This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English." Now he's babbling someting 'bout "excuse my Englisch". Sounds hypocritical not to say weird to me. Regards I like Burke's Peerage 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This situation looks like this to me: Someone tells Karl that there are biased admins here on en.wiki. So he comes here expecting to find a biased admin, and whichever admin was to stumble into trying to get a handle on the budding edit war was destined to be presumed to be biased by Karl. This is a fundamental lack of good faith on Karl's part. Instead of coming here to improve the articles by working with people to get the facts right and sourced, he was instead ready to assume the worst of any admin who gets involved. We need more AGF here.
The last sentence of his email also reads like something a dedicated edit warrior would write (sort of like I don't care if I get blocked for edit warring, as long as my version of the article stays). This is disappointing coming from an experienced user from another project. NoSeptember 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like he doesn't care if he's unblocked, so why bother unblocking? After all, he got his "win". Too bad he didn't realize no one said he was wrong here. Evidently even discussing such things makes us biased now. Also, he doesn't say anything about not doing it again, and the pompous tone indicates he'll gladly do it again because his cause is just. The issue here however, was never his cause, nor was it "winning". The issue is his behaviour, his violation of WP:POINT and the consequences of that. It is obviously he doesn't get that, and I suspect he never will. pschemp | talk 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Herewith I confirm by oath he's behaving exactly the same on the German Wikipedia and almost nobody takes offence at this. Sad to say so. (see: [8]) I like Burke's Peerage 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin has about the right take on this. I don't agree with pschemp's summary of the issue. I believe that it was improper for pschemp to block someone he was edit warring with. I also think pschemp was on the wrong side of the content dispute--he was definitely pressing for POV terminology. I don't think KarlV did a breaching experiment. A breaching experiment per that description would be putting in a bad edit on purpose, trying to defend it, and seeing what happened. Pschemp may characterize KarlV's actions that way, but KarlV's edit was in my opinion a good one, maybe with some characteristics of a honeypot since he wanted to see if anyone would revert it back to the bad version (which Pschemp did). I like ChrisO's new article very much and ChrisO's terminology is similar to KarlV's. KarlV did use the word experiment on the German page several times, but I think that aspect is being overblown in this discussion. The English article used a loaded POV term that needed to be fixed on way or another. I defer to the better German speakers whether Konzentrationslager is less loaded in German than "concentration camp" is in English, but there was edit warring over it there too (interestingly, it was introduced to the German article by someone with the handle "ProIsrael"). KarlV seems to understand the headache this all caused, so I think he should be unblocked. The edit war on the German article was not very pleasant and I hope Pschemp was not involved in it. Phr (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Phr: Your beef about the block is now with me, not pschemp, ok? It's my block now, not hers. I unblocked and reblocked so as to have the block come from an uninvolved admin. If you read over what you say, it's pretty clear that you yourself are enumerating the very reasons that she and I both saw for imposing this block... honey pots, experimenting, edit warring, and so forth. He might now understand the headache caused, but that's true of just about every troll and vandal, isn't it? What is lacking is any statement that what he did was wrong, any statement that he understands that the rules apply, any undertaking not to do it again, or any remorse at the wasted effort and time he's cost the project. Given that, this is a good block. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Following up on Phr's point, were any of the editors involved in this situation also involved in the edit war on the German article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: other than KarlV, I don't know. There were two or three registered accounts and a couple of IP's on de: trying to use "konzentrationslager", "folterlager" (torture camp), etc., but those account names weren't in the en: war. There were some similarities of purpose which is why I said I hoped pschemp wasn't one of the people (under a different account name; note that I wouldn't consider using different names on en and de to be sockpuppeting until we get SUL). Lar: that was a pretty lame excuse for an edit war (4 total edits) and should get a normal 24 hour 3RR block. As for "experimenting", hmm, suppose someone is reverting me in several politics-related articles and I think he's stalking me, so I go edit some mathematics articles and sure enough he reverts me there too, confirming my suspicion. Does that "honeypot" call for an indef block, if all the edits were good in their own right? I don't think you should list "honeypot" and "experiment" separately in that string of amplifications since they both refer to the same thing. Leaving aside any issues with pschemp's block, I have concerns about pschemp's conduct in the edit war (not just warring per se, but specifically warring in favor of POV-pushing propaganda terms) and pschemp's initial report which I see as having presented a somewhat warped view of what had happened. Maybe we need an RFC. Phr (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phr. Perhaps pschemp or Samsara could say whether they were involved in the editing on the German Wikipedia. I agree with your analysis of what he did: honeypot seems more accurate than breaching experiment. Or if we stop using jargon entirely, he got annoyed about the POV pushing on the German WP and came here to correct the same error, wondering whether his correction would be allowed to stand. I'm having difficulty seeing that as disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes, Samsara was involved: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Nenndorf&action=history

I was mostly concerned about whether pschemp was involved and I forgot about Samsara. Phr (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

mmm...witch hunting again. lovely. I've in fact never edited de.wiki, but with all the bad faith going on around here, I doubt you'll believe me. pschemp | talk 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anybody disputes that the basic underlying motivation was good. However, with any amount of AGF, I have a difficulty seeing how an experienced editor would forgo a longer debate on the talk page, WP:3O, WP:RFC, the mailing list and WP:JIMBO in favour of edit warring after initially encountering resistance unless disruption was the intent. —xyzzy_n 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The sad truth about this whole affair

Had KarlV done the exact same thing, but instead gone to an article and replaced internment camp with concentration camp (tests the same hypothesis in the same manner) and announced it as an experiment on de.wiki, no one would be out here defending him. The truth is that people are blinded by the emotionally charged content and thus unable to see the true issue here. This knee jerk reaction to obliterate even discussion about what is correct and defend someone who set out in their editing not to improve Wikipedia but to prove a WP:POINT because you happen to agree with their point of view is disturbing. If you can't look at your personal biases objectively, you shouldn't be editing here.pschemp | talk 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. You were defending original research and POV editing. The sources did not say the camp was a "concentration camp," yet that was the wording you initially defended. KarlV wanted to change it to what the sources say. In so doing, he was improving Wikipedia, regardless of any other factor. If that's a "breaching" experiment, long may they reign. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

nope. I am defending letting Wikipedia editors work out what is correct by following the discussion process. This is exactly what happened, and the final version of the article ended up NPOV, again, exactly what out process is supposed to result in. Additionally, by going back to ranting about content, you proved my point perfectly that you are unable to separate the two. 3RR isn't excused because of content, nor is WP:POINT. Are you suggesting they should be? pschemp | talk 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to find somebody in possession of the truth, rare feat, and I'm sorry you're sad. "This knee jerk reaction to obliterate even discussion": please point me to a diff where Karl, or anybody here involved, tried to hinder you discussing issues.

@Kylu:

1. "When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit [...] So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter.": What article did he edit after having been blocked? I don't know of any such instance. Please point me to a diff.
2. What Sockpuppet did he create after having been blocked? I don't know of any.
3. "ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing.": what "fact" are you speaking of? He isn't, he didn't claim so, neither did I and I don't know of anybody who did.
4. "This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia": per the allegations and the false assessment above it doesn't follow at all. As stated before, his statement shows the intent of editing for sound reasons as he saw it, and, as it turns out, this is the version that prevailed after thourough debatte. He expected to be hindered, right, and he, somewhat pompously, labeled that expectation a "social experiment".

Kylu, if you don't substantiate your claims, it amounts to slander. And you actually base your point on these claims.

@NoSeptember: "...and whichever admin was to stumble into trying to get a handle on the budding edit war was destined to be presumed to be biased by Karl": an allegation, "whichever" being a distortion. What he expected were some admins trying to protect POV per edit war, as he had been warned in threatening tones on German wikipedia not even to try it, lest he wished to run into serious trouble. What was he to do? Announcing, "hi folks, edits xyz are wrong, but I'm one kraut and ought not to interfere - bye"? For what can be said at the moment, I_like_Burke%27s_Peerage forged a source into the contrary of what it said and admin Samsara edited it in a way that makes it likely that he understood what the source said. pschemp reverted to that version fo no valid concern. When I asked for the forger to come up, pschemp answered with uncivil blurb. He refrained from getting to the source however - until SV asked for it, eventually. As I see it, there's no reason to allege that admins haplessly "stumbled into trying" something, that's one possible outcome. Certainly there is quite a number of users eager not to wait for results.

Seeing Burke's accusing Karl of "provok[ing] a[n] interwikiwar" is rich. He forged, Karl corrected (possibly unwittingly, merely looking for POV), others tried to hinder Karl - where's the interwiki war? Is it me, as I support his edits? I contribute in a dozen or so wikis and I got 1348 edits on en:main since 2005/01. Call me lazy, but I'm no warring Sockpuppet, am I? Some people on German wiki support him too - do they come over to fight? Kylu'd rather less of my contributions on this page - I don't cherish his at all, see above. Is that an interwiki war?

Burke's, of all users, alleges German wiki celebrates "Karl as a kind of interwiki-heroe in social investigation", asking to "please inform the German Wikipedia about Karl's infinite block". Lar swiftly complied. Judging by his English language posts there he wasn't in a position to evaluate Burke's allegation's factuality. Burke's is wrong, all I can find is this comment by de:user Braveheart:

"Was mich aber nachdenklich stimmt ist die zeitliche Überschneidung mit einer Demo in Bad Nenndorf. Ich würde die Stellungnahme vielleicht auch noch an prominenterer Stelle anbringen, um ein Bewusstsein für solche Fälle zu schaffen"

(What strikes me is the chronological convergence [of the WP ongoins] with a protest march [by right wingers] in Bad Nenndorf. I'd rather post the [KarlIV's] statement more prominently, to rise awareness for such incidents)

One might not cherish that user's activism, however, where's "German wiki's celebration", where's the interwikiwar? Burke's edit forgery is as unbecoming as his incitement of what I'd call a turf war. If he doesn't substantiate his claim of krauts celebrating I'll call it a lie. I'd rather not see him "[h]erewith confirm[ing] by oath" Karl's behaviour "on the German Wikipedia" - or anything.

Again, I ask repliers to cite and answer, not to interpost. --tickle me 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin has repeatedly, intentionally confounded the issue by making the incorrect assertion that the block had something to do with the 3RR technicality, which neither the original indef block, nor Lar's reblock had anything to do with. To say that I question his neutrality (or any pretense of neutrality) would be the understatement of the year. It seems as if he (User:SlimVirgin) thinks that NPOV is insignificant, when in fact, it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. User:Tickle me, User:Phr and other fished-for support, seem to be making the same misplaced arguments. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my supposedly thinking that "NPOV is insignificant"? This situation is getting more bizarre by the minute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"It seems as if he (SlimVirgin) thinks that NPOV is insignificant [...] Tickle me, Phr and other fished-for support, seem to be making the same misplaced arguments. ": No, Karl has a POV, but he doesn't like POVed edits, and he has a history of doing so, if krautland is to be trusted. As far as you can tell, I support Karl in this. Besides, if you feel that we merely "seem to" err, may I suggest you, ugh, make up your mind first and edit later? Else you might want to point to details, asking us to clarify, so we can stand up to your compelling reasoning. Besides, as a fished-for support, I'm relieved to understand that you're a fish that doesn't stink, undoubtedly. --tickle me 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle, I was using an existing policy to try to show precedent, not stating he did such things. Look here at the context:

"When a blocked user makes a sockpuppet and makes an edit, you're supposed to revert the edit, because regardless of how wonderfully brilliant the edit is, the problem is that it's being made by a user who isn't supposed to be editing at all, right? So, we already have a precedent that states that intent does matter. This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia, and rather than it being a mitigating circumstance, ther fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave. They know better than to pull this sort of thing."

You're taking my comment out of context. I'm trying to show that the intent of the person does matter. You seem bright enough to comprehend this point, so please discontinue the line of reasoning that says I'm calling the user a sockpuppeter. I have a feeling that there are better things you could be doing than trying to dredge up false accusations of slander against admins, please go do them instead. I'm afraid you've exhausted my patience and I have no intention of replying to you on this matter again. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To whomever it may concern then: Kylu is right, I didn't read that thouroughly enough, the points 1&2 of my post don't apply. He thinks I dredged that up, I say it was rash editing and thus a mistake, sorry though. I didn't accuse him of slander yet, as I asked to substantiate his claims first. He did that now with 1&2 in a way unexpected by me, but he did. However, I stand to call his flawed adminship fact rash editing too, and that minutiae was a point of his reasoning. The SP issue, which I misunderstood, was substantial to me considering slander. I don't concur with the rest of his post, but that's different opinions.

As for the intent that matters: yes, it does. However, Karl's intent was a bias against right wingers, wikipedically unwelcome as any bias, but not to be compared to a SP's malevolent intentions, much less to those of a blocked user's SP - thus not to be sanctioned likewise. Somebody else should throw the first stone anyway. We're all biased, in real life and here, check our contribs: will we revert 20-50% of WP and block the perps?

His alleged intent of experimenting with WP, a grave issue, is a construction based on a bragging metaphor he used. His edit's on German WP center indeed on right wing POV and distortions, so if he edits likewise here, it may well be assumed that he does for the same motives. From his edits centering on certain subjects we may infer on his motives too- so what follows? indef block? --tickle me 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not getting it here. KarlV made good edits, defending WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and was reverted. Eventually was blocked by one of the admins who was warring with him, though KarlV himself did not violate 3RR. The next day KarlV posts something saying he was editing on English Wikipedia to see if the same bias that he thought was present on German Wikipedia was also present on English Wikipedia. A second admin who was edit-warring with him then blocks him indefinitely. Then people here say those 4 proper edits were some sort of breaching experiment, and defend the blocks. Can anyone else see the problems here? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Did he even violate 3RR? The summary below indicates that he didn't (I haven't checked the diffs myself). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems he did violate it. KarlV made his first edit to Bad Nenndorf changing "concentration camp" to "internment camp" at 14:18 on July 31. This was not a revert. (Note: the sources used in the article did not call it a "concentration camp.") He was reverted by User:I like Burke's Peerage. An anon IP, probably KarlV, reverted at at 14:29 July 31. I like Burke's reverted for a second time. KarlV reverted, also his second revert, at 14:38 July 31. Burke's reverted him for a third time; KarlV reverted for a third time at 14:41 July 31. User:Samsara reverted, and KarlV reverted for a fourth time at 19:54 July 31. Samsara then blocked him for 3RR at 20:03 July 31. The block was made in violation of WP:BLOCK, because Samsara was one of the editors reverting against him. He should also arguably have been warned before being blocked, as it's not clear from his contributions that he had been advised before about 3RR.

KarlV made no further edits that could be described as disruptive. User: pschemp, who was also involved in editing Bad Nenndorf, blocked him indefinitely on August 2 after he made this edit announcing that he was about to make a statement on the German Wikipedia about what had happened. He subsequently posted on the German Wikipedia that he had been warned he might have difficulty making the concentration/internment camp edit on the English WP, and so he had come here to see whether that was true. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Since the above discussion is a mess for anyone who has not been following it until now, I’d like to attempt a summary, as pertaining to the interaction with User:KarlV. I hope the following is a helpful partial overview.

Events

1. The incident developed at Bad Nenndorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
2. The article describes a controversial former British facility. Its description as a concentration camp was in question.
3. User:I like Burke's Peerage was the first to describe the facility that way.[9]
4. User:Samsara moved that description into the article’s text.[10]
5. User:KarlV changed the description from ‘concentration camp’ to ‘internment camp’.[11]
6. User:I like Burke's Peerage reverted User:KarlV’s edit with the summary ‘revert, vandalism’.[12]
7. User:84.152.216.62, presumably User:KarlV, returned the accusation of vandalism and reverted the revert.[13]
8. An edit war developed with User:Samsara and User:Pschemp supporting User:I like Burke's Peerage.
9. User:KarlV was blocked for WP:3RR by User:Samsara.
10. User:KarlV posted a statement.[14]
11. User:KarlV was blocked for WP:POINT by User:Pschemp.

Statements of motivation

• User:KarlV was running an ‘experiment’ connected to alleged rumours of neo-Nazi POV-pushing on the English Wikipedia.[15]
• User:Samsara argued using for the label ‘concentration camp’ from the relevant Wikipedia article, Concentration camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of WP:RS.[16]
• User:Pschemp favoured the ‘concentration camp’ label despite admitting to not having a source for it, in violation of WP:V.[17]

My own POV (hey, you knew this was coming…)

• The blocks of User:KarlV by User:Samsara and User:Pschemp were dubious because of the users’ heavy involvement in the incident. Per WP:BLOCK, controversial blocks should be brought to this forum, not executed singlehandedly. WP:3RR explicitely advises against blocking when involved in the article.
• The WP:3RR block was also arithmetically dubious. User:KarlV made four edits in total to the article and the user’s first edit is not an obvious revert, so, together with the aforementioned issue, User:Samsara should have consulted WP:AN3 instead of blocking.
• The wording advocated by User:KarlV seems less POV than ‘concentration camp’ with respect to the sources.
• User:KarlV did not engage in vandalism at Bad Nenndorf.
• User:I like Burke's Peerage immediately accused User:KarlV of vandalism in breach of WP:AGF (which is still a policy).

For xyzzy, as requested. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:KarlV returned the accusation, breaching ibid.
• User:KarlV failed to follow WP:DR, which is another policy.
• User:KarlV edit warred (remember that a WP:3RR violation is not a necessary condition for this).
• User:KarlV breached Wikipedia policy for an ulterior motive (the ‘experiment’). Ergo, the user violated WP:POINT (which, surprisingly, is a mere guideline).
• User:KarlV’s comments at [18] show that the user might continue to act in the same way as at Bad Nenndorf if allowed to edit.

My conclusions

• User:KarlV was justly blocked. The duration of the block would be debatable but for the user’s own remarks ex post facto.
• User:Samsara and User:Pschemp should carefully reexamine a lot of policy pages.
• User:I like Burke's Peerage edit warred with User:KarlV and should be advised that this is not an acceptable method of editing.

Na, was ist? Keine Wunderkerzen? —xyzzy_n 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, xyzzy. I particularly enjoyed the ibids, the ergos, and the ex post factos. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to respond in a while, I'm doing other things right now. I believe the "events" summary is mostly right but has a few errors. I differ on about half of the conclusions. Phr (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above merits answer, except for the notion that Burke's, again, should be advised not to forge sources, while Samsara should be asked not to edit forgeries, polishing added weaselese. Reiterating the experiment issue for the umpteenth time, even for undoubtedly nonulterior motives is well worded, jeez, but unwarranted. And telling us that "KarlV did not engage in vandalism at Bad Nenndorf" is, ugh, what? Refuting claims nobody made?. btw: I wrote a list too. --tickle me 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

tickleme, why don't you read WP:AGF because you are breaking it in the extreme and still making wild accusations. Your witch-hunting here is tiresome. The block is now is User:Lar 's name anyway, making your endless rants again, irrelevent. Go talk to user Lar if you don't like it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

...Kerze? Candelam non datur, autem candelabrum aliquammultus apponere aliquo, aliqua, aliquamdiu locum potest arbitratu. --tickle me 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (I might have to amend that, should a native speaker pop up)

I did not mean to ask for specific measures, hence my lax use of language near the end. If you think there are persisting problems with those users, please take the issue(s) to the appropriate places. As for User:I like Burke's Peerage’s edit summaries regarding vandalism, I am sorry if my assumption that that bit was relevant here is problematic for you. Please feel free to strike out the relevant line(s) if you feel strongly about this. —xyzzy_n 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• User xyzzy_n, was your ommission of KarlV's declaration between steps 9 and 10 (in your summary at the beginning here) intentional? I mean, gee, it is only the most relevant detail in the entire incident, is it not? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I included it under a separate heading to emphasise its role. I have now also included it as you suggested. —xyzzy_n 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on block length for KarlV, Please comment

The real summary here is that the majority of admins who have commented here think the block is appropriate, and it is now in the name of an uninvolved admin. Go ahead and continue to pointless discussion if you wish, but the community hasn't changed it's mind about the validity of the block. pschemp | talk 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most admins who commented agree that it shouldn't be indefinite, so the question is what to reduce it to. If a reduction can't be agreed, it will likely be lifted entirely, so people who prefer a block should chime in with their suggestion. A month appears to be the current consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen more admins supporting the block as is than a substitution of a one month block. Also take note of the admins who have commented on his talk page. NoSeptember 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, after reading everything, that the block is valid and should remain. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I support leaving the block as-is. No change. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am now the blocking admin so think the block is the right length, as would be expected. I'm not seeing a lot of credible calls for a reduction, or at least not a consensus for one. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I support reduction to 24 hours conditional on a promise from KarlV not to do something like this again. Phr (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you not read his vandal-like comment above? If you can draw a conclusion other than "he is unrepentant" then do explain how, please. The Wikimedia Foundation should block this guy from editing any WMF project for a week or a month, in addition to the indef block on en.wiki. As a visiting sysop, I think support Lar's indef block. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise on any length of time up to one month, though I'd prefer that he be unblocked now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there are more of us desiring he stay blocked than be immediately unblocked, actually. I'd really rather suggest that instead of unilaterally unblocking him (with or without consensus) that perhaps we all wait until there are a few more admins commenting on this? Pretend for a moment we settle on one month, what's a few more days of discussion about it going to hurt if we include this discussion within that blocked timeframe? No rush. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no rush. I believe he's out of town for the next few days anyway, so there's time to discuss. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Since he waited 3 months between editing efforts this last time, we can certainly wait until he returns and has a chance to properly explain himself better than his unrepentent denial above. NoSeptember 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a month too - there simply is no way that an indefinite block is appropriate in this situation. I'd like to point out that WP:POINT states the following: "Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive." An indefinite block is far beyond what the guidelines specify. -- ChrisO 10:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what... we block people indefinitely all the time, for lots of different reasons, including "exhausted the community's patience", so this is a good block. Don't stand on precise wording, remember that doing the right thing is more important than being slavishly adherent to policy. That said I'd be willing (very relucatantly and only if there was a clear consensus) to go to a month with the following proviso. Before the block ends, I expect to see a statement from KarlV (with no quibbling, excuses, "but I had my reasons", "you're wrong but I'm saying this anyway to comply" sort of wording in it) that said; he was wrong, he understands he was wrong, he understands that he did a breaching experiment, he understands it was inappropriate, he undertakes never ever to do it or any other disruptive thing again, he is sorry that he did it, he is sorry that he wasted everyone's time, and that if he ever does it or any other disruptive thing again he will be blocked indefinitely. The current statement falls far short of that, it basically says he was justified in his actions which I strongly dispute. That mindset of his has to go. If he said all those above things and I was convinced he was sincere and had internalised the issues, I'd go along, but would swiftly reblock on sign of any breech of the agreement. Anything short of that is unsatisfactory to me. By the way, nice work on the rewrite, ChrisO... ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has not yet given a good reason for a shortening of the block. He has not apologized, he has not promised to not do this sort of disruption again, despite being aware of this discussion. This episode is the only thing this user has done at en.wiki in more than 3 months. This user's account has barely been used ever and is essentially a throw away disruption only account, at least until he promises not to continue to use it that way. Let's hear something positive from the user before we do anything, until then leave this disruption only account blocked indef. NoSeptember 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

SPUI is ONCE AGAIN violating his probation and engaging in edit wars on various state highway articles such as Nevada State Route 28. This is in BLATANT disregard for the arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. He is entitled to a block of some kind as he's most definitely OUT OF WARNINGs. Please engage his Arbcom sanctioned block at the earliest convenience. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I told him to keep his head down. --mboverload@ 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY? How many fucking chances does this guy get? He's been blatantly violating his probation mutliple times weekly at this rate. Why the fuck have an arbcom if it's rulings mean jack shit? He doesn't care you told him to keep his head down. He'll ignore you starting again tomorrow just like he always does. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go find it, but I left him a nice paragraph of advice about not getting into fights and keeping a low profile, so he can return to the public area with a hopefully clean slate. wtf is with this guy and highways? --mboverload@ 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three words, "I'm always right". That's his attitude on everything. He could give a rats ass that any of us exist. His MO hasn't changed since I first met him. He edit wars people until the either give up or in many cases he drives users off the project(see Jimbo's talk page for the list of his victims). And the admin staff at this site seems content to keep giving him gentle warnings and leave it at that and he treats those warnings like what they are, a joke. Even though he's now got 2 fucking Arbcom probations one specifically for edit warring on highway articles he's yet to have one block initiated on him that's stuck more then 2 hours before his buddy buddy admins unblock his ass. This is absurd! I don't care if he single handedly is writing half this encyclopedia. Editcount doesn't give him the right to discount other users and the arbcom like he has. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little frustrated here. SPUI, I don't know any of your history but you seem like a detirmined user. Why not just focus on another section of the encyclopedia? You know that fighting over highway names just brings more disdain for yourself. I'm not going to take a position on any possible blocking, but please take my advice. I have had to walk away from a few disputes, there's nothing shameful in it. --mboverload@ 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Highways are my area of expertise. --SPUI (T - C) 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue with that and nor will any of the people you've driven off the project, but it's your attitude toward your fellow Wikipedians that is both disruptive and frankly no longer welcome. You treat everyone else's opinion like it is shit if it's doesn't agree with yours. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm ok. I don't know what's going to happen here, but try and use better edit summaries and talk with the user before you edit war with them. --mboverload@ 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation by SPUI?

See this article history. --mboverload@ 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I peaked, and I know I'll get jumped for this anyway but I first noticed two things:

• He has reverted 4 times, but the 4th occured more than 24 hours after the 3rd.
• He did not initiate the name change, which is Remedy 6 from the Highways arb case.

I also note from the talk page for that one, he's also the first to initiate discussion on this. Mind you, it looks to have been posted after his third revert. I think he should have reverted only once, posted to the talk page, and brought it here, all at once. But if we're throwing the Highways case around here, I don't think he's broken it so much as strained it quite a bit. It's far too easy to push his buttons. Just my two cents from the peanut gallery. --InkSplotch 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it not a violation. Edit warring is by definition disruption. He is BANNED from making any disruptive edits to ANY highway articles. This surely qualifies. Or can you clearly state that I too am not bound by the probation and can make similar edits to highway articles? If that's the case then arbcom means nothing. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the violation was by FLWfan, who has not been using talk pages despite my request to do so. I didn't report him because no one had told him about the 3RR yet. --SPUI (T - C) 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact you're violating the arbcom ruling by edit warring with him. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation, SPUI could be banned from editing Nevada_State_Route_28 for editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you for pointing that out~ (just a note though, I've not edited that page ;) ) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FLWfan could also be blocked for his moves: "In the case of such moves by other editors, they shall be warned and/or blocked at administrator discretion." It's a two-way street here. --SPUI (T - C) 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also true. But it doesn't again change the fact that you should be blocked for this. You've violated the arbcom for at least the third time that I'm directly aware of since it was enacted. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, and also for the crap that happened at Minnesota State Highway 33, the Ohio state highways list, List of Nevada State Routes, and more. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, then, that you copy this notice to WP:AE, this time avoiding vulgar language. A description of the disruption with Diffs and a wikilink to the arbCom Remedies will suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We have 4 times now. They've yielded NO results and have been deleted off that board. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Infact if you go there now there is another posting about him. It has thus far been IGNORED. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:SPUI blocked for 31 hrs for editwarring on Nevada_State_Route_28 in violation of probation.

* User:JohnnyBGood blocked for 31 hrs for moves without consensus as per Highways#Enforcement_of_moves_without_consensus ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on the second one here? I've just been peeking around Johnny's contribs and logs and I'm not seeing anything matching "moves without consensus." --InkSplotch 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Corrected. I have informed the user and apologized for my mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". --SPUI (T - C) 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See defense at WP:AE and my retarded edit summaries. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

YourCousin sockpuppeteering

Current accounts/IPs

• YourCousin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YourOtherCousin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Repmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZyuRanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Uncertain as to this one, as he made vandalous edits at a page I watch, and various known IPs have reverted to this version. Ryūlóng 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Your Dad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) possible but no direct connection apart from name is similar, user was created straight after vandalism stopped for a moment and the user is plain vandal themselves.--Andeh 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• TheEqualizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) confirmed per all of his edits. Ryūlóng 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 194.164.208.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.130.143.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.130.142.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.141.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.139.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.106.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.216.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.209.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.211.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.213.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another one... Ryūlóng 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 81.174.214.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.216.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another subnet vandal. Ryūlóng 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 81.174.216.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.114.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.113.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.124.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.17.33.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) \
• 86.29.117.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) \
• 86.29.112.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) |- Possible, not certain.
• 86.29.120.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) /
• 86.29.120.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) /
• 86.29.121.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.118.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.116.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.125.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.118.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.112.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.126.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.113.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.116.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.115.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.117.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.119.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.114.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.126.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.113.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.121.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) reverting my edits, again. Ryūlóng 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 86.29.113.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) See above. Ryūlóng 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 86.29.114.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.115.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.117.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.114.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.112.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.118.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.125.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.124.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This edit you may find interesting.--Andeh 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 86.29.123.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • NOTE 86.29.anything.anything is NTL - Please mark any IPs as such. WhisperToMe 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Added possible socks as they are both related to vandal User:Repmart which is also him, see AfD edits and talk messages of them.--Andeh 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Add 86.29.118.28 too! WhisperToMe 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of YourCousin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Repmart (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). And appears to have lead a personal regime against Ryulong who currently has an RfA going. Reverted most of the vandals edits, users RfA may have sockpuppets under oppose votes.--Andeh 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just struck out an oppose vote from an anonymous user on Ryulong's RfA claiming to be YourCousin. Put 86.29.113.71 on the sockpuppet list too. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YourOtherCousin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) another one of the users accounts going after the RfA.--Andeh 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have extended YourCousin's block by a week and indef blocked YourOtherCousin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

86.29.124.77 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) another one of the users IPs.--Andeh 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget 81.174.216.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This could go on for pages; he claims to have access to over 30 IPs. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have blocked 2 so far, will monitor but I'm not here for too much longer. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let him, there's always semi-protection. Don't know if there's much point in blocking the users IPs if they are dynamic and have generated a new IP since.--Andeh 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's posting to a bunch of talk pages trying to curry support in his favor - he posted to my talk page. Let's just say that ploy won't work. WhisperToMe 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am 'YourCousin'. This mess stems from a small group of Anti American editors that monitor the Jeremy Clarkson page. I noticed on the 3rd of August that this Jeremy Clarkson quote had been added: "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do.". I looked on GOOGLE and The BBC and could not find any such quote so I deleted it as the editor had NO SOURCE. I believe that if you are going to quote someone as saying that an entire nation is INCESTUOS, that you should CITE THE SOURCE and back it up.

User Ryulong did not agree. Ryulong began to revert my edits and said that Jeremy 'probably did say it" and that "It sounds like something he'd say". Jeremy had his admin buddies block my username and he reverted the article back to the status where it said that ALL AMERICANS ARE INCESTUOS. The actual quote is "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". The actual quote as you can see is VERY different than the SPICED UP version that Ryulong tried to edit into a factual document. He insisited and went to great lengths spending over 3 hours trying to get it to stick. The page now has the correct quote AND the source. I'd say that my contribution to the page far outweighs RYULONG's politically and ego motivated contributions.

You wanna block me and count up my thousands of IPs and block them then be my guest. I am only writing this because I think it's wrong that such a WIKIBULLY could possibly be considered for ADMIN. It's a joke. INCEST IS NEVER FUNNY and falsely claiming that an entire nation is incestuous and going to great lengths to keep it that way, is nothing but XENOPHOBIC.

I have a proper USER ID with nearly 2,000 edits. I will never use it to edit pages with politi-wiki-bullies monitoring them. I prefer it this way.

You don't have to doubt my story OR wonder about it. Go to Jeremy Clarkson and look at the history and also the DISCUSSION history. You will see no holes in my story. Make ADMIN out of that guy? TOO CROOKED!

Thanks for reading.

YourCousin - --86.29.116.209 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a dose of WP:POINT will hopefully show YourCousin that his activities only worsen his reputation. WhisperToMe 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I have explained, there is no reputation. I noticed that when you edit the Anti American rhetoric out of theJeremy Clarkson page that the Anti-American editors chase you down undoing your work, marking you articles for deletion and haveing you blocked for fictional violations. I would never affiliate my real username with nearly 2,000 edits with this mess. I went to battle with some people that were using the page for their own political purposes and I have succeeded. The fictional INCEST quote has been fixed. I have no beef anymore. I'm just watching all you busybodies having some good fun pretending to block me. You guys are soooo cool to hang out with. Thanks for the smug little comment WhisperTome... I'll think about the 'YourCousin' reputation tonight when I'm laughing myself to sleep.

YourCousin--86.29.118.28 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no fictional incest quote. Jeremy Clarkson said everything about Americans and incest on his show. No one is being Anti-American (other than Clarkson, himself). I am, in fact, American. I don't use "coloured" pencils, I use "colored" pencils. I don't go to the "cinema" I go to the "movie theater". I drive on the right (not left) side of the road. I was born in New York, and I have never left the North American continent. If you continue to harass me, as well as do vandalous edits at pages I watch, you will continue to be blocked for your actions. Ryūlóng 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody! I found his ISP - It is "NTL" - If he continues, we can contact NTL. WhisperToMe 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok FOLKS! Ryulong is determined to confuse this issue with word trickery. Here it is in plain English. When I looked at the Jeremy Clarkson page the quote said : "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do." -

JEREMY NEVER SAID THIS - But what it does say is that "THAT's WHAT AMERICANS DO", in English, this means THAT's WHAT AMERICANS DO... anyone confused? It says that all Americans have incest VERY CLEARLY.

The ACTUAL quote is (the one on the page now thanks to ME): "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". see? anyone confused? The ACTUAL quote does not say anything about what Americans do... See the difference?

So, Ryulong, wrong again. The misquote that you tried so hard to uphold, the one that I was suspended for reverting, is exactly what I said it is, UNTRUE. You fought hard and long stating that "HE PROBABLY SIAD IT" and that "IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING HE WOULD'VE SAID"... these are not the decisive words of Wikipedia Admin.

Your rebuttal above shows that you are craft, devious, dishonest and that you intend to use Wikipedia for your own POLITICAL agenda and to bully people with opinons different to yours... in my case, my opinion was fact...yours was politically and egotistically motivated. You are a WIKI-THUG... and definietly not ADMIN material.

YourCousin--86.29.118.28 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He gave me a threat on my talk page - See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=cur - And contact NTL here http://bbplus.ntlworld.com/NetReport/index.php WhisperToMe 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YourCousin: you need to learn about citing quotes. When something is between brackets (like these: []) then that means the information within the brackets is being clarified. Clarkson may not have said "Americans" on his show for that clip, but he did mean it. Ryūlóng 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He gave me another threat at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=67707541&oldid=67706514 WhisperToMe 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I've found the NOTICEBOARD to be inneffective and emailing "The BOARD" results in computer generated emails when dealing with crooked people, so I devised my own method for punishing bullies. It's VERY effective. I have already had 3 bullies abandon their accounts, one with more than 7,000 edits. I have never vandalised a page once, but I have upset certain politically motivated wiki-bullies with fact backed up by sources. I advise anyone else to do the same. Get tons of ISP accounts!!! They're free and they nullify WIki-Bully blocks. It's a good bit of fun. Now stop bullying me and look at the history taht I so eloquently described above so that you can see what has been going on on the histroy pages. THE TRUTH KICKS ASS!

P.S. to Charlie Chan who discovered that NTL (BRITAINS LARGEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY) is the ISP provider to DIXONS, TSCO, PC WORLD, CURRYS, COMET, BOOTS and MANY MORE!! GOOD WORK BOY WONDER!! GOOD LUCK!

YourLovinCousin--81.174.209.116 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[19] WhisperToMe 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, I tried to communicate with you last night. That didn't work so I tried to open a TOPIC on the discussion page at Jeremy Clarkson and you just deleted it SEVEN TIMES so that nobody could talk about it then had me blocked!!...

Now that we have an audience you're a lovely gentleman.. this is much better!

Well I'm sorry .. it's too little, too late. You proved that you're crooked time and time again. It's even in the histories. I don't care what kind of quotes are used for what... one paragrpah above that you were claiming that there was no FICTIONAL QUOTE... now that I've pasted it you are saying.. 'yeh there was one but the brakcets blah blah blah..." ... you are making it worse for yourself. It's two paragrpahs up.,.. now you are arguing with yourself?

No fictional quote? Now you say "Yeah but"?... I'm sorry... you are clearly not WIKI ADMIN material. You are dishonest, weaselly and devious.

It's not only above in YOUR own words, but also in the histories of the pages that I have referred to above. Don't try so hard. It doesn't pay to be a crooked bully. Dishonesty always gets found out. How long did you think you could keep the page like that? you must know that Americans would be looking at it.

You may have turned the tables and had me suspended etc.,.. but you are the liar. You have contradicted yourself HEAVILY on this very page.

YourCousin--86.29.112.67 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you constantly say I'm not American? And I did not delete it seven times. And even in each time it was a rant against me. I have watched the clip about the Dodge Charger, and the video does not continue to where Clarkson would have said anything. The part where it mentions "sexual acts with your cousin" is gone. However, he did mention incest when he was talking about the Ford F150, and that quote will stay. Your actions are not proving you to be a serious editor with evading your block by constantly changing your IP, and with your constant harassments of myself, WhisperToMe, and any user who did anything at my RFA, you will find your ISP pulled. Ryūlóng 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve the issue with the anon IP on his talk page, but am waiting for a reply. --TheM62Manchester 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong LIES AGAIN when he says he didn't delete my TOPIC seven times. It's right on the DISCUSSION HISTORY of the Jeremy Clarkson page. I even started to note the amount of times he deleted it within the EDIT SUMMARY and at the top of the TOPIC each time.

Also, RYULONG opens the above statement with "Why do you constantly say I'm not American?"... I have NEVER said this and you won't find him pointing you to any HISTORY page to say I did because this is the exact calibre of MIS-INFORMATION that this ADMIN NOMINEE thrives on!

This guy is lying now. You only have to look at the HISTORY OF THE PAGE to see who is telling the truth. Please people.... you just have to look! Ryulong tried desperately to make the page say that ALL AMERICANS PRACTICE incest. It's CLEAR for all to see in the history.

For the new people, I was suspended for reverting this quote that Ryulong FOUGHT HEAVILY to preserve: "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what [Americans] do."

I told him many, many times that the quote was wrong and tried to get him to find the real quote and cite the source (ITS ALL IN THE HISTORY)... he refused, deleted it and had his admin buddies block me and even made SMUG remarks about me, JASON SMITH in the edit history. Yes, He put MY NAME in the edit history! ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS LOOK!! This person is WAAAY too devious to be ADMIN... lies on the page here.. and all the lies I've claimed he's said, are SUBSTANTIATED IN THE HISTORY... you only have to look.

Thanks TheM62Manchester! You are the first person to contact me that didn't want to bully, threaten or make a smug comment. It's nice to see a productive and polite Wikipedian. I will take your advice and I look forward to a long future editing. I have contributed to 41 articles today under my real account. Thanks again mate... You calmed things a bit...

RYULONG... You have lied 3 times on this page.. challenge me to point them out? I can cite sources if you like?

Wiki-bullies are weak.

This guym TheM62Manchester should be nominated for ADMIN, he is cool calm and collected... seems like an honest chap too!

Peace everybody, even the corrupt and egotistical.

YourCousin--86.29.112.67 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have apologized to you, including removing the content you questioned, and this is the response you gave me on my talk page and this is your response here? I did not remove the information seven times. I only did it twice. You should check the history. I am not Blah3. I am not a wikibully. You are with your constant false accusations. Ryūlóng 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK CHECK THIS OUT!!!: RYULONG has just emailed me to say that actually NEITHER QUOTES ARE TRUE!!! THIS IS CLASSIC!! WHY THE HELL AM I SUSPENDED??? Because Ryulong had has Admin buddies do it to me... here is what he JUST pasted on my page:

“ I watched the clip that ChicosBailBonds cited as to have the comment about "when you buy an American car..." and the quote was not in the video clip. I have removed that quote, per your constant wishes and (constant) attacks on my status as a good editor. However, the "Whatever they do..." from the Ford F150 clip will remain, as that is explicity stated in the clip. I hope that now that I have discovered the truth about this whole nonsense (for now), that you can stop slandering me. Ryūlóng 21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ”

So BOTH QUOTES are bogus AND the source that they CITED NEVER SAID IT!!!

Anyone? apologies?

THIS GUY IS A WEASEL!! ANYONE THAT VOTES FOR HIM IS PROBABLY HIS BUDDY ALREADY!! THE FACTS ARE SCREAMING!!!

ALL THIS MESS FOR NOTHING!!! CLARKSON NEVER SAID ANY OF IT!! THESE GUYS MADE IT UP AND HAD ME SUSPENDED FOR POINTING IT OUT!!!

WHEN THE HEAT GOT HOT, RYULONG, ADMIN NOMNINEE CAME CLEAN!!

It took 2516 blocks, but look... he has admitted that IT WAS NEVER SAID AT ALL!!

YourHonestCousin(I'm still standing you BULLY!)--86.29.112.67 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that both quotes are bogus. I said that the original quote that was questioned is not in the video clip that was cited for it. Read closer. Watch the video for the Ford F150 clip. Ryūlóng 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RYULONG, not only were you wrong the WHOLE time, but you had your admin friends suspend me for trying to correct your anti-american sentiments that you and your friends made up. the quote cannot be sourced because you made it up. Everytime I tried to start a discussion you deleted it 7 TIMES@!! IT'S IN THE HISTORY ON THE JEREMY CLARKSON PAGE!!

You didn't like to be corrected for your fictional fantasies so you had your friends block and ban me for removing mis-information that you yourelf have just removed!!

ANYONE THAT VOTES FOR THIS GUY TO BE ADMIN IS PROBABLY RELATED TO HIM!!

Does that mean they have to commit sexual acts with him? Bishonen | talk 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

CROOKED WIKI BULLY!!! BEWARE!!! DONT LET THE HIGH NUMBER OF EDITS FOOL YOU!!

QUALITY NOT QUANTITY!!!

Ryulong, everytime you respond you leak out another little lie or cover up... why don't you just go away now... I do not require a response from you. The page has been corrected, yet you are still bitchin! wjy not let it rest!? We can see by this page alone that you are dishonest, that you operate with mis-information and that you like a rigged deck... you like to move the goal posts.... NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!

BOOK 'IM DAN-O!!

YourGloriusCousinStillEditingUnderMyRealIdSoF.O.--86.29.119.4 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that both quotes were never said. I merely said that the quote that was cited from the Dodge Charger segment was not seen in the video clip that ChicosBailBond provided. Ryūlóng 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FOR ANYONE JUST TUNING IN, I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED AND SUSPENDED FOR REVERTING VANDALISM THAT RYULONG AND HIS FRIENDS MADE UP! NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS ON THIS PAGE, RYULONG HAS DECIDED TO ADMIT THAT THE QUOTE ABOUT ALL AMERICANS PRACTICING INCEST IS FALSE AND TOTALLY FICTIONAL. THIS PERSON IS ALSO CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR ADMIN! FUNNY WORLD HUH!!

LOOK AT THE TOP OF THIS COLUMN, LOOK AT ALL THE TIME WASTED BLOCKING ALL THOSE IPs JUST BECAUSE THIS GUY WANTED HIS FICTIONAL INCEST FANTASIES TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE JEREMY CLARKSON ARTICLE! THIS TIME WASTING, DISHONEST USER DOES NOT CONSITUTE WIKIPEDIA ADMIN MATERIAL!

YOURDAMNCOUSIN--86.29.126.132 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy is now vandalizing articles that I watch. See the history at Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Ryūlóng 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I watch Jeremy Clarkson and you and your friends made up a QUOTE and cited it is AUTHENTIC when you knew that the source DIDN't CONTAIN the quote. The quote involved INCEST... yeh very funny! So you are VANDALISING the Jeremy Clarkson page AND you are a nominee for ADMIN? I think that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You have lied countless times on this page alone... if people bother to check the history of the Jeremy Clarkson and it's discussion page, we can see what fun you are when your comments are not appearing on the ADMIN NOTICEBOARD. You made up two different quotes and then cited a source that didn't substantiate your PHONEY quote... YOU ARE THE VANDAL! Only difference is...l you think you are admin material... which after people look at the history I speak of, will be a laughing matter.

So why not LEAVE ME ALONE Ryulong and stop sending stupid threats that you can't uphold to me... it's innane... You lost. The quote that you insisted was true has now been corrected by yourself solely because of MY comments on this page and your fear of it affecting your ADMIN nomination.

Go away little boy... go away!

YourCousin--86.29.113.26 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, this guy has gone back and reverted legitimate edits of mine in the last few minutes, calling them vandalism. Ryūlóng 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've placed another rangeblock. Hopefully this will stop for now. Naconkantari 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy has several ranges that he can utilize.

• 81.174.200.0/24 through 81.174.220.0/24
• 86.29.110.0/24 though 81.174.130.0/24
• The only one that appears unrelated is 82.17.33.199

There has to be a way to keep him blocked, but still allow the most amount of users to be unblocked. I think the last time there was such a vandal an /18 was used. Ryūlóng 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He's recently editted under another subnet completely, 213.130.142.5. Ryūlóng 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Ryulong!!! You won't distract too many people from the fact that you FALSIFIED AN INCEST QUOTE AND HAD ME SUSPENDED FOR REVERTING IT AND CHALLENGING YOU! WHEN I TRIED TO BRING IT UP ON THE Jeremy Clarkson DISCUSSION PAGE YOU DLETED IT SEVEN TIMES(IT'S IN THE HISTORY) TO PREVENT ME FROM BLOCKING IT AND YOUR LITTLE FRIENDS HAVE EVEN TRIED TO DELETE THIS THREAD OF THIS PAGE (IT'S ION THE HISTORY) CROOKED/CROOKED/CROOKED

LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE THE PATIENCE.... READ THE ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THE INNER WORKINGS OF A TRUE WEASEL...

THIS GUY IS TRYING TO DISTRACT FROM THE FACT THAT HE IS A WIKI-BULLY UP FOR ADMIN NOMINATION RIGHT NOW BUT THIS PAGE GIVES AWAY THE TRUTH THAT HE IS A WIKI BULLY THAT USES THE SITE FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND THAT HIS EDITS ARE OF A QUANTITY NATURE RATHER THAN QUALITY.

PLEASE READ ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE HISTORY SECTION OF THE JEREMY CLARKSON ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT THIS USER IS A MILLION MILES FROM ADMIN MATERIAL!! A REAL EGOMANIAC STALKER AND BULLY!

DONT LET THE COVER-UP GANG DELETE THIS THREAD!!! PUT IT ON YOUR WATCHLIST!! IT HAS BEEN DELETeD ONCE, UNLIKE MY DISCUSSION TOPIC ON THE JEREMY CLARKSON PAGE WHICH WAS DELETED SEVEN TIMES BY RYULONG WHO WANTED HIS FALSE INCEST QUOTE TO REMAIN!!!

yOURcOUSIN--80.225.141.223 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, another IP this guy is using...and he screwed up his caps. Ryūlóng 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy is Repmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He just sent me a very inappropriate email from repmart at repmart.com. Ryūlóng 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is the Repmart website http://www.repmart.com/ WhisperToMe 16:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He threatened me again [20] - I wonder if "Jason Smith" is his real name. WhisperToMe 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[21] WhisperToMe 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, people, people, people - The more you scream and yell and be an ass on the internet, the less people listen to you. WhisperToMe 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr. yea, i rangeblocked a bunch. Sasquatch t|c 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has the ability to edit from the following ranges: 81.174.208.0/21, 213.130.140.0/20, 86.29.0.0/16, 80.225.0.0/16, and 194.164.208.0/16 so far. He claims to have "31 ISPs" and these appear to be only five, so far. Ryūlóng 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Homeontherange sockpuppets

On July 23 User:Homeontherange claimed to have left Wikipedia and asked to have his account blocked, in order to avoid an arbitration case that was being brought against him for various abuses, including sockpuppeting. As it turns out, even while the case was being considered, and before he claimed to have left, he was creating even more sockpuppets, and since then this has continued. In all he has created at least a dozen sockpuppets, some of which he has used to harass former "enemies", and some of which ended up being blocked for various kinds of disruptive behavior. Yesterday, while following up on one of the accounts that had been blocked as a sockpuppet of WordBomb, I discovered the extent of Homeontherange's behavior. I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others). The entire list of sockpuppets can be found here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good move. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if one of the checkuser clerks would open a case page on this (or append to an existing one, if there is one). Essjay (Talk) 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You rang? Thatcher131 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed Homeontherange has been desysopped. Was this at his request or was it an emergency measure? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was at his request, see his talk page. --TheM62Manchester 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

a) User:Homeontherange is a defunct account, I do not have access to it since I don't have the password. The account was never banned but was blocked and desysopped on my request as I no longer had access to it and as I suspected someone else had gained access to it at some point meaning it was not secure.

b) Jay is incorrect to say that I left wikipedia to avoid an RFA, I explicitly said that the RFA should not be discontinued because I was leaving and that if it continued I'd be happy to stay and fight it. However, since I no longer had access to the account and since there were several imposters, one of whom I believe was User:Dervish Tsaddik (who posted as "daughterofzion" and signed several anon IP posts as "sonofzion" and may have also been the original User:Sonofzion) there was no way to be certain on which of the IPs posting to the RFA were actually "Homeontherange".

c) the Homeonetherange account was not banned and was not going to be banned (the RFA was on desysopping) hence it is absurd to accuse that account of having sockpuppets, particularly when the account is defunct.

d) Jayjg is completely mischaracterising the behaviour of the alleged sockpuppets. If one actually looks at their edits they are not controversial. Jay wrongly implies that numerous of the accounts were blocked because they were being "disruptive". In fact, only one of these alleged sockpuppets was blocked and that was because it was, incorrectly, accused of belonging to Wordbomb since it asked whether the checkuser for Mantanmoreland was going to be posted (it's beyond me why such a query is considered "disruptive" as a checkuser was run on Mantanmoreland and came out positive).

e) the alleged sockpuppets were not editing the same articles and were not doing anything in violation of WP:SOCK

f) the accounts were not being operated by a single person though they were using a shared semi-public IP in the computer room of a co-op. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange. I did use a few of the alleged sockpuppets after I junked Homeontherange but did so on a temporary basis (ie one day each) without bothering to retain the password as I do not wish to return to wikipedia permanently. 69.158.191.248 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At some point, this spinning will have to stop. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish just happened to find and question PinchasC's mediation nomination. [22] PinchasC was one of the admins who filed the recent RfAr against Homeontherange. Why would a new user who was not a sock or meat puppet of Homeontherange home in on precisely that page? User:Hunting Thomas also just happened to find PETA, an article Homeontherange had stalked me to before. [23] Hunting Thomas then posted on Talk:William Connolley pretending to be a new user who didn't understand 3RR, [24] which makes the use of the account deceptive and a violation of WP:SOCK. And there's no question that User:Sonofzion was Homeontherange evading his block for 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And what was the question asked of PinchasC? Whether he'd ever informally mediated, wasn't it[25]? That's hardly an abusive question slim, the way it came about was I mentioned to Fluffy that Pinchas didn't strike me as suited for mediation and so he asked if he had ever mediated before. As for the edits to PETA, your exact comment about the Hunting Thomas edit was:

Yes, I agree that this is a legitimate section, and well written. It's good so long as the references are, which I haven't checked, because these comments are about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. When writing up references, please use the ref tag, and enter: Name of author, URL, headline, name of publication, date of publication if available, and date you retrieved it if you can be bothered (the last thing isn't necessary). Otherwise, it's good. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[26]

If the edit was abusive or harassing you would have hardly thanked one for it. Editing one article of yours is hardly stalking, stop being so proprietorial, particularly when the edit improved the article and resulted in your thanks. Edits that improve wikipedia are hardly abuses.72.60.227.118 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You won't believe me, but I wrote that because I knew it was you, and I guessed that the thing that'd annoy you more than anything was if I thanked you for the edit that you were hoping I'd object to. There is something quite distinctive that you almost always do, Homey, when you post, even when you're trying to hide it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean I didn't think the edit was fine, because I did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

SV has a point about the 3RR, I shouldn't have asked William Connelly to review whether or not there had been a violation and used feigned newbiness as a conceit - I should have just asked him to review the edits or filed a 3RR report directly without any pretence. My apologies. However, I did not keep up the pretence and when you asked whether the account belonged to an existing user I said it was an alternate account as permitted under SOCK.[27]. 72.60.227.118 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Homey, an apology is not enough. Your actions have been disruptive. Myself and other admins spent hours of our time trying sort out your sockpuppet accounts. Your actions confused the situation, making it more difficult to accurately enforce a ban against WordBomb, an indef banned user. Sorry but I agree with a community ban. You can ask the Arbcomm and Jimbo to review it. --FloNight ^talk 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

I propose that we declare a community ban of User:Homeontherange, in all past, present and future incarnations, whether sockpuppet or single purpose account, for exhausting our patience. That should remove any further need for wikilawyering about Jayjg's blocking your accounts, whether they are technically socks by the letter of the policy, etc. ad nauseum. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's you who is doing the wikilawyering and retroactively trying to justify an unjustified ban. See Post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you want to ban me then go to the ArbComm rather than trying to sneak it in by the back door (I've opened an RFA on Jay and Pinchas' behaviour). The so-called sock puppets were non-abusive - if you want me to only edit with one account fine, I'll do that (though my edits have been tapering off, actually, and will continue to do so) but retroactively declaring Homeontherange banned is an abuse of process as is trying to distort policy to justify an action - it's pretty easy to throw out the concept of due process and rule of law by arguing that these things are "lawyerly" traits but it's a dangerous route for wikipedia to go down Thatcher131. 72.60.227.118 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Home is clearing attempting to still edit while avoid going through his ArbCom. The chutzpah to accuses the admins trying to deal with the situation of wikilawyering is outstanding. He has already attempted to bring his own RfAr (which of course is on his terms). I support a community ban and an end to this nonsense. JoshuaZ 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting things Joshua. The RFA against me had to do *only* with being an admin - as PinchasC wrote in the confirmation section "Not applicable. This is a request for review of admin status." I am no longer an admin by my own request so that RFA is moot. If you don't want an RFA to be avoided then let's go to the ArbComm by all means rather than acting arbitrarily against non-abusive edits. Anyway, as you should well know, an RFA is really never on anyone's terms but the ArbComm so your commont "of course is on his terms" is nonsense. If you think I'm trying to edit while "avoid going through his ArbCom" then fine, lets go to the ArbComm. Given User:Homeontherange's long history and the relatively good status that account enjoyed until just a few months ago acting in an arbitrary manner without going to an RFA is unjustified, particularly given the fact that we are not dealing with personal attacks but with edits which even SV conceded were "legitimate" and "good" in the case of the PETA article. Again, if you want to ban me then go to ArbComm rather than banning through the back door. 72.60.227.118 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Homey, as I wrote above, an apology is not good enough this time to get you out of trouble. I support a community ban for disruptive sockpuppets. Your actions interfered with other editors and admins ability to go about their business writing the encyclopedia. --FloNight ^talk 05:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very serious against this. This is a typical case that needs to be done by the ArbCom. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was seriously abusive. There were RfArs being filed, then withdrawn; requests for desysopping that no one knew whether to trust; interference in trying to keep track of WordBomb, an abusive user who was engaged in on- and off-wiki harassment; one of the sockpuppets accused me of admin abuse because I blocked a WordBomb account after he had tried to "out" an editor; the attempt to interfere with PinchasC's nomination. I can't see why a ban would not be appropriate, because these things drain trust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just wonder what is Kim van der Linde role in all this: She came in as "neutral" honset mediator but clearly tried tio tilt the mediation to one side, eventually, after causing much disruption to the mediation process (deadedned) she ended the dragged on mediation and joined one side, filled nomerous "evidence" trying to cause great hardship to admins and editors who tried to resolve the situation. In the process she tried again to absolve some sock puppets by using some non public "tools" that no one but her can see the results. All this time the Wikipedia article on "israeli partheid" gained in number of google popularity something (that if I remeber correctly and if i am mistaken I appologize on the spot) Kim at some point argued that it is favorable result. This whole set of articles by Homey (with the support he got from Kim) has resulted in great great disruption to everyone involved. maybe Kim should just censor her self fro a month or two and let the disruption clear itself out ? Zeq 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

PS this is also part of the sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.48.89.229 Zeq 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, thank you, you made very clear why this should not go by community support, but by ArbCom. The case is way to complicated for a simple community ban. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Kim: Your own contribution is indeed complex. This is why I wondered what is your own role ? I suggested you save everyone some time and censor yourself for 1-2 month. As for Homey, it is pretty simple. A person that has over dozen sockppupets is not acting in good faith. Zeq 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Jayjg posted on the check-user page that he had consulted with the Arbitration Committee before taking action against the accounts, so they're aware of the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not on the CU page, but above. Jayjg wrote: "I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others)." And they did already know that Homey said he couldn't use user:Homeontherange anymore, so they presumably understood that this meant all his accounts were being blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that in the past, he had said he was leaving, but obviously has not done so. He has posted from IPs and then claimed they were impersonating him. He says he has used single purpose accounts to make constructive edits, but at least one of them (User:Barbamama) was highly disruptive, and others have targeted his previous foes' edits. In fact, if it were not for Barbamama, the rest of his accounts probably never would have been found out, so he only has himself to blame. However, since there are admins who still defend him, Arbitration is probably the best route. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a situation that is not simple, and I think that a community ban should be used only in cases where the story is clear. As such, yes I oppose this proposed community ban. Whether they for that reason want to start a ArbCom case is their decision, although I have added a note to the pending ArbCom case about that this proposed community ban, and suggested it should be merged. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be all too obvious that Kim has her own reasons for not wanting a community ban of Homey. She has found herself on the same side of him in every single situation where they have come into contact, and they were the only ones that supported one another's terribly one-sided proposals in the apartheid arbitration case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the definition of a community ban is "no one objects." Thatcher131 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be the definition that not a single person objects, because there are always one or two who object to these things. The question is whether there's consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and for me, the reactions I get that are not dealing with the substance, but contain all kind of baseless accusations towards me to justify that I should have no voice in this makes it very clear that this case has gone way beyond a simple community ban. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You defend Homey no matter what. We know that he has recently posted using 15 sockpuppets and 20 anon IPs. These are only the ones we know about; and still you defend him. That's why your credibility has been reduced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, but I am sure it will be near imposible to convice you of my motivations in anything I do, as you have clearly made up your mind about me (and Homey for that matter). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done nothing but cause trouble for weeks. You've teamed up with Homeontherange to try to impose sanctions on editors who tried to oppose his disruption. You claim to have left but still hang around to propose arbcom cases, make snide remarks, and edit your user subpages. You're an admin and yet you support a highly disruptive user who engages in abusive sockpuppetry. I don't see how my knowing your intentions would change what I can see you actually doing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me see, was I banned from Wikipedia? Was I desysoped? No, neither, so I have the full right to be here, and to act as an admin, regardless of what you think about me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a habit of not reading the posts you respond to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Kim, I find it odd that you have first tried to defend Homey's fringe political views (during after the mediation in which you were supposed to the honest broker) and continued to defend his behaviour. Is it really his behaviour that you find justifiable ? or is that you share his political views and to push such views in wikipedia you willling to accept any kind of behaviour ? Zeq 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a copy of my statement put on ArbCase that EX-Homey filed.

IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arb com wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight ^talk 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what the situation is in full so I can try and get an overview of it?? --TheM62Manchester 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. A user was blocked indefinitely and is evading the block by editing via sockpuppets.--Mantanmoreland 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. First, the user was in an RfAr over abuse of their admin tools. Then the user quit Wiki and asked to be desysopped and their standard account indefinitely blocked. About simultaneously it was discovered that the Home had been using abusive sockpuppets. Home then proceeded to edit using various other accounts. Due to the previous sockpuppets and disruption, many admins have been blocking his new puppets on site. But his original indef block was at his own request. Someone please correct me if I am missing any major details. JoshuaZ 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will email an ArbCom member about this. --TheM62Manchester 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They already know about it and have oppened a case (see below). JoshuaZ 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. My involvement in this was tangential, as I was harassed by a sockpuppet of Homeontherange, with whom I have no history whatsoever. To me it seems fairly simple and I don't understand why it has generated such a big fuss.--Mantanmoreland 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked ExHomey

Move up the page so discussion is together. Blocked ExHomey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Claims to be Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked as imposter/username problem among other reasons such as abusive socks. --FloNight ^talk 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him to participate in the arbitration case. He has been requested to limit his editing to arbitration pages. Fred Bauder 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

afd

Im writing regarding a very controversial subject that is being afd'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution.

Basically, people are lining up to vote "delete -> RS", claiming there are no reliable sources. At the same time, there are no actual claims of factuality made in the article itself, it just reports opinions of people, and what the people cited view the term stands for and what were it is manifested.

As i understand it, Reliable Sources are needed if one is to claim something as factual. For example, if i say "Iraq has wmd's", i need to have a very reputable source claiming it, for example multiple mainstream publications.

But that is not the case for a opinion. If someone is quoted as having a opinion, then his own admission is enough as being a reliable source for that opinion.

Now, people are arguing to delete that article with arguments like: "The examples provided are not factual, and there is no RS for claiming that they are. The people cited are not RS"

This is problematic in many ways, in my view. First, the article is not claiming them to be factual, it only states that people hold those views. Further, they admit that the people cited hold that view, agreeing that there is no dispute regarding the people holding those views, but they proceed to argue that those peoples view is not a reliable source for the factuality of the claims. But the article does not claim the events to be factual to start with!'

This is nothing more than twisting words. They make a false claim, and then argue that the article needs to go based on that false claim, while at the same time agreeing to what the article actually stats: That it is a term used by conspiracy theorists.

The claims of the term being a neology is refuted, and so is the claim of it being a non-notable, so people are just throwing false arguments in order to get it deleted.

But what is more: The article itself is about a term. Even if the entire "Example" section was to be deleted as non-RS, it would still not merit to delete the article, since it is representing a real-life phenomena: the use of the term, and what it means: the very basic function of a encyclopedia.--Striver 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• A few things here. First, Striver, I think it is courteous to post new comments to the bottom of the page (I'm not moving this, however, because I don't want to cause problems). Next, an encyclopaedia does not need to report on opinions. It needs to report on facts, so if the article makes no factual claims, then it shouldn't be here. Last, an encyclopaedia does not give "the meaning and use of terms", as you suggest above. A dictionary does that, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In short, I don't see why this merits a posting on the Admin noticeboard, really. Byrgenwulf 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry, i did'nt know that. As for "Next, an encyclopaedia does not need to report on opinions.", then what is International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike? Or Jewish view of Jesus? They are nothing else than "factual opinions". What i mean is that the non-opinion facts, such as "x was Problem-Reaction-Solution" is not stated as fact, rather as "y views x as Problem-Reaction-Solution", and then quotes y's personal admision as a sources. Since nobody disputes that Y belives that, there is no valid reason to claim there is a lack of RS. With that said, "It needs to report on facts" is fullfilled. WP:NPOV:

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results

And that is exactly what the article does. As for "the meaning and use of terms", see Islamofascist, it has a "Application" section and also a "Origins and usage" and a "Examples of use in public discourse" section. When the exact same thing is done in the Problem-reaction-solution article, then all hell is breaking loose. Im bringin this issue here in hope of geting some actual argumentations, since the people on the afd and talk page give arguements that display an unaccaptable level of ignorance for wikipedia policies, and i was hoping to find a higher level of argumentation here.--Striver 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what intervention by administrators do you want? Continuing the AfD argument on this page is completely inappropriate. --ajn (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping to either be shown were i am misstaken, or to agree with me that there is a problem of a majority imposing its will with bogus arguements, and that being a problem for the integrity of wikipedia. --Striver 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let the AfD run its course, and then utilize the deletion review process if you don't like the outcome. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And please, stop attacking everyone who votes "delete" Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Way International

This is an interesting situation. A user keeps on pushing his or her own version of the article, claiming it to be the "truthful point of view". Now, the user is making threats that he or she will "refer Wikipedia and its users to the Way International for review". Now, knowing this religious organization (and being an ex-member), it's quite possible they may try to make something out of it — how should we proceed? I was talking with Phil, and he's also interested in this lengthy development. — Deckiller 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to it later. I've indefinitely blocked the user for vandalism and censorship--not meant to be an infinite block, but I don't think we should set an expiration date on this issue just yet. I'll report back after I look into it more. — Philwelch t 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted a notice on the user's talkpage; s/he seems to be calmer now, but we await his/her reply. — Deckiller 19:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also placed a one week block on 68.191.110.65 for similar vandalism and censorship. The IP has never contributed any edits not related to this issue, but I felt an indefinite block was not in order due to it being an IP. I think what we have here is a Scientology/LaRouche/US Congress-style attempt at censoring out information unfavorable to the organization being written about. I saw multiple cited claims removed from the article, and from what I've gathered, this organization is something of a cult, which lends certain Scientology/LaRouche-esque overtones to these removals. The content should be investigated by established and trusted members of the community. It should also be noted that the blocked user (User:Stanleygoodspeed777) left veiled legal threats in his edit summaries ("Wikipedia and each libelist is being referred to The Way International for review"). If TWI's legal team is anything like Scientology's, that's a potent threat indeed. — Philwelch t 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over some of the cited material that was removed and it looks well within WP:RS and other guidelines. I've added the page to my watchlist and I suggest other admins do so as well. JoshuaZ 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The user appearently calmed down on his talk page, citing that he didn't know about the article's talk page and thought there was no room for discussion. Think we should life the block on Stanley and give him another chance, or take his info with a grain of salt (even though it came just before the block?). — Deckiller 20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'd say give him one more chance. The user doesn't have any edits to the talk page so it is a minimally plausible explanation. But make it clear to him that any further attacks or threats will not be tolerated. JoshuaZ 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No way. We aren't losing anything by keeping this guy blocked, and if we unblock him we're only going to incur more risk. He's crossed the line to legal threats, and that line just doesn't get uncrossed. When I first blocked him I thought maybe there was a chance for unblocking him later. But now that I think about it, we're going to have an edit war on our hands at best. That, plus the fact that he's already made legal threats, makes it very imprudent to unblock at this time. — Philwelch t 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Could we have some other admins give their opinions on the matter please? JoshuaZ 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a message on his talk page to get this guy's word that he isn't going to be disruptive or continue to make legal threats. Once he responds, I'll post a note here and we can decide then. It would be a mistake to unblock him before he unambiguously and clearly promises to stop being disruptive. — Philwelch t 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a decent idea. Like I said, the last thing I want to do is get into the blocking mess, especially as a previous member of this group and an old contributor to this article ;-) — Deckiller 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• This seems reasonable. I'll also CC the message to the IP address he was using in case he looks there. JoshuaZ 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

His response seems reasonable, but I am still unsure whether it would be prudent to unblock yet. Legal threats are one thing where we have to be very, very cautious. If he is unblocked, he must be placed under strict probation and immediately reblocked if he acts up again. Given that these two concerns of mine are addressed, I think we might be able to unblock. — Philwelch t 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd agree with probation, perhaps along the lines of "Please note you're under strict "no legal threats" probation. Any further legal threats will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia for an indefinite amount of time." - opinions? ~Kylu (u|t) 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this solution. JoshuaZ 04:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Evilowen (talk · contribs)

Just back from a 24-hour block for vandalizing AFD's of his articles, user is now creating multiple copies of the articles under AFD, with slightly different names, and also one which was speedied yesterday. Warnings are ignored. Fan-1967 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked by User:Syrthiss for 48 hours. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I might have blocked him on general principles for creating 500 articles with variations on a name...but then he removed afd notices from his new articles which is what he was blocked for yesterday. I think in general we should indef block him and salt the earth on his various articles assuming that they indeed are deleted, which is where they are heading currently. Syrthiss 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as an amusing side note, one of his copies didn't need to be retagged for AFD. He copied the article, intact, with the AFD tag still on it. Fan-1967 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. Syrthiss 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Now he's back, evading block, as Evilowen2 (talk · contribs), recreating deleted articles, and continuing to edit. Fan-1967 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• After being blocked again under the new name he's asked for an unblock, on User talk:Evilowen2. He claims the first ID was his assistant. Fan-1967 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war at rapcore

There's a rather silly-looking revert war in progress at rapcore. Basically this is 3RR fodder, but I mention it here rather than there as a) I've already blocked both parties (more briefly than might be wise, given the excessive reversion on one side, and the counter-productive edit summaries and "entitlement to revert" logic on the other), and will re-block if this continues and b) there already seems to be significant sock/meat-puppetry at work, so if someone else keeps an eye out, that would be handy. Alai 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further to which, I've blocked User:Hans Schwarc for 24h (and am tempted to make that "indefinite"). Recently created account that seems to exist only to act to revert in line with User:LUCPOL, has a "forged" talk page (copied over from User_talk:Dcflyer) to give the impression of having been around longer than the day-and-a-bit he's actually been editing for, and to top it all off, does content-disputes reverts "in the style of" admin rollback. Alai 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• The forged talk page is impersonation, so I'd say that is an indef. block situation. If you want to do a nominally limited block (say, 3 months) that is actual infinity to a troll, that would be appropriate as well. Essentially, the particular quality of the particular edits is one thing, but the attempt to deceive about status and longevity is another. Geogre 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template deleted per IAR; review sought

I invite other admins to review my deletion (and protection, after recreation) of Template:Dignity. See also this edit to my page and WP:VPN#Yay!. In my opinion, 99 Red Baboons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troll and should be blocked, but I think it's best to leave that to others. -- SCZenz 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, given that every edit but one was pure mischief. Now would you do me a favour, and not cite "per IAR" as a rationale for actions (especially, admin actions), given that it a) explains nothing, and b) "justifies" (or at least in some vague sense of "covers") absolutely everything? Thanks. Just a pet peeve of my inner logical positivist. Alai 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no rule that I'm aware of, that justifies speedy-deleting something for "obvious trolling." And for good reason—"obvious trolling" is in the eye of the beholder! But this was very obvious trolling, so I deleted it (despite the lack of explicit policy justification) for the good of the encyclopedia. What do I call it other than "per WP:IAR"..? My specific reasoning was clearer on other pages, but most of all it was obvious from what I did. -- SCZenz 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is, to be clear, that I don't like to apply IAR much at all. Since I did, I wanted to emphasize it and have it reviewed. -- SCZenz 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • IAR may be the applicable "rule", but it's not much of an explanation. I agree with your actions, btw, I just think that for clarity, one should say "invoking IAR, I did X for reason Y", rather than citing IAR as if it were a reason. e.g. "exists only for baiting and annoyance purposes" might not be a CSD, but it's certainly a reason, whereas IAR is not. (For my money, CSD G1 pretty much covers it in this case, anyway.) Alai 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You raise a valid point. I was in a bit of a hurry, and had a vague inclination (since the user was complaining emphatically and superficially reasonably, in the way of trolls) that I would pass off the facts without prejudicing the discussion by explaining my reasons properly. It worked, but I admit it was a bit silly; obviously IAR isn't the reason one does anything. -- SCZenz 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 12.10.34.242

That IP is held by a large law firm. It seems someone at the firm has recently discovered how to edit Wikipedia articles. Most of their edits are really vandalism ast listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.10.34.242 I sent an email to the law firm and someone else warned them on their talk page.

User:Friday

An announcement. If User:Friday doesn't stop undoing my admin actions, I will start wheel warring. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:User_System_Administrator. Friday (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will back up Friday's unblock. Putting aside your frivolous reason for blocking him in the first place, the block tool is meant to be preventative and not punitive. Ashibaka tock 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Passing onself off as a Wikipedia sysadmin is not a frivolous reason for blocking. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If User:Torinir had gone around misrepresenting his status as being a Wikipedia sysadmin, I can understand why someone might be justified in thinking that the userbox was inappropriate, but you haven't posted any sign that they did that. The userbox is just a professional description - there are millions of sysadmins out here. Threatening to wheel war over a reversion of a poorly explained, apparently policy violating block and edit war on someone's homepage is bizarre. Threatening to wheel war before you explained your side of the situation in detail, why it was bad and the block or removals were justified? That's just uncalled for. If Torinir did something wrong in particular show us. Georgewilliamherbert 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I don't see why you're placing the burden on Zoe rather than Friday. Obviously Zoe is active tonight. Did Friday attempt to contact her? Thatcher131 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with what I've done here, I invite them to adjust the situation as necessary. Zoe- I apologize for reverting your action. In my defense, I saw what looked to me like a compelling reason to do so. Friday (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have said all I will say on this subject. The next time any of my admin actions is undone without prior discussion, I will revert. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a divisive userbox to me. JDoorjam Talk 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a poorly understood one to me. Perhaps instead of edit-warring over its inclusion or deleting it, we should make it clear that the user performs System Admin functions somewhere, just not here? Say... "This user is a professional System Admin" or "This user works as a Computer Administrator somewhere"? Then: 1. it'd be harder to pass off as a fake "I'm a Wikipedia Admin!" userbox, and 2. those who aren't trying to say they are a Wikipedia Admin don't get penalized for doing so? Zoe works very hard to try to help us out, and Friday's just trying to fix what he sees as a mistaken block. I'm of the opinion that Torinir wasn't trying to misrepresent his status, just trying to show that he is, in fact, a system admin somewhere, which technically is true of almost every person that visits this board. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a word to the userbox that should clarify the whole damned mess. --Carnildo 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy! "System administrator" is a profession, or at least a trade. If someone puts a notice on their user page that says they're a plumber, that doesn't mean they're Wikipedia's plumber. If they say they're a manager, it doesn't mean they're the manager of Wikipedia. As it happens, I'm a system administrator too; I've worked as one for eight years. And while it's stereotypically a thankless job, I've never heard of anyone being harassed like this for calling themselves one ... other than by their own users. :) --FOo 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BAD user box. If I didn't know better I would think that meant they worked on the Wikimedia servers --mboverload@ 04:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if the template is kept or not, but I changed the background color so that it doesn't look like the standard admin template. I don't understand why admins freely go around undoing other admin actions....Zoe has been around long enough to make a sound judgement on such things.--MONGO 05:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've got to agree that it's a bad box, but that's not even the issue. Zoe is reacting to being reverted without prior discussion. That's pretty much the key. It's ok to change what another admin has done, but talk about it at least at the same time, if not beforehand. When Hera struck Tiresias blind for taking Zeus's side in an argument, Zeus thought it was unfair, but he said that even he could not undo the actions of another god. Perhaps we should take the Olympian Solution to go with our German solution. Geogre 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This could have ended better with no face lost if you two would have just talked to eachother. IRC is your friend =D. All admins should be required to use it as far as I'm concerned =P --mboverload@ 13:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So all admins are required to have good net access? Secretlondon 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC is about a basic as it gets. You can run it over a 14.4k modem. --mboverload@ 01:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ban all known members of the IRC cartel! Seriously, I believe wiki business is best done here, and at college I'm firewalled and can't even use IRC - nor do I want to. --kingboyk 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Side issue: I agree that IRC is not preferrable. In fact, it is not Wikipedia. POlicy cannot be formulated there. Consensus cannot be found there. Since we cannot log it and should not, since we cannot review it and should not, since we cannot form whole paragraphs there nor should try, IRC is merely a neat doodad for folks to chat with, but it's not Wikipedia. I'll use it for a short time every so often, but it's an auxillary at best. I think it also does a great deal of...weirdness to Wikipedia, as it has a lensing effect. The vocal and friendly there can have undue influence on project. If it were a choice between making it mandatory or outlawing it, I'd outlaw it, but that's not the choice we have to make, fortunately. Just so long as we recognize that it's a doodad and not a policy forum, we should be ok. Geogre 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this 120%. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see your objection and I feel you misunderstood. Admins should be able to talk to eachother and alert others to developing situations. If these two admins could have just talked on IRC this wouldn't of happened. TALKING, not policy. --mboverload@ 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I only see two possible ways to go: Either the burden should be on the admin taking the action to justify it to the satisfaction of anyone who objects, or the burden should be on the admin who would undo another's action to justify why it has to be undone right now, without prior discussion with the blocking admin. Obviously everyone's actions are subject to review and discussion, and we all act as a check on each other. If Friday and Zoe had talked and agreed, we would not be here. It's not about undoing a block, it's about not talking and listening first. And too, I agree with Geogre above and Geni elsewhere. If someone undoes my block without asking first, I assume they had a good reason to, and I would not re-impose it without talking first. We all need to give the other guy the presumption of competence, acknowledge our own fallibility, and take it slow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Many good points. I agree some discussion is needed, one or the other should have initiated it at some point before things got icky. I am not sure I agree that all admins should HAVE to use IRC though... that may not be a fair requirement. but some lines of communication should be open, somehow... and not just talk pages, sometimes offwiki is the way to go. ++Lar: t/c

Given Zoe's continued defense of this block after someone else told her it was wrong, I fail to see how talking to her could have possibly helped. If I'd talked to Zoe, not convinced her, and still undone her block, she'd have been even more upset by it, right? Anyway, I agree that as a general rule we should not undo each other lightly, and talking it over is good. In this case, I saw that a mistaken block was made, attempts get Zoe to change it had failed, and meanwhile an editor is blocked for no valid reason- so I did what I thought was least harmful to the project- I undid the block. If protecting the fragile egos of other admins is more important than correcting our mistakes, then I'm using an entirely wrong approach here. As is always the case with any use of my admin functions, if someone else disagrees strongly enough to want to undo what I've done, please go ahead and do so. I make no assumption about Zoe's general competence- only only observe she was wrong in this particular case. Anyway, I see discussion of this is already split between AN and AN/I- if anyone thinks this issue needs more input, please open an RFC on my actions here- I waive the traditional "prior effort to resolve" requirement of such things. It might well be useful to the community to try to clarify the central of whether or not it's always automatically wrong to reverse another admin- I strongly feel that it's not automatically wrong, and that it's in fact very helpful for admins to act as a check on each other. Friday (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this type of thing in terms of American civil Law. A judge might not agree with a Jury's decision, but the only way he is allowed to overturn the decision is if he comes to the conclusion that no reasonable person could have come to the verdict that the Jury did. So the verdict might have been unjust, ridiculous, idiotic, but if a reasonable person could have possibly have come to the same conclusion by looking at the same evidence then their verdict must stand. In my opinion, it is possible that a reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that Zoe did. So even though Friday might have have not agreed with his actions, I really do not think he should have undone his them expecially without even talking it over with him first. Friday's reasoning for not doing this also seems somewhat inappropriate. Basically what he implied was that he only would talk to him if he was sure that Zoe would change his mind.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. This is completely inappropriate. Threatening to wheel war is completely out of line.

2. This indicates a failure to AGF.

3. The entire thing is predicated on Zoe's misunderstanding of the user template. I've seen that template elsewhere, and I don't know anyone other than Zoe who misreads it to be 'Wikipedia admin'. I don't know Torinir or Friday from Adam, but this entire situation is ridiculous. Zoe made a mistake (misreading a dumb userbox), Friday made a mistake (not telling Zoe BEFORE he unblocked), and Torinir made a mistake (when he simply restored the template in the face of block threats without seeking external assistance). Of the three parties, Friday and Zoe are the two that are held to the higher standard, and I expect better of both. While I agree with Friday's assertion that right is more important than policy when an injustice has been done, I also feel that Zoe put an honestly good faith effort into using policy to make the project better. The fact that everyone collided and royally fucked everything up is less an indication of bad faith than it is a failure on the part of all parties to effectively work together to figure this thing out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This goes to show why simply reverting a clearly erroneous block should not be considered "wheel warring", just as simply reverting an erroneous edit is not considered "edit warring". The block was clearly predicated on a misreading of a user's claim to work in a particular profession as being a claim to a particular status on Wikipedia. This was a simple factual error, as much as if someone went to the article on George Washington and posted that he was born in 1932 (rather than 1732).

The appropriate response to a flatly erroneous edit is to revert it. Reverting doesn't mean you accuse the editor of being a vandal or a rogue or a nutcase. It just means you recognize that an error occurred and you remove it from the article, because an error makes the article worse. Likewise, the appropriate response to a flatly erroneous block is also to revert it. Doing so doesn't mean that you accuse the blocking admin of being a vandal or a rogue or a nutcase. It doesn't mean they're evil -- it just means they were wrong. Everyone can be wrong, and the Wiki Way is that when we see someone committing errors, we correct them. Editors don't ask permission to change 1932 back to 1732 on George Washington, and admins shouldn't ask permission before reverting an erroneous block. --FOo 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly agree that 'never revert another admin without prior discussion' is as harmful as 'do as thou wilt' I think there need to be two important caveats; First, if you reverse another admin without talking to them first you absolutely have to explain your reasons for doing so to them. It's like using edit summaries when you change someone else's work, but vastly more important given the greater potential disruption. Second, such action should only be taken if you believe that your action would have a clear consensus of support (because the original action violated policy or some such)... in cases where there is widespread disagreement on how to handle something nobody should take an admin action until some sort of consensus is worked out. I get sick of seeing people place blocks or taking other admin actions after other admins have objected to such a course and then saying, 'you cannot revert me... that would be wheel-warring!'. Taking the action in the first place is just as bad as reverting it if you know in advance that there isn't a consensus supporting it. Alot of times proposed 'wheel-warring rules' are formulaic and simplistic... it isn't about sequence of actions, but rather any time when people knowingly act without consensus. It is perfectly possible for two admins to take opposite actions on a situation while both believing they are following consensus (as apparently happened here), but after that it usually becomes obvious that there is a disagreement and needs to be more discussion... especially if they have been communicating properly. --CBD 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism reported on AIV that isn't clear cut

Copying report from WP:AIV:

• Liam alagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After warnings from myself & other users he continues to put in copyright text & deliberately introduces incorrect information. --Feedyourfeet 01:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Malki1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeatedly posting articles about fake shows and networks. --Wafulz 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't simple vandalism, so I'm moving it over here. JoshuaZ 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot too restrictive, stirring up trouble

There has been a lot of discussion (mainly negative feedback) regarding a Wikipedia bot created by user Carnildo named OrphanBot. OrphanBot seeks images that it feels are not licensed, or licensed as "fair use," and pegs them up for deletion. Another bot created by Carnildo, User:FairuseBot operates in a similar manner.

The issue seems to be that the bot is not programmed to be "smart" enough to recognize enough parameters to make wise judgments in pegging an image for deletion. It does not parse the text comments made in justifying fair use, but instead looks at an image in a binary fashion of "acceptable" or "not acceptable". Some users consider it vandalism when OrphanBot removes an image.

Examples: [28] [29]

The system it works under, as listed here [30], is to:

2) removes images with certain tags from the articles using them.

3) notify the presumed uploader of the impending deletion.

This appears to happen with any image that is not in the public domain, such as fair-use company logos [31]

As well, the Bot incorrectly writes warnings to people's talk pages, as noted here: [32]

"(it held me responsible for an image simply because I corrected a spelling in the file months earlier) "

As a side issue, I believe Carnildo's personal responses to negative (and admittedly often scathing) feedback could be worked on, as they sometimes can be biting.

I would appreciate some form of ruling about the operation of this bot.

Statistics: User:OrphanBot#Bot_statistics: As of June 1, 2006, OrphanBot has inspected 63,976 images, removing images from 33,698 articles, 1,266 portals, and 64 categories. The bot has handed out 36,988 warnings to 23,925 users. The bot has been in operation since, at the earliest, late 2005. [33]

-- Guroadrunner 10:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer that images would be deleted without removing them from articles or notifying their uploaders? Eugène van der Pijll 10:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is more about how the bot mishandles or incorrectly identifies images and actively sets up a deletion tag. It does these actions before informing the person who uploaded it to add copyright information (or giving the person some time to correct it before adding the deletion tag). --Guroadrunner 11:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases the info is not added. If you don't want iages deleted you need to make sure they are properly handled.Geni 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mis-identifying the original uploader is a bug, but it may be an unsolvable one, as there is no infallible method to distinguish between a minor correction of an image and a complete replacement. As for giving time to correct the error: images can be deleted 7 days after tagging. It is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to notify *everyone* that the image is going to be deleted, as often the original uploader is no longer here. Removing an image from an article is a very effective way of doing that. If this was left until the 5th or 6th day, there wouldn't be much time left for other people to research the source or license of the image. Eugène van der Pijll 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Some users consider it vandalism when OrphanBot removes an image", as do some when we remove personal attacks. Removal of images which don't meet our requirements is fine, same as if a human did it to if a bot does it. Your first example where someone considers it vandalim show when looked at the image clearly was tagged by a human as having an unknown source (several days earlier) and indeed was deleted by another human a couple of days later for that very reason. Your second example doesn't include anyone claiming it to be vandalism, but it does seem to be a simple case of disputed fair use claim, again same if human or bot doing this. Can't track the example of a warning which seemed to have been misdirected since they don't say which image it was. "This appears to happen with any image that is not in the public domain, such as fair-use company logos" - not sure what your point is here, we need correct information regarding any image.

A can't actually see any problem here except people who upload/use images without the correct tagging seem to get upset that they aren't permitted to do so, OrphanBot does a donkey work task which would only be done manually if not done by the bot. --pgk^(talk) 11:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you're an optimist and wrong. It wouldn't be done manually, leading to ugly red missing image links in articles and angry unnotified uploaders. Eugène van der Pijll 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed: By the image use policy, this bot is merely making sure that people follow the standard procedures for uploading images. Given the scrutiny that bots go through, I suspect this one has been vetted to be perfectly "proper." I don't see the bot as "warning" people in the way a user would warn another for vandalism; it's informing the person that his or her upload is not up to the proper standards, and that he or she should address the matter. It doesn't seem like it's doing anything "incorrect" so much as it happens to annoy people when they can't be bothered to read the instructions. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are correct I was stating a best case scenario, but the point being that the bot only does what needs to be done. --pgk^(talk) 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

<< I don't see the bot as "warning" people in the way a user would warn another for vandalism; it's informing the person that his or her upload is not up to the proper standards, and that he or she should address the matter >>

I should disclose that I haven't had any personal contact with the bot, but would it not be useful for the bot to contact the uploader first and give the uploader time to add copyright information, and then put up the image for deletion if the issue is not fixed? Say, a 14-day span instead of automatically adding it for deletion -- The image is not up for deletion for 7 days after the bot finds it and notifies the user, and then is up for deletion for 7 days, meaning the user has 14 days to fix it.

Right now, it seems the bot first puts it up for deletion and notifies the person who uploaded it as an afterthought.

As well, the bot appears to be contacting the last person to edit the image page, who may or may not be the first person who uploaded it. -- Guroadrunner 11:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

<< In the vast majority of cases the info is not added. If you don't want iages deleted you need to make sure they are properly handled.Geni 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) >>

To address this outside of OrphanBot's actions, is it possible to code Wikipedia to force users to include all copyright information before an upload is accepted by the server? -- Guroadrunner 11:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure your understanding of who it warns is correct, I believe it warns the last person to upload rather than merely comment, which by nature for renaming images may not be the original uploader. I cannot see how you can code Wikipedia to force users to include all the information, how would it know it is correct? We'd just get people filling in any old rubbish to keep the software happy. I would suggest that would actually be worse. The onl y solution to this problem is a human one, people should include accurate information when they upload files, people should only use fair use claims when absolutely necessary, people should attempt to find alternate images to make the use of fair use redundant, people shouldn't get annoyed with a bot which does a vital task in wikipedia attempting to keep it clean of images used without proper permission or justification. --pgk^(talk) 13:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"how you can code Wikipedia to force users to include all the information, how would it know it is correct?" <-- I think the point is that currently Wikipedia does not force people to provide any information when a file is uploaded. If it is required that users provide information on licensing then why is it even possible to upload with the default "None selected"? The answer from pgk seems to be that Wikipedia does this so that it is easy to trap bad-faith contributors into uploading images that can then easily be deleted by a bot. The danger in making wiki interface design decisions so as to deal with users who cause problems is that we end up having an interface that does not best serve the needs of honest contributors. We end up with a file upload system that HAS MUCH SHOUTING rather than a gentle system of guiding contributors through an easy point and click process. --JWSchmidt 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I am saying that is the reason wikipedia does it, I'm saying that is something the interface currently affords us. I am also only focussing on the criticism being levelled at OrphanBot and it's aim (to help with the issue of poor or missing copyright information) rather than the more general issue of mediawiki usability. --pgk^(talk) 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot recently removed from articles about 500 images with fair use claims. If 90% of these were correct removals, that leaves 50 false removals to be fixed. Who is doing the fixing? Furthermore, from interactions I have had with the bot I suspect it does not search the image description page for other relevant tags or fair use texts for specific articles. The shotgun "remove first and ask later" creates more work: after removing yet another deletion tag an image, the article text must be edited too. The coder could have implemented a better net. Gimmetrow 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does the 90% figure come from. In the instance where it makes mistake has the bots owner been shown the mistake such that they can evaluate if a generiic reliable method can be employed to prevent the problem in the future. Is it a mistake a human looking at the same image page would make? I've no doubt the bot makes mistakes but they need to be evaluated in their proper light rather than the abstract. --pgk^(talk) 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that User:Carnildo would be very receptive to practical suggestions for tweaking OrphanBot's behaviour. With thousands of images uploaded every day, brainstorming about other technical solutions, or more refined automation is useful, but we can't pretend that we can do this by hand. Jkelly 20:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the various points raised here:

1. OrphanBot is very conservative about what it tags. For example, it will only tag an image as "no source" if the image has a blank image description page, or an image description page with a copyright tag that requires a source and no other text. In every other case that's been reported to me, it was some other user that tagged the image, and OrphanBot was being blamed simply because it notified the uploader.
2. OrphanBot does its best to figure out who to notify about an image, but it cannot, for example, tell the difference between someone uploading a crop of an image, and someone uploading a new, smaller image. It will ignore reverting of vandalism uploads, and it can detect some types of minor adjustments to images, but when in doubt, it notifies the most recent uploader because that person has had some contribution to the selection of the currently-displayed image, while there's no certaintly that anyone else in the upload list has.
3. As another point to your statistics, during that same time period, approximately 63,000 images were deleted as lacking source or license information.
4. Yes, OrphanBot will tag an image for lack of source, lack of license tag, or lack of rationale before it notifies the user. Typically, it will notify the user about fifteen seconds later, but if Wikipedia is running slow, this could stretch up to several minutes.
5. I've been adjusting the delay between when an image is tagged and when it is removed from articles back and forth depending on the complaints I get. Right now, it removes the image after it's been tagged for three days, which seems to result in the fewest complaints.
6. I see no benefit to increasing the time limit beyond one week. Of the 24,000 users that OrphanBot notified between December 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006, in only three cases did the uploader offer to provide proper source and license information more than a week after the image was tagged.
7. If that "500 images with fair use claims" you're referring to is WP:AN#Stamps wrongly claimed as Fair use: serious copyright problem, that was a special request by an administrator to remove every image in the category so that the few good images could be put back. OrphanBot was used here only because it's faster and less boring for a bot to do the job.

--Carnildo 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02: if the people who are complaining want to take on the burden of reviewing the tens of thousands of images which have dubious copyright status, opr to write a better bot, they can volunteer any time they like. Right now, OrphanBot is the best we have, and most of the time - nearly all the time - the tags and deletions are right on the money. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, there are multiple issues here. First, I could most certainly improve the coding, however I have so far had zero success getting an admin/dev to even acknowledge the existence of code I have already developed for wiki, so I have no idea how to go about it. Nevertheless, whether I could do the programming or not is irrelevent to whether Orphanbot could be better. Some things are obvious and do not take complicated logic. Blank description = no source. Other things could use a little bit more logic. Should an image with {{no license}} be removed from articles? What if it also has PD and FU tags of various flavors? Does the bot look for that? Should it?

On the stamp issue (which is after all what I'm talking about), it seems like it wouldn't have been hard to look for a fair use rationale on the description page. In my experience, only a tiny percent of fair use images have any rationale given. If I had written the program I would have looked for things like that and left them in the category for later human review. If my program could not do that, I would have said so. JKelly has apparently fixed 14 stamp images and found another "dozen" that other editors had fixed already. Gimmetrow 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag your images properly. TaDa! Problem solved, yay. --mboverload@ 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but as far as I know it was tagged correctly as a fair use stamp image. Gimmetrow 01:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CTYI

Demiurge has constantly removed a section from the CTYI article. I need someone to protect the page or give a warning to Demiurge. If there are any former CTY or CTYI administrators out there please help.

Shanequinlan01

• No, I don't think so. It's a content dispute; attempt to seek consensus on the talk page. No administrative action is warranted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Warnings

• In the tradition of the VaughanWatch Socks, JohnnyCanuck has once again put a nonsense warning where he once again accuses me of vandalism (again without any proof) on my talk page. Could an admin please remove it? -- pm_shef 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, thank you. -- pm_shef 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• He's re-added it, if someone can please take it down, and warn him to stop, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks -- pm_shef 19:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See #JohnnyCanuck section below. I am seeking for the user to be permabanned. -- JamesTeterenko 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown

Anyone want to explain why none of the accounts under "Original names" (EBlack, D.Right, and Agiantman) have never been blocked? That's kind of concerning... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Arbiteroftruth

Arbiteroftruth posted a nasty little message on User:Incorrect's userpage. Don't give me a stupid lecture on this being a "content dispute." This isnt anything close to a content dispute. For once, actually do something. Tchadienne 16:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Gee, pre-emptive nastiness and defensiveness is a weird way to get something done, especially when you're making an entirely reasonable request. Anyway, I've killed the page and politely suggested Arbiteroftruth not do that. (The "nasty little message" was "Note to all users: This user has been known for controversial, non-NPOV edits on matters relating to United States and Israel. Please review all edits made by this user carefully, and revert anything non-NPOV on sight.") --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Request unblock

210.0.201.213 is the IP that I frequently use. I request to unblock this IP or change the unblock to anonymous users only.--Hello World! 17:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the block log, it appears to be an open proxy, the likes of which are blocked. Sorry. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User Darwinek deleting without explanation and deleting discussion from talk page

Please see the discussion here

Summary:

• user 24.220.246.20 added allegedly POV statement to Barbara Boxer 4 times on 2 Aug, and placed an inquiry on Talk:Barbara_Boxer asking why it was POV
• Darwinek reverted it 3 times, without explaining why, and subsequently deleted the discussion from Talk:Barbara_Boxer
• We moved the discussion to User_talk:Darwinek, and he proceeded to delete it from there, again without answering the question, or explaining why he deleted from the talk page.

Let me know if you want me to restore the deleted talk sections, or help in any other way. JimmB 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with Darwinek? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have tried THREE TIMES to leave rational, civil messages and he has deleted them from TALK pages THREE TIMES, twice on Talk:Barbara_Boxer and once on User_talk:Darwinek. I have reverted the deletion from HIS talk page and asked again for a response, and I have warned him about deleting from talk pages. Would you please check in there, Zoe. JimmB 00:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

I'm being harassed by several users, which is nothing new. So far today, an admin actually did something in response to a complaint I posted (against User:Arbiteroftruth who was posting personal attacks on several users' pages), which is more than I can say for any admin I have ever encountered on Wikipedia.

Now, I once again ask the admins of Wikipedia, to do something. User:JzG, who somehow got elected to adminship, continues to threaten to indefinitely block me and says he will protect my talkpage if I continue to revert supposed "warnings" against my "vandalism." I have already proven, at length on User talk:Daduzi, that I am right, and others are wrong. JzG continues to engage in personal attacks against User:Incorrect, vandalizes The Guardian, and vandalizes my talkpage. Block him and warn him about wikistalking. Tchadienne 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

JzG appears to be doing the best he can toward the goal of trying to get you to cease your blatant assumptions of bad faith and breaches of civility. I cannot say I envy him the job. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tchadienne, can some admin please do something? On Talk:The Guardian, there has been made a clear threat to edit war, and to game the system w.r.t. 3RR. As for the rest, it is a content dispute; bring it to WP:RFC if you must; not here. Content disputes should not be solved with admin powers. Eugène van der Pijll 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a great deal about the specifics of this incident, but just from your tone it's not difficult to see why users aren't rushing to assist you. In two short paragrahps, you've managed to accuse others of vandalizing articles and making personal attacks, insisted that you've proven yourself to be correct, insulted all Wikipedia admins (singling out JzG) as well as demanding that JzG be blocked. Have you considered that perhaps a less aggressive tone would lead to better results? Aren't I Obscure? 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne is intent on inserting a criticism section into The Guardian based on the "fact" that an article castigating Mel Gibson for a drunken outburst is somehow antisemitism. Or something. His failure to persuade others of the merits of his case (essentially the result of a mixture of WP:OR and failure to cite any reliable sources) led him to edit war over an NPOV tag; per policy it's pretty clear that failure to persuade others of the merit of your case is not grounds for tagging an article. I have just blocked Tchadienne for 24h for removing {{wr}} from his talkpage, which is blatant WP:POINT. Our interaction thus far is brief enough that an assertion of harrassment is risible. I fear that what we have hear is a Bearer of Truth^TM with all the problems that usually entails. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A Jeanne d’Arc, actually. Anyway, User:Tchadienne doesn’t like not being able to edit, check out 4.249.3.40 (talk · contribs). —xyzzy_n 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if you thought that removing {{wr}} was blatant, try this edit summary: [34] Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the preventive value of a 24h block, see also the user’s old accounts: [35], [36]. The user is not just a troll—there are many good edits—, but occasionally somewhat lacking in the area of WP:CIVIL and liable to misinterpret WP:V. HTH. —xyzzy_n 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - this bears all the hallmarks of a frustrated bearer of The Truth^TM; as usual when the reliable sources fail to back The Truth^TM the only possible solution is to use the sources we have and explain how they are reliable, honest they are, even if they are blogs. It's not so much that he doesn't take kindly to threats, it's that he doesn't take kindly to being thwarted, and apparently interprets anything that prevents him geting his way as a threat, thus alowing him (in his eyes) to ignore it. This busines sof The Guardian being antisemitic because it had a Jerusalem correspondent who was critical of the Israeli Government is pretty typical stuff; without wanting to venture into political debate I think it's not exactly a secret that some people accuse anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel of being antisemitic rather than anti-Israeli Government, because antisemitism has such uniquely atrocious connotations. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Its no secret that anyone saying "without getting into anything political" is about to get into something political. Although in your case it was wrong and inappropriate to bring it up here as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did that come from? A tendentious editor has accused a long-established British newspaper of anti-semitism, despite its history of support for the existence of the state of Israel, because it had the temerity to publish reports critical of the Israeli government. No reliable sources have been presented to back the assertion that this paper is anti-semitic. The anti-semitism in question appears to be entirely restricted to the portrayal of comtemporary Israeli government policy. A barrow is being pushed, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I really have no desire to get invovled with this dispute. However, I found the above statement- "I think it's not exactly a secret that some people accuse anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel of being antisemitic" was inappropriate to bring up here. Since it very much relates to divisive and emotive issues. Your comment was needlessly inflammatory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't inflammatory until you actually inflamed it -- providing, unintentionally, I'm sure, evidence by example for JzG's statement. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt is back

FYI, Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back. See Canucksfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the various other sockpuppets. For those not familiar with him, see: the previous discussion about him. -- JamesTeterenko 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note he now seems to be creating multiple socks to attack James, e.g. [37] [38] --pgk^(talk) 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I have two puppeteers attacking me today. It's actually getting a little tricky to tell the difference between the two of them. -- JamesTeterenko 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Both seems to be blocked. Pgk, those two links went to the same account - is there another? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, there are 11 Pnatt socks today. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pnatt. They are all indefinitely blocked. They are all really obvious and easy to block, so it isn't that big of an issue. -- JamesTeterenko 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clueful halp needed

Acadamenorth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to stay blocked due to disruption, harrassment and general trolling, but the autoblock is causing issues (see [39]. I tried a 1-second block of Jack O'Lantern, should that do it? Just zis Guy you know? 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyCanuck

I am seeking consensus for a permaban on JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been deemed a likely sockpuppet of VaughanWatch with a RCU. His recent edits are primarily engage in edit wars, putting false vandalism tags on user pages, claiming that it has been proven that his is not a sock, without any evidence. I did ask for the evidence, twice. When "his" article was nominated for deletion one confirmed and another obvious sock came out to vote keep along with him. Since I am now involved in this dispute, I would like the opinions of other admins before I block indefinitely. -- JamesTeterenko 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is looking into his history to see if he has been adequately warned, this version of his talk page was blanked in early July. It has a few more warnings than is currently on his page. -- JamesTeterenko 22:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about impersonation

I noticed that User:Kmaguir1 has a picture of Jimbo Wales on his userpage, and has placed his own name (Kevin Maguire) just above the picture, within the caption. This is certainly misleading. Is this considered impersonation?--Anthony Krupp 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See [40]. Help the bombardier… —xyzzy_n 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch

Please see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/VaughanWatch and update it as you see fit. --TheM62Manchester 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded this to quickly describe the basic issue. -- JamesTeterenko 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Defamation and Harassment

• In the past ten minutes, two users, User:Scoties and User:Mblitray have popped up and blanked pages which I have edited, replacing them with two obscenely offensive and defamatory statements which can be seen at Scoties and Mblitray respectively. Scoties has already been indef blocked, but clearly this is a pattern, one that doesn't seem to be stopping. Is there anything that can be done? This is frankly getting rediculous, insulting and to be honest, scary. -- pm_shef 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Take this to Requests for CheckUser to see if these accounts all belong to the same individual (or party). Editor88 22:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Moped (talk · contribs) admits putting up an artifle for AfD just because another was removed

he admits that he put the article up for deletion because he felt the removal of the SC5 article was "unfair". As its quite obvious this article is verified and going to be kept at this point should we close it down, and should someone have a chat with him to explain the finer points of why this type of behaviour is unacceptable?--Crossmr 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Make him read WP:POINT while you're at it. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He's also made his feelings known about wikipedia as a whole with this edit. Looks to me like he needs some cooling down time.--Crossmr 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cruxtaposition is a sockpuppet of banned user User:Zen-master

Cruxtaposition (talk · contribs · count) is clearly a sockpuppet of ArbCom banned user Zen-master (talk · contribs · count), who the day before yesterday used the sockpuppet Pristine Clarity (talk · contribs · count),[41] and less recently the sockpuppet Hollow are the Ori (talk · contribs · count) to avoid the ban. The user shows the identical behavior patterns, hasn't denied being Zen-master, and raises the same conspiracy theories as before:

• Cruxtaposition: "this article completely obfuscates the citable allegation that "race and intelligence" research is racist propaganda fabricated to have the appearance of science."[42]
• Pristine Clarity: "this article (and area of "research") is so vastly non scientific and utilizes a minefield of propaganda-esque suggestive language it's staggering."[43]

--Nectar 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting and process taken way too far

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll: admins deciding content, rigid schedule, etc. Please kill. --SPUI (T - C) 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How then do you propose to end the conflict? Expect everyone to give in to your opinion? And this discussion should go to the talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I looked so far, I tend to agree, this page is going to far with the rigid voting, but there is nothing wrong about admins deciding content since it happens a lot. I suggest all editors change it to where it is not on a time table, since we do not need a watch to tell us when we are done with an issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well this is so that we don't have people ending the vote too early when it is in their favor. And it says at the top that the timetable is not set in stone... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can state when the polling begins, but the rigid schedule that you have right now, it needs to be removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If the schedule needs to be adjusted, it can be adjusted, but I believe it needs to stay for the reasons above. If many object it will be loosened, but so far there's only been a few objections. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

user:Parisderry800

i've blocked Parisderry800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely, despite a lack of warnings. looks like a possible wow sock or something; lots of page moves and other blatant vandalism. so i figured i'd give it a mention here. thoughts?--heah 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

and also Space_Ghost_900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); i've just blocked him indefinitely as well, after two previous blocks. --heah 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, obviously. I took him for a clueless newbie at first, hence my own 24 hour block of the Space Ghost account, but if he's indulging in sockpuppetry, then he doesn't get any leeway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:WILLIAM DAKOTA

WILLIAM DAKOTA (talk · contribs) keeps posting long, disjointed narratives into the Nick Adams article (which has a long history of contentious editing). He claims to be Adams's former personal secretary, and claims to be inserting material from his own personal copyrighted manuscript. He keeps inserting his name and the copyright claim in the article, and he has been cautioned about this before, but he insists that he has the right to copyright his material. He also added the information, with the copyright claim, to the Talk page. I have removed it twice now. He's threatening to remove anything I add. If he does, I'll be blocking him. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

GoOdCoNtEnT (talk · contribs)

This user has made several questionable edits. First, after opposing to a featured article nom for being "too short and containing not enough info", this user then altered the featured article nom link twice: [44] and [45]. I warned the user on his/her userpage, which the user then removed ([46] and one more time, which I responded with [47]). The user then again ignored the inquery and removed both comments ([48]). I responded with [49]. Now, I'm willing to suspect that this user is just a confused newcomer making what appears to be somewaht good faith edits, and this seems to be supported by [50] and [51] — confusing edits. What do you guys think? This user's motives elude me to a degree. — Deckiller 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

repeated removal of short article addition

I have tried twice to add the following paragraph the Wikipedia article entitiled "Hezbollah" but it has disappeared twice. I have placed the paragraph as a last addition in the section labeled "Rebuttals to terrorist designation" without deleting already present text. Clearly, the article is unusually long and I don't know if my addition gets automatically deleted or someone is vandalizing my relevant and well-documented addition.

MY LAST DISAPPEARING ADDITON:

'Any discussion using the word “terrorist” would be remiss if it were not acknowledged that any dictionary definition of the word could also be applied to actions of the United States, Israel, and other Western powers that routinely dismiss the label. A decades long debate over the definition of “terrorism” continues to rage at the United Nations. Speaking on the July 28, 2006 broadcast of Democracy Now! former Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, Richard Beck, revealed, “[T]hey asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.” Referring to Nicaragua’s case against the United States that resulted in America’s withdrawal from the International Court of Justice, Noam Chomsky has often pointed out that the only country in history to be found guilty of terrorism by a world court is the United States.'