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

Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

Hello I believe that this user New York from Flavor of Love may be this indefinatly blocked user Cute 1 4 u. Check this dif [1] and talk page Leroyencyclopediabrown for the possible proof. If I'm wrong on this I appolize in advance but Cute 1 4 u does have a history of sock puppet and ban evasion. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition I once I commented on that user being suspicious the comments that were made by New York from Flavor of Love were removed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this looks somewhat similar (Cute 1 4 u did once create an account impersonating Raven Symone). I'd file a RFCU. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, thanks I will should I post the findings here or will not not be needed? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Any findings in the RFCU should probably be posted here unless it comes back positive and she's indef-blocked right then and there. But it looks somewhat definitive, looking at the user's edit history. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coredesat. I caught one of hers last week and the writing style is VERY similar to here other socks. I will post the finding once they come in. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The account *could* be blocked per WP:USERNAME I think... "New York" was in fact the nickname given to a real contestant on the first season of Flavor of Love (generally only the nicknames were used on the show) and thus this name more-or-less falls afoul of the "Names of well-known living people" clause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the userpage and what BoG said, I decided to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it absurd how much people-power is being thrown at stopping an alleged 11 year old female sockpuppeteer from "abusing" Wikipedia as a social network? --  Netsnipe  ►  04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it from your use of quotation marks that you disagree with the characterization of social networking as an abuse of Wikipedia? Choess 06:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on this diff and the message the most current IP placed on Leroy's talk page, it's definitely her. She thinks she can hide stuff by deleting it. Ryūlóng 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just call me Ed.=) I apologize to everyone who has been trying to contact me overnight. I (obviously) was sleeping. Anyway, I think that Cute 1 4 u should be given one more chance. Two reasons for this. First of all, she doesn't have to keep making new accounts just to prove her point. Second, it removes the hassle of blocking EVERY SINGLE account she makes. We all know she's going to make more and more accounts.--Ed^{talk c E} 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, she was blocked for Sockpuppet abuse, impersation, Vandalism and the 11 year old part was just added ammo to the case. And the Check user came up possitive. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New York from Flavor of Love and 75.34.176.105 have both been blocked indef as sockpuppets, although I thought that IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Was there an exception made? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that she's going to make a new account anyway! What's the point for all of this hassle? This is a complete waste of our time! If we just give her a second chance on Wikipedia, less time for us working on her case, and one more volunteer Wikipedian.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u welcomed Starcare, who is likely a puppet of Publicola, who is likely a puppet of Pepsidrinka. Hard punt. Lots of socks involved here.--Scribner 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You see? The situation's getting worse. The only solution is to back off or get more admin power.--Ed^{talk c E} 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scribner obviously has something against Pepsidrinka, so I'm taking his comments with more than a pinch of salt. – Chacor 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too much of a stretch. Ed, sorry, but Cute 1 4 u has just done too much. Yeah, she'll keep coming back, and she'll continue to contact you, and we'll continue to deal with her. If she realizes that she's not helping, then we'll stop blocking, but as long as she continues to contact you and admit that she's who she is, then we have to block her. Ryūlóng 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, I'm not the only one she might want to contact. Do you even realize that she could be lurking around Wikipedia right this moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

75.34.12.156 is another one. Posted on my talk page Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this IP you found, but I think we should wait until she does something else before we take action against this IP.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was blocked it was her (The post admited it) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How long is the block? --Ed^{talk c E} 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Possible one Prple space mnky@hotmail.com edited with the summary Got to keep it real on edit summary (Dif [2]) a phrase that she used many many times as her qoute. Caught this one while monitoring recent changes Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Cute 1 4 u. If I had any socks, I'd admit them. I already told you all of them. But Ed is right, I'm trying to prove my point. --75.33.230.133 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Prple space mnky@hotmail.com , User:Starcare, or User:Publicola. I swear, I don't even know them. However, to prove my point, all i can say is that i have a new account and I am much nicer on that account. Ed is right. --75.33.230.133 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have found another sock and I requested a check user (Came up again on Recent changes, edits article that were created by other socks with teh same grammer an such) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More or less confrimed the sockpuppet. Autoblock got it (See TV Lover) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Cute 1 4 u (or whatever) is going to get me a headache. I tried asking her why she's doing this on her talk page, but she said she's "going to commit 'suiside' ," or something. I don't know... I know this may sound stupid, but can't we block her IP address, so she stops creating these annoying sockpuppets? Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She's on a dynamic IP, SBC, I believe (according to the WHOIS reports). There's not much we can do but keep blocking her new accounts. She's not committing suiside any time soon. Ryūlóng 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify your statement? "Committing suicide"? Is it literal or figurative? --physicq210 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Prob Figurative she is 11 years old and has a history of being overly dramatic. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She'll be back tomorrow, probably recreating that article of hers. Ryūlóng 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any way to protect the page from being created, say, creating a blank article then fully protecting it? Shadow1 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the article she keeps creating? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation is getting nowhere. In fact, it's getting worse. She will keep making new accounts, and you know that. We must find a permanent solution to this.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The soulition is simple keep blocking her. We can't block her IP with out cuasing other issues. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted SBC about this user? Letting them know that the misbehavior of one 11-year-old kid might lead to Wikipedia blocking their entire DHCP range could be an incentive for them to listen. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must tell you something. I live in the same area as Cute 1 4 u (not the same suburban area, we don't live close together or anything, we both in Metropolitan Chicago, which is in the United States). Anyway, SBC changed to AT&T in Chicago. AT&T bought SBC, so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get my facts straight. Take a look at SBC Communications, which says that SBC was the one who bought AT&T. They then changed their name. --Ed^{talk c E} 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm am not misbehaving. I had stress but it has gone away. Not creating any more accounts. If I have to come back when I'm 13, I guess i'll create another account then. Say what you want. Don't contact me llywrch, I don't know you. --75.34.176.207 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With that begin said I may have found yet one more sockpuppet of Her. I have requested another check user. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another day, another sockpuppet, eh? What's the newest sockpuppet called now? Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But Crystal (that's her real name, so everyone would know) already said she's not creating any socks.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't beleive her. Check my talk page for the latest. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not. That other sock was before i made my earlier statement. --75.33.249.5 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

on Aeon's page I met to say I wouldn't make anoter sock p. --75.34.185.51 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked Cute 1 4 u's block log, and I am very surprised that we banned a user for being a certain age. Either I'm misreading the block reason, or we have just banned an account because she was 11 yrs. old. I don't think this is right. If Cute 1 4 u was blocked because of many other reasons such as vandalism, then that should appear on the block log.

In addition, I'm beginning to question her block reasons. The sockpuppettering is already proven. (with all of the accounts that came up here on ANI. But vandalism??? Where's the vandalism here??? I think we should recover the supposed vandalism in question.--Ed^{talk c E} 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is enough to get her unblocked? If you think about it, the sockpuppeteering started just because she was blocked for being a certain age, the link to her block log is above. And there really wasn't any proof she was going to vandalise Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

Well, the admission to being part of S-man's "vandalism project" on top of all of the other things that she did (sockpuppetry, MySpace treatment, personal attacks, civility, etc.) all led to her block. If she just sits it out and/or stops making evident that she is who she is, then we won't have to bother her about it. But the fact that its now starting to bother you and other users is beyond anything. Ryūlóng 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actally I just stopped that. And Ed's right. Why am I blocked for being 11? I can't change my age untill years past. He did the vandalism. I though about and said yeah but after that i was gonna sasy no but I was blocked. Now you think about it. Are you really being fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

Then why does the edit summary state her age as the main problem? I suggest that the blocking admin unblock her and provide a better block summary. And in addition, where's the proof that she was vandalising with S-man? I don't see any proof anywhere.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant block summary. =) --Ed^{talk c E} 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She has made some descent edits. I think we should re-enable her account if nothing else after a short break period of maybe a month or so. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. --Mattwj2002 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so, too. What I'm thinking is that we get her account unblocked and put her on a monthlong probation. During the probation period, we will be watching all of her contribs and things like that. If she does something questionable, we block her with no questions asked.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially believed that this user deserved another chance. The behaviour since the block was placed between this user and the numerous sockpuppets, some of which were created after the block, has shown to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this user has no intention of becoming a good editor and has no compunction against blatantly flaunting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. While this is clearly an opinion, I am firmly against unblocking this user's account. If the user cannot even be trusted to behave while a block is in effect, what possible reason do we have for believing the user will act properly if unblocked? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me fifty times and I'm a moron. --Yamla 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Please rephrase your last 3 sentences. They don't make sense. =) Anyway, why do you think that Cute 1 4 u has been sockpuppeteering? Maybe the block would have affected it. Even then, putting her on probation shoud do the trick.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

She was being a sockpuppeteer long before her indefinite block. User:Raven Symone, User:Skittles Lover, and others that have been proven at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u, one of which was long before the block was imposed. I would not feel it wrong if Yamla decided to change the block summary to something else; something that just doesn't show that she was blocked on the reason of her age, but that along with the many other reasons I have mentioned above. Ryūlóng 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is becoming corrupt:

• Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being a certain age, as stated in her block summary. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is in the block summary is the basis of her block.
• She wasn't going to vandalise Wikipedia. She planned to vandalise the sister projects, but not Wikipedia. There's a difference. The admins at the appropriate sister projects should have been notified.
• We're making wild assumtions that Cute 1 4 u keeps making sockpuppets. I know that she admitted to some of the socks, but what if the accounts were controlled by her siblings or relatives or something? At her original userpage, Cute 1 4 u established that she had siblings (I think).--Ed^{talk c E} 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • She said she wasn't going to vandalise wikipedia. She's already shown a willingness to ignore our rules by creating socks. There are no wild assumptions when she's admitted to some of the sockpuppets. If one of those accounts really was a family member, that is unfortunate, but really too bad. Sometimes someone does something that ruins it for everyone. If the family is really that bent out of shape over it, they'll have to take it up with her. Maybe she'll learn something.--Crossmr 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All I'm just saying is that we're just coming to conclusions about these sockpuppets. We're blocking accounts for sharing the same IP with a banned user. For instance, what if she's using a school IP? There are multiple users that might be coming from the same school. And what about the wifi connections that people use now? Wouldn't multiple users be using the same wifi connection?--Ed^{talk c E} 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Family members getting blocked because of one bad apple? What a ridiculous notion! --Ryūlóng 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, we're not blocking new accounts for sharing the same IP. We're blocking new accounts because Cute 1 4 u comes out and says she's evaded her block, again, on some ridiculously named new account or one of us finds out through seeing suspicious edits and she hasn't admitted to it yet, and that pushes us to add an nth RFCU request on her. Ryūlóng 07:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm back. User:Shakim67 is not my family member and my family is not out of shape or whatever you wanna say. My point of createing sockpuppets is to show you my good edits. And i admit, I can be one evil bitch [3] (if that's what ya wanna say), but I can also be a best friends and very nice.i don;t care what you need to say to me. Any way, i was planning to vandalize other wiki products, but decided not. I was gonna tell S-man i changed my mind but I was then already blocked. so thats my side of the story. --75.34.188.39 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should try and view your side of the story and review this situation in an unbiased manner!!!--Ed^{talk c E} 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating sockpuppets to show your good edits is calling disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is bad, mkay? Ryūlóng 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SORRY, MY KEYBOARD'S GETTING STUCK ON THE CAPS LOCK KEY. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rescinding that last comment, as you appear to be lying a bit. Ryūlóng 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i didn't say shakim was my sockpuppet. He's a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs) .

That's not what your sockpuppetry comes from. It's from User:Christy06, User:New York from Flavor of Love, and whoever else you made. Those sockpuppets were used to solely evade your block and continue editting, and now, you just edit anonymously, bring attention to yourself, and impose another block on your IP for the day. Ryūlóng 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've hit the mark, Ryūlóng... she wants attention! •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want attention. I just wanna go back to wikipedia. (The 1st block) I wanna know why am i blocked for being 11? --75.31.247.39 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continued blatant abuse of Wikipedia (continuing to bypass blocks and continuing to create abusive sockpuppets) shows quite clearly why you should be blocked. At this point, I'm in favour of instantly banning any sockpuppets on site and providing long-term blocks of any IP address used by this user. Continuing to edit the Wikipedia while blocked is abusive behaviour. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, we should consider additional steps to prevent the continued abuse from this user. I'm not sure what else can be done, though. Perhaps a block of the entire IP range, though that has a high possibility of hitting innocent third parties (in which case, it is clearly inappropriate). Perhaps contacting the ISP and having them terminate the abusive user (though I'm not sure if this is kosher). --Yamla 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Range blocking this user will result in a DoS of what may be all SBC customers in the Chicago area, and taking legal actions against an 11 year old doesn't sound too easy. Ryūlóng 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Placing a range block hinders the editing of numerous editors from Chicago. WE NEED ANOTHER SOLUTION.--Ed^{talk c E} 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're all in luck guys. There was a tornado warning in effect yesterday in the Chicago area. No, there was no major damage to Chicago (I think), but the Internet connections have been cut off. In fact, I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia until right now until my Internet came back. (I live in the Chicago suburbs). So...just sit back, and relax. --Ed^{talk c E} 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To get through to you, a bit, Ed, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS CONVERSATION, AMIRITE? We are trying to figure out a way to deal with Cute 1 4 u, which may just end up getting her (and by proxy her parents') internet subscription cancelled for a period of time, and this would force her parents to input parental controls so that she cannot utilize Wikipedia, but this would have to be done at some point through legal actions, and I don't think Brad or any of the other Wikimedia legal reps wants to have to sue an 11 year old girl. Ryūlóng 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, although I believe Cute 1 4 u's abuse has gone way out of hand, I don't think it is realistic to seriously consider suing her. There's virtually no potential upside as far as I can see, and substantial downsides. Plus WP:LEGAL. Also, blocking all of Chicago isn't a good plan because it would affect editors like Ed, though if we could find a way to do so without affecting other users, I would strongly advise that action. I wonder how difficult it would be to contact the ISP and report the long-term deliberate abuse, and whether it would result in any change. Apart from that, the only other option I see is permanent bans on the sockpuppets and long-term blocks on any IP address used by this long-term vandal. Perhaps IP blocks of a month at a time, until and unless we block a legitimate editor accidentally (not just another abusive sockpuppet). --Yamla 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, legal suit was just the only thing I could think of (I'm a marine biologist/chemist/geologist/anthropologist, not a lawyer :P). The best we can do is just what Yamla has suggested. Indefblock registered users that are proven after either edits, an RFCU, or an autoblock, and long-term block IP addresses that she claims to use, which may sadly end up blocking the Chicago area's SBC users. Ryūlóng 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting, with edit conflict)Blocking Cute 1 4 u's IP range will affect all SBC users. In addition, SBC has better things to worry about than our problems with one of their clients. For example, almost all of their Chicago customers are cut off from the internet because of the tornado last night. With that in mind, SBC would consider Wikipedia one of their least problems--Ed^{talk c E} 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the time passes, we will have to send an abuse complaint to SBC concerning Cute 1 4 u's actions in the various Wikimedia projects. Rangeblocking is certainly out of the question, for now, but IP blocks will help (even though it appears that a new IP edits every day). Ryūlóng 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I placed the banned user template on Cute 1 4 userpage, legal action for this is silly in my opinion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  So now we just treat any edits as revertable, even if they pop-up here? Ryūlóng 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, revert and block Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, then. Looks like I'm going to have to frequent AIV more. Ryūlóng 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Are we going to notify SBC or deal with the situation ourselves.?--Ed^{talk c E} 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Cute 1 4 u will be making more socks. In fact, she might have a sockpuppet going around Wikipedia right now! Do we have a category page where we can just put all of her socks? That way, we can look through all of them and try to predict what her next sockpuppet would be.--Ed^{talk c E} 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any socks at the present time. I would have made a new account. But i'm interested in real life. :P Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

I think an indefinite block was a little much. I think if you give this user another chance she will be more careful in her actions on Wikipedia. Jecowa 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this based on? Her continuing stream of abusive edits since the initial block? The large number of abusive socks she continues creating? An editor who continues blatantly and deliberately abusing the Wikipedia and lying about her actions while a block is in place is not, in my opinion, someone proving themselves likely to "be more careful in her actions" in the future. --Yamla 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not being optimistic here. First of all, haven't you ever considered the fact that Cute 1 4 u made many USEFUL edits? In addition, she may have become angry, stressed, and upset after learning that she was being banned for a certain age. Even if her block reason was changed, she might have thought she was being blocked for being 11. In fact, review User talk:Cute 1 4 u and see the original reasons for blocking her.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have found yet one more (User:Sweet Pinkette) and I fully support an indef ban Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 13:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I checked the dialogue you 2 had, and you didn't provide a link to Cute 1 4 u's userpage. So how did she know anything about that? On the other hand, she as been editing since June 24, a date before Cute 1 4 u established socks.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple.--Bonafide.hustla 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's Fred Bauder?--Ed^{talk c E} 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder is an admin and arbitrator.--Bonafide.hustla 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anymore. I already revealed them all. Just, I don't know, block me. This will probably be my last comment here. I already said my sorry but someone deleted it. If I do come back, it probably be when I'm 13, maybe... --Cute 1 4 u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.0.106 (talk • contribs)

Well that's just depressing.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment is enough to warrant an unblock. She has apologized already. Go back to those days when you were in Kindergarten. Didn't the teacher always forgive you if you say sorry? Same situation here. In Wikipedia, Cute 1 4 u is a fairly young editor who doesn't know any better. She is at an age when they like to be licentious.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This too-forgiving attitude is a reason why there are so many irresponsible idiots around despite forced universal education. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better than the unmerciful nuns who would slap your hands with a ruler--Ed^{talk c E} 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is biased in this situation now. Ed, Crystal has attached herself to you and you are starting to feel sorry for her, even when she broke way too many of Wikipedia's rules, and she has now become banned. We all have to get on with our lives now. Ryūlóng 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to point out that Crystal is not even allow to edit here with her IP on the ground that she is indefinitely banned. The only place she is allow to communicate is her personal talkpage. Editing with her IP in order to gain sympathy and support is another violation of her indef. block. Another issue is that we have no way of knowing her real age, I remembered a thread from Fred Bauder back in early August saying Crystal claimed to be 15 on myspace and 13 on blackplanet. Age is irrevelevant in this issue. I highly doubt her "contributions" to the project will be missed.--Bonafide.hustla 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like she should have the right to defend herself in this discussion concerning her. Also she cannot edit her personal talk page because it has been protected. She apologizes many times. She is interested in continuing as a wikipedian here. A vandal would have just forget the discussion and make new accounts to vandalize with. She really wants to be here. She has already served a month of "ban" for her policy violations. Could you please let her come back? --Jecowa 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what a vandal would do and that's what she has done, over and over and over again. If she had served one month without vandalising, I'd be willing to support her coming back. But how many sockpuppets has she created in that time? How many edits has she performed? These numbers are so far above zero that I'm not sure it is fair to categorise the past month as "served". --Yamla 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I have unprotected the banned user's talk page. It was protected by another admin and was done so because the banned user was blatantly vandalising the talk page itself. I'm hoping that Cute 1 4 u has learned enough to refrain from vandalising that page any further, though given the large amount of abuse over the past month, my hopes aren't that high. --Yamla 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with User:Bonafide.hustla:

"I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple."

As it says here, there is no way to prove that Cute 1 4 u is eleven! For all we know, she might be the world's oldest woman (or man, but let's not go there)! And if we do unblock Cute 1 4 u, other people will do the exact same thing! This is apparently the downside of having Wikipedia articles so popular on search engine lists on the top of search engine; random, WikiDestructive people that want to take advantage of Wikipedia join, and then vandalize just because they think it's cool that they can change a web site article that many people will see! And excuse me, Cute 1 4 u, if you really do want attention, you're getting it. •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 02:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I will be merging all of Cute 1 4 u's sockpuppet talk pages and redirecting all of them into User talk:Cute 1 4 u. That way, all messages intended for Cute 1 4 u may be sent there, and she may respond on her own talk page without having to form any other sock. This procedure will remove any reason for Cute 1 4 u to make another sock.--Ed^{talk c E} 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I already merged all of the pages except for User talk:TV Lover. It's a protected page. Anyway, I haven't noticed any activity with Cute 1 4 u. I'm beginning to think she finally was able to evade her ban and evade the admins.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's frankly something much worse. Ryūlóng 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well let me make myself clear. I haven't made a sockpuppet before, and I don't intend to. But if I wanted to make one, I would:

1. First create a sockpuppet with no hint of relationship to the main account.
2. Make some contributions completely different to the main account.
3. Once the situation with the main account has died down, I would then make the edits the main account used to make. Editors working with this sock would then assume that this is a new contributor to their field, and seeing his/her previous contributions, wouldn't suspect a thing.

Just my input on possibilities--Ed^{talk c E} 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u has sent a message, if anyone is interested, at User talk:Cute 1 4 u.--Ed^{talk c E} 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I need an opinion on this: Does anyone think think Cute 1 4 u still lurks around Wikipedia?--Ed^{talk c E} 20:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just that she's been doing fairly well in not bringing attention to herself. Ryūlóng 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, except for this never-ending thread at the top of WP:ANI. FreplySpang 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread will never end. I think we should move this to a subpage, or archive it. Besides, no detected activity with Cute 1 4 u, right?--Ed^{talk c E} 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not an admin, but I'd suggest archiving it anyway, and if she starts any more trouble with a sockpuppet or IP, just run a checkuser (if needed) and block. There probably isn't any need to discuss it anymore, particularly if she hasn't done anything in the last day or so. --Coredesat (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It will never be archived if you keep commenting on it. :) —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is move it to the archive. The bot isn't needed for this.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, so just leave this alone for a day. The bot will do it on its own given 24 hours. Ryūlóng 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism?

It is not clear to me why one administrator, Sarah Ewart, has created so much red tape over one short article. It appears as if she has intentionally complicated things. The subject I wrote about is published and very well known in the engineering field. She is identified on numerous webpages and websites. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. There are numerous living and accomplished people from all over the world who are listed in Wikipedia. The subject of the article I submitted represents one of millions of these people. What is it about the subject that is causing problems for Ms Ewart and the team of administrators she has rounded up to review this... or maybe there are other elements that I need to now consider? Please let me know because her actions are truly inappropriate. I am trying to work with her, follow her suggestions, identify why the subject is important and noble, and yet she seems to escalate things without resolving them. She indicated that she now requires the advice of her peers when she abruptly locked and deleted the article. This demonstrates that she may not be qualified to be an administrator, let alone, a volunteer. In fact, it shows that she may have reacted too quickly and harshly in response to my earlier emails (in capital letters) and my lack of experience navigating the online communication of Wikipedia. The fact that she also called upon and identified an American and an engineer to further review my article demonstrates concern about anti-Americanism because the subject is an American. This was not an issue until she raised it and allied with Guinnog, another non-American administrator. Should I now be concerned that Ms Ewart and her administrator friends will go on a speedy deletion spree and remove every one or more of my contributions that I volunteered and spent countless hours on? Will I now face bans or scrutiny on Wikepedia? These are legitimate concerns that warrant formal complaints. Furthermore, I am amazed by the camaraderie among the network of administrators. I am posting this complaint because I cannot seem to get one impartial administrator (who is not associated with Ms Ewart and Guinnog) to respond to my request for a complaint on my talk page and for a resolution of this problem Ms Ewart created. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. Such administrators should not ruin it for the rest of us. Administrators need to respect all people- including Americans- who freely contribute to Wikipedia. We are *all* volunteers.

Hence I seek an immediate resolution and an opportunity to have my article unlocked and re-posted at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYer (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:N Naconkantari 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you would say what the article is (admins can view deleted articles). I have read the messages on your talk page, and it seems the article has been deleted by three different admins so far as not meeting wikipedia requirements. There is are also considerable efforts on your talk page to help you by Sarah Ewart and Guinnog and I don't see anything at all to complain about in their conduct. I suggest you AGF and work with them. Tyrenius 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't tried to work with us. You have made demand after demand and refused to listen to any advice, evidenced here.

I asked for further input and review because of your behaviour and your insistence that User:Guinnog, User:Centrx, User:Joelr31 and myself are all wrong about the article. I think being open to the opinions of other administrators is a good thing.

I went to school in the US, have family still there and anyone accusing me of anti-Americanism is simply sensationalizing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the article is Sandy Straus, which can be viewed at google's cache [4] if anyone without the mop is curious. And yes, it's pure vanity. --EngineerScotty 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Sandystraus and now User:NYer wants it restored? Are they the same person? Joelito (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• An interesting question. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you read User talk:NYer, you'll see that it is Sandy Straus whom is being discussed. BTW, User:Sandystraus has been a busy little vanity-beaver; there also exist the following articles:

1. Dynamic Vision Assessment for Transportation
2. Automated Driver's License Test
3. Dynamic Assessment for Transportation
4. Vision Assessment Procedure for Transportation
5. Straus Pavement Damage Estimate

Some of these may be salvageable, encyclopedic topics if rewritten to be NPOV, V, and free of OR; as it stands the whole pile of them are pure sandy-love. They may not be speediable as blatant copyvios as was Sandy Straus, but as they are; I'm going to send the whole pile of them to AFD. --EngineerScotty 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty blatant sockpuppetry myself, and I endorse taking the matter to AfD. Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, Scotty, that is the article. User:Sandystraus originally posted it and was cautioned against auto, then some time later User:NYer was created and reposted the same article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. --EngineerScotty 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User should have an explanation and warning about sockpuppetry, remembering BITE though. Tyrenius 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few more articles (and numerous redirects) created by Sandystraus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the past day or so; including numerous redirects to the above, and at least one soft "see also" redirect to the above. Also, Ms. Straus appears to have uploaded some nature images such as Image:Skink.JPG, which contain references to her business (ESRA) in the upload summaries. This might be kosher, I suppose--the images are released under the CC attribution license--but it's an interesting way to spam the wiki. --EngineerScotty 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted a posting made here by User:NYer because it included the full name and place of residence of another User. I have warned NYer about stalking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. And some thinly veiled legal threats as well. I'd encourage Sandy Strauss and putative pals to examine WP:NLT; legal threats put you on the short path to the exit here. William Pietri 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, someone might want to look at Automated Clock Drawing Test, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned User:NYer about the rather nasty personal attacks he/she has been making. I agree that these articles are of marginal notability at best and should all be subject to an AfD, which I'm glad to see Engineer Scotty has started. I think there are grounds for asking both User:SandyStrauss and the self-admitted meatpuppet User:NYer to take a break from editing Wikipedia. They have displayed a consistent inability to work with other members of the community, understand the basic rules of Wikipedia or to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Unfounded accusations of anti-Americanism and bullying have no place here, and are seriously disrupting Wikipedia and wasting everyone's time. Gwernol 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NYer is almost certainly Sandystraus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy 11:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Guy. They have the same IP (they've both sent me demanding emails). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NYer and SandyStrauss have the same IP because they probably share computers or networks in the offices. They are not the same person because I know of both. So it is astounding that everyone seems to be attacking them. So maybe one of you should try to work with them and put an end to this? It is possible they did not know the rules of Wikepedia. I certainly do not. Most people on Wikepedia probably do not know these rules. Has anyone thought of a nicer way to diffuse this matter?JPeter2 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We have "two" users making threats, personal attacks and accusing a well-respected member of the community of being anti-American for not allowing "them" to post their vanity pieces, and yet it's us that are being unreasonable? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm talking crazy here, but wouldn't the simple solution be for them to ask, rather than making bold and apparently unfounded accusations? I'd encourage them to start with Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and then move on to WP:SPA, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if we were to have an article called Sandy Strauss, it should probably be on this artist, rather than the self-promoting inventor and "authoress" of technical papers currently under discussion. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, calm down. There are no threats or personal attacks on anyone. You might know of some useful ways to help people on Wikipedia rather than waste time arguing. Answer the question instead: What can you do to nicely diffuse this matter?JPeter2 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see she has been phoning User:EngineerScotty on the matter ([5]). A nicer way to defuse the matter might be if she accepted our policies on verifiability and refrained from vandalising this discussion which she started. --Guinnog 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I checked what you said and it seems that the IP is banned so any user would use a telephone if no other contact information is provided. That seems rather logical. I think the issue is with NYer who seems to have started this discussion. Not Strauss. This seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when IPs and computers are shared all of the time. (All computer savvy people know this.) The right thing to do is to lift whatever IP bans were put up and communicate directly with Strauss. I know I would certainly be upset enough to telephone EngineerScotty too if anyone anywhere wrote what he did about Strauss. He could have made his point directing it at NYer rather than Strauss. He did not need to totally identify and completely itemize everything associated with Strauss if he wanted to take issue with NYer. This is crystal clear, even if Strauss originally authored her own bio. Lots of people do it on Wikepedia or have others they know write it for them. You need to stop whining and work with others in a positive and productive way. You can't deny it or stop this type of bio writing. You can police it but how many of you are out there to police this? So what if two users made some mistakes by not reviewing or knowing all of the Wikepedia rules? So what? I am sure it took a long time to learn the ropes on Wikepedia. I don't see where Strauss and NYer were frequent or long-time users of Wikepedia. NYer seems to have just joined. Right? Strauss contributed a few articles and pics. Big deal. Then again, who cares? Do anyone of you get rewarded for any of this information? Stop wasting time and start helping people on this thing. Stop talking and start working. Do something positive. Make a difference. Now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPeter2 (talk • contribs) .

If you don't think its very important, why are you and your colleagues spending so much time and investing so much invective in pursuing this? A number of editors with long histories of making substantial and positive contributions to Wikipedia are being attacked without basis and in the most personal and vicious ways by Strauss and her cohorts, yourself included. Screaming "anti-American" and "bully" at every turn rather than trying to work with other editors is not making you any friends. Sarah Ewart and Guinnog went out of their way to explain the way Wikipedia works, and got hate-filled accusations thrown at them. Are you surprised that this was not welcomed with open arms? Try making any single contribution to the encyclopedia yourself before throwing around accusations about making a "positive difference". You have made none.

On a technical note: User:EngineerScotty can be contacted by email even from a blocked IP address, so the claim that a telephone call was the only way to contact that user is, like so many of your wild claims and accusations, simply incorrect. Gwernol 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone anti-American is a personal attack. Posting personal identifying information about someone is a personal attack. The nicest way to defuse (or diffuse) the situation would be for the people trying to post vanity information to understand our guidelines at WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO and WP:BIO and see if they're violating those. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe, this is old hat already about the anti-Americanism stuff. It is also an issue with NYer since he started this discussion. Thanks for the response though. I think that what you said needs to go directly to the two users and any others you find in the same boat. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have another question for all of you: This issue of privacy seemed a wee bit wobbly (if I may say that). Each of you except two women (Strauss and Ewart) seem to have aliases. Why not use aliases to protect their identities? This only seems fair. NYer should never have used Ewart's name but maybe there was no alias. Strauss seems to be an innocent victim here (apart from making the terrible mistake of writing an autobio and the having a colleague post it). Why not remove names of both ladies and refer to them under aliases? Each of you seems to have an alias on this and I think it is the right thing to do to help these ladies. Let's all pitch in to patch things up. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, these socks are getting tiresome. If I wanted to be referred to by an alias, I would use an alias. I cannot understand why you keep adding to this thread, stating your name numerous times, and then emailing me repeatedly demanding I delete it because "mentioning of [your] name" is not permitted. You say you feel stalked by various people here, imagine how you'd feel if people started calling you at home! It's completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sarah, but I only noticed this now. Judging by your reply, it seems that this was probably asked before. It just seems so logical that almost everyone on this thing has an alias. So you may not mind having your name referred to but maybe others do. About the home calls, all I can infer from this is that Strauss was unable to reach EngineerScotty. Not everyone knows how to send emails through Wikipedia, especially when there are obstacles to navigating through the site. The fact that many of you know shows that you have experience that others on Wikipedia do not. I agree with you though. These threads are getting tiresome. Rather than continue to discuss Strauss and NYer, why not try to work with one or both of them now? (I'm starting to feel like a moderator or advocate now but I am not.) Or end this thread or case? (If there is such a thing.) That seems like the right thing to do rather than to waste so much time digging up old news, old accusations, files, and defenses. Why is there such a need for each of you to continue to defend your actions? It's over. Just do something positive and help people on this thing already. Why is that so difficult? It's the right thing to do on and off Wikepedia. JPeter2 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, please, settle on one account and stop creating new socks. If you don't want to be known by your real name, then don't sign up for an account in that name. It's not that hard. As for Scott, you went off and looked up his phone number and then tried to call him. He did not give you his number or consent to you calling him. What you did was completely inappropriate, whether you can see that or not. Agreed, not everyone knows how to send emails through Wikipedia, but you sure don't have that problem. You've sent me numerous harassing emails containing defamatory imputations against me, Zoe and Scott, emails to the board, the foundation...you don't have a problem with your ability to send emails. Please stop this behaviour, it is enough already. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to have all names of businesses, business owners, and products deleted at once so that we do not promote the very people and things that we define as wikispam. This should be a very easy and quick task for any administrator to undertake now and within this article because we are definitely promoting several products and businesses and business owners here whether or not any one of the authors realizes this. Any names identified in this article, "anti-americanism" appear in search engines and generate interest in businesses, products, and peoples. It is to the benefit of the very people we do not want on this website. WikiklEnr 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this newcomer for trolling and for vandalizing this discussion. See WikiklEnr (talk · contribs) for his "contributions". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you want to remove all names off businesses? How are you going to have information about Enron? Or Microsoft? Or MCI? Or about all those characters at HP and their recent antics to control people's lives? Certainly a bad idea to have the name of, say, the American Cancer Society (they are an incorporation after all). Would anyone in government, say Al Gore, who takes a position in Business be deleted from the Wikipedia? Have any of you actually read any of the previous nonsense in this discussion? It reads like a bunch of Narcissistic ADHD children. Information is being shared and all you want to do is go on a witch hunt against each other? Huh? Take a deep breath. Exhale. Another breath - longer this time. Exhale. Now ... Think about the concept of sharing information. Now think about the wiki being for that purpose. Now think about the deletion of such material. Makes no sense. And what's this using a wiki page as a threaded discussion; someone write an extension that makes sense with automatic dates, threading, etc.

The above was posted by 70.195.250.239 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with Sandy Straus extensively on the phone yesterday. Given her attitude towarrd using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, her suggestions that this discussion was a "hate crime," her use of meat puppets after she was warned that this is unacceptable, her calling of an admin at his home, and her utter disregard for the norms of our project, she, NYer, and JPeter2 should be banned indefinitely. I have already done so with JPeter2. Furthermore, her request that her user name be changed so as too protect her reputation was and should continue to be rejected. We do not reward spammers by changing their user names to make it easier for them to strike again. My suggestion is that all contributions by them, including innocuous ones in which their company name appears, be removed from Wikipedia. Let's not open the door to yet another subtle form of advertising. Danny 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a very one-sided view represented by a majority of administrators who are freely attacking three people (NYer, Straus, and WikiklEnr) WITHOUT allowing one of them to respond to these preposterousaccusations. Soon no one will want to fund or support Wikepedia. I completely support the request of WikiklEnr, who was also just banned and mislabeled as a vandalizer. I now vote to have all names of business people, products, and company names removed from this entry and only this entry, titled “Anti-Americanism” IMMEDIATELY in support of the three people who these administrators are unnecessarily attacking (NYer, Straus, and WikiklEnr). Straus is especially being viciously and maliciously attacked by the above administrators due to a bio she posted and then had NYer, a colleague, post when it was removed. NYer also started this entry- not Straus. Wikepedia also refuses to change her username and she is the only one on this entry whose name, products, andbusiness are being published. Everyone else has an alias. This is beyond unacceptable behavior for any online encyclopedia.

                                    TedDay 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is funding Wikepedia and do they know about this abuse of power? Listing the name and also the location of Sandy Straus on this page is breaching her security and every woman’s security. Just change her user name too if you have the authority to do this. Revise this page to reflect these changes, since you do this all of the time, and stop marketing the company products on this page (see products listed by EngineerScotty and Zoe) and stop making false allegations of sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, and spamming when there is common knowledge that IP addresses and computers are always shared between users (as JPeter2 said before he was banned with a few others on this website). Stop adding fuel to this fire. And stop silencing and banning people who want to rebut these false allegations about Sandy Straus, USer:NYer, and User:JPeter2. Stop abusing administrative power on Wikepedia. Be calm and realize such hostility is simply detracting from the contribution the wikipedia could offer. Folks, just be above it all and make it right.

Sethny 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

SethNY

Please Note, as a physician who has experience with patient care , The automated clock drawing test can have benefits to patients , doctors , hospitals, as well as The Department of Motor vehicles. Patients with cognitive impairment as well as students will benefit, please put the articleAutomated Clock Drawing Test back on the site. It is very useful and the information is very important. Thank You

                 Sethny

Sethny 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't believe you. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Straus, her colleagues, and others are banned from responding to all of these false allegations. Anyone who reads this website should NOT give any credit to what is being said here about Sandy Straus, her colleagues, and others. Any website which does not even permit allegations made to be personally responded to is NOT to be viewed as a credible source of information.

Wikidates

I am totally at a loss to find anything at all professional in this edit. I'm really not in a position to argue with ArbCom members. Could I get another pair of eyes on this, please? --Jumbo 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although Jayjg probably should have explained himself in his edit summary, it's generally accepted to not wikilink dates unless they're accompanied by years. For example, you would wikilink "August 13, 2006," but not just August 13. WP:DATE has more information on this. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:

• Month and day

o [[February 17]] → 17 February

o [[17 February]] → 17 February"

--Guinnog 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jumbo should probably leave dates alone for a bit. Guy 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Will do. But for how long should I have to wait for busy ArbCom members to come up with a consistent position? Is it a case of de minimis non curat lex or minima maxima sunt? --Jumbo 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty to do. Leave dates for a while and find some other useful tasks. You're not the only one involved in conflicts over date linking, I know. Guy 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a better sentence in the prose. We shouldn't try to shove in awkward things like "It will happen from 11 October to 21 October", repeating October just to get date preferences to work where they aren't necessary. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the date linking issues are recent and a bit heated - probably best to not jump into that pot of boiling water yet :). Oh wee, I used a metaphor. Cowman109^Talk 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best course is not to get heated up over such a trivial issue. Centrx's comment above intrigues me. Is he saying that Jayjg changed

• In 2006 the festival will take place from 11 October to 14 October.

to

• In 2006 the festival will take place from the 11th to the 14th of October.

because it looked better in the prose? I find this very hard to swallow! --Jumbo 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Centrx. It looks and reads somewhat awkwardly to restate the month. Danny Lilithborne 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see the advantage of de-linking any dates, but as far as I know, there's only a general agreement to de-link solitary years, e.g. [[2006]] → 2006. Month'n'day pairings should remain linked whenever possible, exceptions being if it's part of a proper title or direct quote, etc. where a particular format is intentional. —freak(talk) 14:44, Sep. 29, 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading here, maybe we should keep this on w-pedia

TedDay 18:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all above for the comments. Looking at the Manual of Style, I see the following under the heading of Incorrect date formats:

• Use consistent date formatting throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to vary it.

• Do not use ordinal suffixes:
  • Incorrect: "February 14th" and "14th February"
  • Correct: "February 14" and "14 February"

• Do not use articles:
  • Incorrect: "the 14th of February"
  • Correct: "February 14" and "14 February"

The only exceptions are for direct quotations, disambiguation pages and section headings, none of which apply. The opinions of Centrx and Danny Lilithborne above, that the change was for reasons of prose style therefore carry no validity beyond personal preference.

As some will have noticed, Jayjg's edit was one of a series of reversions of my edits, in which I changed date formats in articles related to British subjects from month-day-year American Dating to day-month-year International Dating, as specified in the relevant Manual of Style section. It is my understanding that rationalising date styles in accordance with the MoS is acceptable, along the same lines as changing measurements in articles dealing with American subjects to feet and inches, or metres in French subjects. Blanket changing styles to personal preference against MoS guidelines, such as in the Jguk case, is clearly unacceptable. I have raised this matter with him, but he has not yet responded to some points, and on others I think he is mistaken in his views.

With all due respect to Jayjg, it looks to me like he's dropped the ball on this, and rather than have policy determined on the run via user talk pages, or left undetermined in the hope that it will go away, I'd like to get some advice as to where I should turn for the next step in the resolution process. Mediation? RfC? I should also stress that I am quite happy to abide by a formal ArbCom finding; I merely want the situation clarified to the point where I do not have to depend on contradictory comments made by individual ArbCom members on random user or article discussion pages. --Jumbo 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the Manual of Style section you cited about a range of dates, which I'd say is an issue that needs to be addressed. Avoiding repeating words when possible seems to be a basic principle of writing. Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As you say, there is nothing in the MoS to cover Jayjg's specific edit at all. I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Personally, I found it difficult to come up with a construction that would read well, regardless of user date preferences, and my edit was the least awkward. --Jumbo 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There should probably be a discussion about adding something to the MoS regarding ranges, so we can reach a consensus on what the right way is. :) Danny Lilithborne 00:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done. --Jumbo 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a sock puppet to me

User:AtLLo was created and immediately began changing my edits. And that user has done nothing but change my edits since. I strongly believe that this user is actually User:TJ0513, because AtLLo is making changes TJ said he would. AtLLo isn't exactly doing anything wrong -- but it's pretty obviously a sock puppet.Noroton 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking up on Sock puppetry on Wikipedia. Not all sockpuppets are disallowed, you may want to see if the sock in question would be violating any of the rules on those pages. If so, then we can do something about it. I've personally got several "segregation and security" puppets and find them quite useful. Hope that helps! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the contributions list for the sock puppet is made up entirely (well, 99 percent) of edits of my stuff. I don't know if, under "Forbidden" section of WP:SOCK the section on avoiding observation from other editors applies here because I'm not sure what's supposed to be "legitimate" and not legitimate in these circumstances, but it seems to me that the sock puppeteer is trying to get around my watching his edits of my contributions. We've had an edit war in the past. I guess I'll continue watching puppeteer and puppet.Noroton 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Okay, if you haven't found any instances of where sockpuppet policy was violated and you have a dispute anyway, you may want to consider using the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution process to negotiate with the editor. If he's violating a policy that mandates blocking, then we can do something about it. At the top of this page, it describes some of the various dispute resolution systems available, I'd highly suggest one of those. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've had a dispute in the past. It seems to have quieted down. Thanks for your time. Again, I'll watch and if something comes up, I'll pursue it further either with dispute resolution or reporting a more serious violation.Noroton 02:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with admins blocking accounts

Freakofnurture just blocked somebody, and FoN's edit summary was "fuck off and die". I'm not requesting any kind of punishment or investigation. What I am requesting is that admins stop "talking" to indefinitely blocked users in their block summaries. I don't think this kind of behavior is consistent with WP:DENY or WP:CIVIL. Chicken Wing 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:DENY isn't policy nor guideline yet, and hence people don't have to follow it if they don't wish to. However, that example is probably a breach of WP:CIVIL. Daniel.Bryant 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Put yourself in the shoes of a vandal though. Being told "user..." all the day long has to be pretty boring. I think you'd get tired of it. But if someone is telling you to "fuck off and die", you've clearly struck a nerve. (And just for the record, I completely agree with the block and am in no way defending that kind of username.) Chicken Wing 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Block summaries should stay civil, not because of the user who sees them when blocked (I have no problems with admins insulting username vandals), but because other users might see that block message due to an autoblock. For private communication with the vandal, use the vandal's talk page, not the (more public) block message. Kusma (討論) 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether WP:DENY is policy or not, turning this into a game with vandals, or making them feel like it's a game, could have rather negative consequences. And this is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and just common decency to autoblocked users.--Konst.able 10:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You know what I say? We're admins. We're supposed to above the fray, not as bad as the people we are blocking. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never cared for the "user..." 'explanation' as it is meaningless to the occasional user who had no idea their username was similar to someone else's. That said, meaningless beats vulgar any day of the week. Actual explanations, like "confusing/misleading username, not a Wikipedia administrator", are vastly better. --CBD 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why there's suitable talk page templates ({{username}} anyone?) for advising the reason of a block. Far too many admins fail to post those advisories, leaving a bewildered newbie wondering... If you've got the time to force a block, please consider taking the time to provide a reasonable explanation for doing so to obvious unawares.-- Longhair\^talk 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ya, woohoo... but this is FoN we are talking about. That phrasing might well be a term of endearment, just about. :) (no, I'm not saying he should get a special pass... actually I agree, that seems a bad block summmary) Also, in context, if you are just about the only person on the newusers channel and the bad ones are coming fast and furious a standard answer is all you have time for, but when it's slow, the temptation to amuse yourself out of boredom is large. I know I've succumbed (answering questions the user name asks in witty ways, etc) which, really, isn't a good idea but hey, people do it. I'd rather a witty block message than no block at all, if it came to that. So... food for thought. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think witty can pass sometimes though informative is what should be strived for. As for the comment that was left, I don't think tis particularly witty. Maybe if there names was PopNFresh and they were told "Back to the oven you go", that would be witty, but the comment left was actually quite abusive. I think if Wikipedia wants to earn a greater respect from those on the outside they need to present a more mature and educated front for those looking in. For someone to think "yeah editing an encyclopedia sounds like fun and educational", to be met with people running around calling eachother trolls and telling others to "fuck off an die", is not really the image we would want to present. Especially if as the worry goes, someone else with the same IP, if its dynamic, may get struck with that on their very first attempt to visit/edit the site. --NuclearUmpf 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I apologise in advance but why dont you either fully investigate the situation before you start going off at us, or just leave us to do our job.

• That block happened at 5:04am (UTC) and the user's name was "[removed]" (DakotaKahn is an existing Wikipedia editor)
• Freak also blocked him under a minute later with no block summary with the username [removed]
• However just one minute before Freak's "controversial" block summary I also blocked the same guy with no block summary (I often just leave it out when dealing with complete trolls - tho sometimes I dont depending on what I feel is going to be most effective), this time as [removed].
• 4 minutes before that another admin blocked the same guy, this time as [removed] with the block summary "..."

Now, given that the "WP:DENY" summaries (nothing and "...") did zero to slow this clown I think Freak acted perfectly in trying another approach. It is ludicrous to state such summaries can look bad as almost no one sees them except the vandal (especially true if a soft block allowing user creation is used - and I have checked the autoblock logs and no one else has been affected by that block some 6 hours later - and no one will be autoblocked by it either). Also, this particular troll is with AOL he generates new users the immediately creates another one (often not even waiting for the first to be blocked) - and given that a new account was created just moments later he wouldnt have even seen the summary.

All I'm saying is in the greater scheme of things this is not even close to being a big deal - we do know what we're doing Glen 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are replying to me, but if there was a summary stating "fuck off and die" then its quite juvenile no matter how many times they were blocked before. I realyl don't get your arguement if you are attempting to counter that people should act like adults in order to show Wikipedia as more professional and not discourage others from participating in it. When a location such as this, an official channel on Wikipedia, is reported to have admins, people who are suppose to be helpnig Wikipedia, running around cursing cause they cannot maintain composure, it does not reflect well. I find it odd anyone, any adult at least, would argue that its ok to run aroudn cursing and blow their composure. This is not work and you are a volunteer to this project, just like everyone else, and as a volunteer you should not do anythnig that makes Wikipedia look bad. If you volunteered for Red Cross and ran around cursing and blowing your temper, you would be asked to leave. So again my point is that people should act like adults and "fuck off and die" is not very explanatory nor an educated reaction to a situation. --NuclearUmpf 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Glen is right, more context would definitely have been good. In this case I support the block as written. Harassing female (or male but strangely I never get harassed.. funny that) admins is Not On and multiple harassments can well justify an escalating response. I might have answered with more like "you wish" I guess but ... support. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the usernames in question; they provide context, but they also encourage trolls to create these names (remember also that these pages, but not the various logs, are indexed by search engines). The point is, this was a particularly ugly troll who deserves no sympathy.--SB | T 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This entirely miscontrues the issue. Nobody is giving ANY "sympathy" to the blocked user. No one disagrees with issuing the block to the slightest degree. However, if you think that "fuck off and die" is ever a good way to communicate you are seriously mistaken. No matter how annoying someone is, sinking to that level just makes the situation worse all around. Calling such an acceptable form of "trying another approach" or "escalating response" is dead wrong. It's inherently detrimental and there is just no reason for it. Making excuses about 'oh but they deserved it' or 'why are you taking their side' are either complete failures of understanding or deliberate avoidance. It doesn't matter how much 'they deserved it'... doing it is bad for Wikipedia. As clearly stated by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You'll note that we don't have a 'times when it is a good idea to tell someone to fuck off and die' guideline... because it is never a good idea. --CBD 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, feel free not to have an opinion on every issue. Especially when it's obvious what your opinion is going to be. -- Steel 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Steel, I would have never guessed you were an administrator based on that comment. It added absolutely nothing to the conversation and was little more than conduct unbecoming an administrator. Why would you attack someone like that? Chicken Wing 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. Try not to be so dismissive of people who do not share your views. Instead offer your view in a thought out manner and help continue the dialogue. --NuclearUmpf 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what that has to do with the issue at hand. I don't see any circumstances where "fuck off and die" should be see as a good edit summary or defended, frankly it does not favours to wikipedia when admins leap in to defend each other on all and any issue regards of the merits of the case. --Charlesknight 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Steel, I tell you what... people stop making the claim that it is 'allowed' or even a 'good thing' for admins to violate civility standards and I will stop pointing out how hypocritical it is to do so while blocking users for the same thing. --CBD 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems we've done the rude language isn't really rude language dance a time or two already... Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't going to die. They just won't be able to keep their favorite username or their contributions under one name. They are capable of editing peacefully again after 24 hours or less. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on policy pages

I would like some advice in dealing with a tendentious editor on policy/guideline pages. He doesn't understand that guidelines are prescriptive and thus keeps editing them to reflect what he thinks should happen instead of what actually does happen according to consensus. He makes arguments for this using spurious logic, misinterpreting other policy or guidelines, ignoring evidence to the contrary, insisting on straw polls to "prove" him right, and personal attacks. He reminds me of the ill-fated Zen-Master (no, he's not a sock, he just acts similarly). Basically, he is starting to show all the signs listed on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, except it's in Wikispace and it's not out of hand (yet?). I tried talking to him but that doesn't help; other suggestions would be welcome. >Radiant< 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is it, or at least which policies? Guy 10:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sift through the Radiant!'s contributions and it will soon be clear. --Doc 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A clue might be good, he's edited a lot of different good stuff. (man am I glad he's back!) ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should be less obtuse :) It's Fresheneesz (talk · contribs). This has been going on for about three weeks now. Among others, he has claimed that style guidelines aren't guidelines, that there's a difference between guidelines, "full guidelines" and "official guidelines", that the GFDL isn't policy, that numbers aren't verifiable because addition is original research, that policy pages may not link to non-policy pages because of a status conflict, that AFD is a vote and therefore Wikipedia uses polls whenever desired, and that it's proper (or even possible) to make a guideline to force editors to stop a common practice. Oh, and a bunch of personal attacks thrown in, and calls for people to "fight" others.

His main agenda appears to be opposition to WP:DDV (formerly VIE) and WP:N - however, confusingly, he makes a somewhat nebulous difference between notability and votes (which he opposes) and significance and polls (which he approves of). Anyway, while he has every right to his opinion, the above practices are not at all a constructive approach. These two diffs pretty much sum it up: [6] [7].

>Radiant< 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts... ignore it. Seriously, the changes he is suggesting are significant and the number of people who knew of them insignificant (though 'advertising' like this may change that). Generally major changes like this happen because alot of people want them to happen. One guy and a couple of people who say, 'yeah I can sort of see some benefit to that but what about these three problems?', don't seem likely to amount to much. Even if he holds a 'poll' and five out of the six participants support him... a reason to significantly rework Wikipedia policy it is not. If he tries to change policy without widespread consensus it can be dealt with then. If it develops widespread consensus... well then it is a reality of what users do and could then be recognized as such. --CBD 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Radiant seriously misconstrews my actions and my thoughts. Many of the things he complains about me are old news - for example, I did claim that "style guides" weren't guidelines - but I have seen that I'm wrong, a looooong time ago. Also, he misinterprets me, for example - AfDs using polling, they aren't pure votes. Wikipedia *does* use polling, as i'm sure all of you know. Radiant is under the perception that polls shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all - and hes making his case by tagging his pet proposal WP:DDV as a guideline without any clear consensus. Hes actually gone so far as to delete a poll I was trying to run - saying that I "just don't get it".

I can't disagree that radiant has a very many good edits, but almost any time i'm dealing with him, its somthing disruptive and agressive (probably because I don't bug him when he does stuff well). Frankly, I find his actions abusive. Fresheneesz 01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't pitch in then, as I have had a long-standing disagreement with Fresheneesz over other issues. In fact, I think Fresheneesz's non-notability policy may have been a response to the aggressive pruning of articles on personal rapid transit subjects, particularly the UniModal concept by Douglas Malewicki, which currently has no prototype, no funding, no customers, no test track and no similar installations in use anywhere in the world but is being pitched all the time. Personal rapid transit is a transportation technology which in several decades has yet to achieve a single real-world implementation, although one very small installation quite unlike the wide-scale urban schemes described in the article is currently being constructed in the car park at Heathrow Airport. Heaven forfend that we should say so, though, as that would be bias of the most appalling sort :-) User:Stephen B Streater may be a good person to ask, he has more patience with Fresheneesz than I do. Guy 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You never miss a chance to get back up on your soapbox, do you Guy? Face it: you tried to you tried to slant the article to reflect your POV, and failed, then tried to suppress verifiable fact that you didn't happen to agree with, and you failed on that count too. We've all moved on, and the articles haven't significantly changed in months. Maybe you should let it go now? :-) ATren 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz has established a clear pattern of disruptive editing on policy pages. It is not so much his opinions, though to be clear his view on voting is completely mistaken, but his method of making them. You can't change policies you don't like by modifying the tag yourself, and trying to round up others to revert for you, and concocting votes where there is no dispute, and being rude to others, and especially not when you are simply wrong. I feel like our time is being wasted for no discernable reason. I am ready to suggest a community ban from policy pages, at least for a bit. Opinions on that? Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that Fresheneesz has been primarily engaged in policy edits by the contributions. There's a patter of a response to a Wikipedia talk: page, followed by editing of the policy in question. The responses of the user on the talk page are not very combative, they are tearse though. I think Fresheneesz is meaning to do good things, but in an improper and inappropriate way without discussion. Proposed and official guidelines and policies must be hashed out with appropriate channels. Fresheneesz, post to the talk page what you'd like to change, or make a user subpage. I'm not for community banning a user for taking a part of policy or process, just watch your steps and consider the whole community before editing a policy or guideline. Stay within bounds to play ball. Teke ^(talk) 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing a community ban, per se (as in, by block), but just a probationary restriction from policy(guideline/essay)-related pages. I agree with Lar's proposal below. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a bit of a saunter through his contribs... changing a guideline that we've been using since forever to a guideline [8]. Threatening Radiant: [9] and just generally arguing about whether the sun rises in the east or not: [10] I don't at this time support an indef ban from all policy/guideline/style/proposal/essay pages but a ban for a while to get this user to realise he's not being constructive might be a good idea. How about a week for starters? ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How is [11] a threat on Fresheneesz's part? ATren 12:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The guideline we've been using "since forever" has been a guideline for one week, the opening words of his "threat" are "that was not meant to be a threat", and the last citation isn't a problem in any way. This user has 4989 edits. 360 of them are to project space. Let's take it easy with the flaming torches. —Nate Scheffey 12:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Freesheneesz has to say first, but that's not too shabby. Teke ^(talk) 05:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Users should discuss on the talk pages and gain consensus before making major changes in policy/guideline pages. I am not suggesting a ban here, but user should take this seriously enough and not engage in what would amount as disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, I second DMC's and Lar's suggestion. Let's just give him a time-out for a while. By the way he's now asked Jimbo to step in :) >Radiant< 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The appeal to Jimbo: Wikipedia's version of Godwin's Law. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good to avoid unnecessarily hostility. Fresheneesz has put a lot of work into developing a view of how Wikipedia should work. His generous view of notability is out of line with consensus, but OTOH the notability article is less than a month old and has not yet completely settled down. Whether such an article in flux should be termed a guidline or a proposal shouldn't be allowed to cloud the bigger issue - whether there should be a guideline at all. I started the rationale section to show how the guidline relates to policy, and Centrx and others have refined this. The article is becoming tied down to official policy. In the mean time, I suggest Fresheneesz raises his more general points about notability - perhaps on the mailing list. Stephen B Streater 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Freesheneesz's talk page, I support an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing all pages related to the Wikipedia policy, guidelines, essays. Additionally I suggest an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing Policy/Guidelines talk pages. For the duration of this probation, Freesheneesz is restricted from editing places that these discussions occur and starting policy discussions on another user's talk page. After the probation ends Freesheneesz is encouraged to limit his discuss of his ideas to the talk pages of these policies and other customary places for these discussions. Freesheneesz is counseled to avoid spamming his opinions across multiple user and article talk pages.

This restriction on talk page discussions is necessary to remind this user that we are here to write great articles not great policy. His tendentious focus on writing and discussing this topic makes me believe that s/he does not understand this point. Freesheneesz talk page has feedback from a variety of users that he encountered while editing policy/guideline pages and talk pages. Very few are supportive of his approach to this topic. The suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Freesheneesz's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse FloNight's suggestions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for any kind of block/ban here. Debate over policy is normal. —Nate Scheffey 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I browsed the talk page, and there were several people on both sides of the debate. It was not just Fresheneesz. In fact, a quick look at the history of the page shows two editors other than Fresheneesz changing guideline back to proposal. Also, I am new to this debate, but Radiant's argument seems dangerously circular: he says Notability should be a guideline because that's what is currently done, but he ignores the fact that what is currently done is controversial (isn't notability one of the most hotly debated topics in content disputes?). Shouldn't there be a more rigorous process for accepting a controversial guidline than "Well everyone's doing it these days, so why not?"? The Notability "guidline" was still listed as a proposal just two weeks ago, so this is far from a settled issue.

Back to the question of Fresheneesz, I've not seen any evidence of behavior that would warrant a probation (what does "community probation" mean anyway? Does that mean he's blocked but not really blocked?). Radiant's original complaint was vague, and the evidence presented by others seem to prove nothing more than a minor dispute. Perhaps before any action is taken, someone should document here exactly what edits he made to deserve this probation? ATren 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These two remarks are a sample of some that go beyond simply debating the policy. [12] [13] Freesheneesz is ratcheting up the discussions past the point where a civil exchange of ideas is going to occur. This topic ban is preventative not punitive. Freesheneesz needs to learn the boundaries for productive editing related to policy changes. FloNight 14:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The first is a relatively polite plea to Jimbo to intercede (certainly not unusual or in violation of anything), the second is a single revert of a rejection of the policy proposal - and note that he did not re-revert after that. Was consensus reached on rejecting that proposal? It's quite possible that the other editor was jumping the gun on rejection. In any event, he did not re-revert.

I still see no evidence of anything more than a spirited debate. Let's not overreact here. ATren 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some poking around on Non-notability talk page, and it seems there was an extended debate over whether to have a straw poll - Fresheneesz wanted one, Radiant didn't; when Fresheneesz started one, Radiant deleted it, which angered Fresheneesz. Regardless of the merits of straw polls, there is no policy against them, so was it appropriate for Radiant to delete Fresheneesz's edits? Now, if Fresheneesz was misusing the results of a straw poll to, say, change the proposal to a guideline, that might be a different issue. But just calling for a poll doesn't seem to be like that big a deal, and deleting it was unwarranted. So I believe this just is a spirited debate with some minor transgressions on both sides -- and we shouldn't be singling out one side or the other. In fact, Stephen B Streater has a good solution below: they should both back off the notability pages for a few days and let things cool down. ATren 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite his comment here [14], Freesheneesz continues in the same manner. He needs to take a break from policy making until he sorts out a better way to go about it. FloNight 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is. He is polite and he offers rationale for his position. The examples of some sort of egregious edits on his part do not seem worse than others I have seen. There is no evidence of any violations of policy here. It seems like folks are piling on. I think ATren said it very well and I am troubled that this fellow is being given threats and bans for extremely vague reasons that seem to amount to "I don't like him". --Blue Tie 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stopping the discussion will not resolve the underlying issues. The problem seems to be between Fresheneesz and Radiant. Perhaps they should both refrain from editing the policy pages for a while, and leave this to more mainstream editors. In the mean time, I am happy for the discussion with Fresheneesz to continue on my talk pages. WP:NOTABILITY is developing nicely. Stephen B Streater 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Anyone who wants to claim that Fresheneesz is polite clearly hasn't even looked at what is being discussed here. He's calling others' edits vandalism, threatening someone with "If you don't replace my poll, I'm going to arbitrate against you. You are the most abusive administrator I've ever come in contact with.", soliciting help by calling Radiant a "very abusive and violent editor", and just generally calling him abusive at every chance. I would remind you that incivility and edit warring are two of the strongest policy violations you can make. I find it hard to take this comment seriously. Dmcdevit·t 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Fresheneesz should have another look at WP:OWN. He has got a bit close to these particular policies. He is not the only editor to implement strong opinions in this dispute though. Stephen B Streater 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fresheneesz clearly lost his temper a bit here, but Radiant also deleted Fresheneesz's poll on the talk page. If you are going to condemn Fresheneesz for his hostility, then Radiant cannot be excused for his actions either. Frankly, I consider removing someone's talk page comments (that's considered vandalism, isn't it?) a more serious offense than the incivility shown by Fresheneesz. Once again, I would also repeat Stephen's suggestion that both these editors should back off from the policy page temporarily and cool down. ATren 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• A poll is not a comment. Removing polls is common practice because polls are generally considered a Bad Idea (needlessly polarizing, not conductive to consensus and inhibiting creativity; see also WP:DDV). >Radiant< 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing polls is commonplace? So anyone has the right to remove anyone else's poll? This doesn't seem right. Also, I found this quote on WP:DDV: "Straw polls, a type of non-binding poll, are sometimes used to gauge where editors stand after a lengthy discussion. Such a poll can be a simple tool to help explore and negotiate a consensus, and is often seen as a simple means to recap current positions, or to test or document a likely consensus." That article also says "Polling isn't evil in itself", and I didn't find anything that says polls should be deleted on sight. In fact, the guideline seems to say that polling itself is not evil unless the results of the poll are misused. Certainly the "evils" of polling, if any, pale in comparison to the evils of deleting someone else's comments (we're not talking about personal attacks here) ATren 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• For instance, [15]. By the way you are citing (part of) the letter of a guideline in a way counter to its spirit. >Radiant< 23:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the guideline (DDV), and the spirit of the rule seems to be "Polls are not evil, but they can be misused". In fact, the words "Polling isn't evil in itself" appears more than once. Straw polling even seems to get a mild endorsement on the page ("Such a poll can be a simple tool..."). I see no justification in that guideline (neither literally nor in its spirit) for removing another editor's straw poll. Now, maybe deleting polls is commonly done, and maybe it's even an accepted practice, but I don't see where that's documented as policy or guideline; in fact, it seems to run smack in the face of two well-known policies: civility and vandalism. I think I would have reacted the same way as Fresheneesz, if my edits were deleted in this fashion. ATren 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised this discussion all developed in 12 hours. I'm also surprised that a great many people think my actions are worthy of a ban. In the last few weeks, my faith in the wikipedia community has been dwindling.

One interesting thing I see is that peoples main grudge against me is that they think i'm taking policy/guideline into my own hands - and changing tags without discussion, etc. The funny thing is, that is exactly what i'm combating. A select few editors have been trying to change old guidelines into non-guidelines, and new proposals into old guidelines - without consensus. I've come in contact with a larger group that agrees with Radiant than I expected to find - and these people all agree that guideline is basically someones description of what already goes on. Personally, I find that view of guidelines to be very inefficient, because rather than giving us the ability to better wikipedia, we are at the mercy of what people already do. That narrows our options a bit.

If you want to ask me and Radiant to step back from policy pages for a week or so - I'm all in agreement. It'll give me more time to get started on some actual content pages (now that i'm starting school, I'll be editing pages that should (but don't) help me with HW).

Seriously tho, I'm not concerned with a ban against me - but i'm very concerned with what happens to our guidelines and policy here on wikipedia. I'm also concerned with the way people seem to preach consensus, but are scared to find out what it actually is. I don't want wikipedia to turn into a giant beuracracy, or some oligarchy of abusive admins. I'd like wikipedia to stay as a place based on consensus, with a common goal of helping people.

Lastly, I ask you all to just look at how you contribute, and see if you discuss with others enough, or if you actually know that you're doing something that is endorsed by more than one or two people. Please utilize the discussion pages, for eveyone's sake. Fresheneesz 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fresh is now also calling Doc Glasgow a vandal ([16]) and threatening him with arbitration ([17]). >Radiant< 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mhm, deleting someones talk page posts is vandalism. Does anyone disagree? I have also warned Radiant of this. Fresheneesz 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling an established editor's edits vandalism is considered poor form on Wikipedia. Do you think that Doc has suddenly become a vandal? Wasn't he putting a specific tag on an failed proposal. Didn't Doc mark out a straw poll that the editors of that proposed policy had not agreed to use? IMO, neither of these actions deserve warnings, but discussion. Please make your comment on the talk page and then wait for many other people to remark before you claim to know something so strongly that you will start an arbitration case against those that disagree. --FloNight 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not a vandal, and I didn't say he was. However, good editors, and good administrators still have the power to vandalize wikipedia - and he has used that power. It is now within my power to make sure his vandalism is corrected, and stopped. You haven't told me i'm wrong that "deleting someones talk page posts is vandalism" - so i'll just assume you don't disagree.

The proposal he marked has not "failed" in any significant way, and noone has agreed not to use straw polls. This is completely ridiculous. Fresheneesz 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So I'm 'not a vandal', I have just 'used my power to vandalize'. Well, I'm glad that's not a personal attack then. I didn't 'delete your post', I struck through a poll you'd unilaterally opened in the teeth of objections. 'No one has agreed not to use straw polls'? WTF type of logic is that? No one has agreed that I shouldn't block you for a week either - so can I? The notion that notability should not be used as a criterion for deletion is often suggested - and there is nothing approaching a consensus to support it. (See any deletion debate for evidence.) This has all been said, but the problem is that this user isn't interested in listening.--Doc 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: why is there such extreme objection to a straw poll? What's the big deal?? I think the actions you and Radiant have taken to prevent these straw polls are way out of line. You're treating a harmless little straw poll like it's a personal attack, reverting it on sight without discussion. ATren 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like polls, but if there is consensus to conduct one, and a reasonable discussion of its purpose and wording, then so be it. But this had none of these - one user instigated a worthless poll, on his own terms. I did not revert 'on sight without discussion', there was endless discussion on the talk page, at the end of which one user unilaterally, in the face of objections, initiated a polling process. I struck it, allowing for further discussion as to the merits/dismetits of the poll.--Doc 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So there has to be a consensus just to conduct a straw poll? How does one gauge consensus on this - might I suggest a poll? :-)

Seriously, I just think deleting someone else's poll crosses the line. There is no policy or guideline that forbids polling, and therefore removing it seems quite unwarranted. As I said before, I think I would have reacted the exact same way as he did, because deleting others' good faith comments is generally considered vandalism. That's all I'm saying. ATren 15:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming uninvolved people re. an arb case? Strongly suggest AC speedily reject and severely warn user. – Chacor 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I agree that removing other editors comment, including polls, from talk pages is one of the most violent actions an editor can take against another. It should only be done in the most utterly stupendously extreme cases. This situation is quite far from that mark. The only goal reached by removing the poll is to ratchet up the controversy. Very bad form, especially for an admin. Wjhonson 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The guy suggests a poll, some users object, a discussion ensues. In the midst of it, without discussing possible wordings, someone unilaterally starts a poll, ignoring all that others are saying. What do they expect, except to be reverted? --Doc 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is removing talk page comments considered "reverting"? I mean, come on, you keep talking like deleting someone's comments is nothing worse than a simple revert, when you know that it's more than that. I'm shocked that both you and Radiant have not only taken these actions, but continue to defend them as "no big deal" while you attack Fresheneesz for insinuating vandalism in response. Something is out of whack here, that you feel fully justified in removing someone's non-binding straw poll (no matter how you feel about) but are up in arms about that same user calling your actions vandalism and telling you (politely!) he's taking you to arbitration! I'll repeat: I probably would have done the same thing Fresheneesz did in response to your actions, and I can honestly say I understand his frustrations that he's being made to look like the only aggressor in this debate. ATren 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:DDV. Consensus is not created by polling, and as such we do not vote on proposals for a variety of reasons explained in that guideline. It is common practice to revert, remove or delete pointless polls. This one in particular was only a call for everyone to repeat what they already said, and that is really not helpful. There were deeper problems with the proposal that its author has so far refused to address. >Radiant< 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the section on straw polling, and point to me the part where it says straw polls are so evil that they justify breaking two policies: WP:V WP:Vandalism and WP:CIVIL. You seem to be saying this is OK because "everyone is doing it", but I've yet to see anything near a justification for this kind of behavior in policies or guidelines. ATren 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does verifiability have to do with removing a straw poll!? —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, wrong "V". Corrected it, thanks. ATren 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, WP:CIV promotes removal of other people's comments. >Radiant< 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are now saying that conducting an informal straw poll is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and so egregious that it warrants removal of the entire poll? That's a little bit of a stretch, don't you think? ATren 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing talk page warnings (yet again)

I just intervened in a spat between three users who escalated a content dispute into a "Vandalism" dispute by warring over content warnings on talk pages. They justified it through the language of {{Wr1}} and {{Wr4}}. Now, {{Wr0}} is reasonably friendly, but Wr1 and Wr4 (and Wr2 and Wr3 which are redirects to 1 and 4) are often inflammatory and not in keeping with the current definition of vandalism, or Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Can we maybe tone down those templates, or even drop them on MfD? Thatcher131 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be blocking for people removing warnings in most cases anyway - it always remains in the history. I don't think those should follow the similar vandalism warning layouts either. Cowman109^Talk 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I pulled a complaint off of AIV in which user A was accused of vandalizing user B and C's talk pages, which he did, but only after they all edit-warred over the placement and removal of warnings on user talk:A. Which B and C justified by referring to {{wr}}. I gave them all a stern talking to instead, but this is going to come up over and over again. The current vandalism policy on user talk pages does not agree with the template language. Thatcher131 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The removal of legitimate warnings doesn't have to be defined as vandalism to prohibit it. In fact, {{Wr4}} states that "Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption." Disruptive behavior can be prevented, even when there is no written policy against it. Indeed, many unregistered users have had their talk pages semi-protected to prevent further warning removal -- for a few examples, see [18] and [19]. Furthermore, the warning removal templates have recently undergone a TFD discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4, which indicates a clear consensus to keep them. John254 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Wouldn't the people voting on that TfD tend to be more representative of the template's regular users than of editors who don't pay much attention to it? FreplySpang 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The TFD process does indeed involve placement of notices on the affected templates to notify interested users. However, many users actively participate in many TFD discussions. Consequently, a number of users would have seen the discussion on the TFD page; we should not conclude that the editors participating in the discussion were necessarily unrepresentative. Furthermore, if TFD discussions aren't votes, then we can't assume that the discussion was closed as "keep" simply because there was a strong supermajority in favor of this outcome. Instead, the outcome of this discussion would represent a genuine consensus :) John254 21:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can see what the template says, but please explain to me how it could be disruptive to the encyclopedia to remove a warning from a user talk page? TFD isn't particularly useful in this regard since by design it cannot decide on policy/guideline matters. >Radiant< 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I explained why the removal of legitimate warnings could be considered disruptive here. Furthermore, the argument that "TFD... cannot decide on policy/guideline matters" is unconvincing since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. John254 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I see, and that is indeed a good point. I suppose a counterargument would be that Wikipedia tends to make things easier for editors than for maintenance workers (including the CVU, admins, etc). Not that I necessarily agree with that but it seems to be the way things work. I believe the main problem is this: removing warnings hampers the CVU - but since it's not actually possible to stop people from removing warnings, you have to check people's history anyway. So prohibiting warning removal doesn't really solve your problem. I think a better result would come from a technical solution, possibly involving some automated off-wiki log page (WP:PROD used to have a very effective off-wiki log page). >Radiant< 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • At least for unregistered users, it is "actually possible to stop people from removing [legitimate] warnings", without blocking them, by semi-protecting their talk pages. A technical solution to parse talk page histories and display the warnings contained there might be valuable -- however, until such a solution is developed, we are constrained to do the best that we can with the existing technology. Furthermore, if we are to designate the talk page history rather than the current version of the talk page as an archive of warnings, such warnings will be effectively irremovable, except by administrators, even where the warnings are mistaken, or completely frivolous. It is possible for an administrator to remove frivolous warnings from a user's talk page history, by deleting the talk page, then restoring the revisions without the frivolous warnings. Such talk page history deletions might frequently be necessary, if we are to rely on the talk page histories to indicate legitimate warnings, but not frivolous warnings. John254 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to talk disruption, I have seen far more disruption resulting from edit wars over talk page warnings than would ever be caused by the simple removal itself. Thatcher131 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Thatcher131, the way to do this is not to allow policy violations until we create a technical solution. We had discussed technical solutions on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, but it kind of fizzled due to the fact that no-one who really needed such a technical solution was involved in the discussion. I would suggest reviving discussion there. JYolkowski // talk 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats against Carnildo by Spockman

Spockman (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) linked an external PDF file that seems to amount to a legal threat against against Carnildo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) for "denying his constitutional rights" or some such, aparently related to various deletions and protections related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True v United Services Automobile Association. I know trolls throwing legal threats around are usualy blocked per WP:NLT, but this guy sounds dead serious, and while I doubht he have an actual case a touch of diplomacy might be in order to save everyone a lot of grief, or am I overreacing? --Sherool (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your not overreaching, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Just block him anyways, since there is no "First Amendment" on Wikipedia. The only rights we got is the right to leave and the right to fork. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To add more to this, Carnildo deleted the recreated material at that said page, so he was in the right for protecting that page from recreation (Carnildo is not the only admin involved in previous deletions, he just happens to be the more recent, so that is why he got that PDF letter). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So why is a letter addressed from Riga, Latvia, with phone numbers in New York and Long Island? sigh. I'm surprised he didn't mention Trenton. --Golbez 09:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That was one of my concerns about the validity of this, but regardless, me and a few others are combing this over. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind me, but haven't there been problems with a user identifying himself as a "Mr. Koenig" recently? Ryūlóng 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That I do not know, but regardless, I know we had issues in the past with USAA related articles, so I think that if someone can email me off-Wiki and explain the whole thing to me, I might be a little better think than I am right now (3 AM, RFOwned and tried). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My lay opinion is that Carnildo should point the Foundation's counsel – Brad Patrick – at this letter. I further suggest that any editor who makes such threats should be blocked indefinitely, and that aside from that we can comfortably ignore this raving nutter person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some comments in the letter in question that intimate that Jimbo, or the Wikimedia Foundation, are possibly getting bribes or kickbacks of some sort in payment for suppressing "the truth" about a matter. That might be considered libel or defamation against those parties. *Dan T.* 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to User:Danny last night about this PDF file, and I still think Brad is on vacation (from what I last heard). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference: Wikipedia:Free speech discusses the impact of the First Amendment upon Wikipedia. Short version: We're not a government agency (nor quasi-governmental), so it doesn't impact us in the least. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read the Talk page, it is a hilarious and absurd complaint. Sue Wikipedia for not publishing something? Bring it on! Guy 22:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just started to leave the following and then came across the notice above:

Banned user Robert J. Koenig has used an anonymous IP account, 165.154.46.42, to post a link on [[[User Talk:Brad Patrick|Brad Patrick's talk page]] to a web site, where he has posted a lengthy semi-legal letter to Brad Patrick.

A list of Wikipedia-related files he maintains (including data on certain editors) on that site can be found at http://67.55.35.135/wikipedia/

Koenig has a long history associated with disputes over the USAA article.

--A. B. 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Carnildo, who has yet to overcome a presumption that he is a paid sock-puppet [wiki-shill; rent-a-shill] for Robert G. Davis, the attorney in fact for United Services Automobile Association, commits perjury several times in his report (below).

First: the "threat" which Mr. Carnildo theatrically refers to is this letter.

And the principal bolded italicized paragraph of the letter reads as follows:

• I am writing to find out from you (perhaps after you have identified yourself and disclosed any conflicts you may have in this matter) exactly how I can arrangefor the encyclopedic history of True v USAA and thereferences to the pertinent documents to be "articled" on Wikipedia.

The letter does go on to explain that the cloud of apparently USAA-financed and USAA-directed Wikipedia administrators who hover over the USAA and instantaneously revert any edits, by anybody, which point out either that United Services Automobile Association is unincorporated or that True v United Services Automobile Association is a law suit which will bring about the collapse of USAA (and the loss to members of billions of dollars) serve only to intimidate. If that initimidation is carried out in concert and in a centrally controlled manner, with the principal purpose of intimidating so ad to suppress constitutionally protected free speech about facts - then several Federal Laws have been violated.

The principal mathematical and inescapable proof that a conspiracy is taking place is the repeated used of a group of USAA-financed wiki-shills who gang-up to revert an article: this means that the individual author quickly runs up against the 3-revert rule - while the USAA-financed gang of wiki-shills gets away scott-free.

Any Federal law enforcement officer who reads the over-keening self-preening traffic back and forth beween [20] and

Now listem - and listen carefully: Robert G. Davis's United Services Automobile Association is either incorporated or unincorporated. That is a fact which can be ascertained, conclusively, by any reasonably competant researcher. It is not even a matter of opinion; and it is certainly not material for swarms of hubris-laden self-appointed wiki-censors to revert and delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.246.17 (talk • contribs) .

*looks at the article* "One of the characteristics that allows USAA to operate differently than almost every other Fortune 500 company is that it is not a corporation(...)". That has been in there in some form for a while too, so much for that conspiracy theory... --Sherool (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious criminal threat by user Sahands

This user threatened me with violence after I just nicely commented that a certain picture should be kept. The exact threat is: "You're a motherfucking retard, if you ever insult me again I'll break every bone in your useless body.". It can be found on My user talk page. He has been blocked for 1 week, but I think this kind of threat deserves a more serious punishment. This is a very serious criminal threat. I am considering taking legal action and reporting this to his local police.

I have no knowledge of the Canadian juridic system, but my lawyer will find out.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) This isn't really "vandalism" but something more serious. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI to get a consensus of admins. Newyorkbrad 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats. It is degenerative for the encyclopedia. Consider this as a warning. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat against the encyclopedia, but against a user who has used the encyclopedia to perform a criminal threat. Why should I be punished for it?

At least in the Finnish juridic system, even though it is the Internet, threats of violence will be dealt with seriously. A minimum punishment would be a fine, but if he happens to be felon under probation (for example), he will go back to prison.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're lucky you're not also blocked for personal attacks [21] [22] [23].

Second of all, the No legal threats policy states that you can not make legal threats on Wikipedia against Wikipedia or other users. You can either deal with the problem here through the normal dispute resolution process, or try to take legal action offline, but you can not post legal threats online here. Regarding the attack, a 1 week block is about all you're going to see for a first offense. See the blocking policy. If after the block he makes similar attacks against you or other users, he will be blocked for longer. But you need to cool it too. His opinion about your photo is as valid as yours, and your comments, while less offensive than his, are also unacceptable. Thatcher131 14:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read your legal threat policy, and I understand. My bad. I do refrain from legal threats and trust that the dispute resolution system, which I am writing into right now, will deal with the matter. Please help me out here. And I deleted my above-mentioned comments immediately after writing them, cooling off.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that I'm very new to this encyclopedia and just wanted to contribute things, and then was pretty shocked to get criminal threats of bodily harm for no reason whatsoever. So please cut me some slack on the legal policy, I did not know about it.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that given the nature of the threat, your reaction was understandable. I might also suggest that, although it's probably just rhetoric (if only for geographical reasons), Sahands be asked by an admin to withdraw the physical threat. Newyorkbrad 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

After Sahands was supposedly banned, this is what is now on his personal page: User Talk Sahands Death threat Quote: "Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com><---the most fucking retard on earth, your location has been tracked down, my boys will come for you now and kill off you and your waste of a family..."

So now it has become a death threat. A DEATH THREAT to me and to my family. I think additional action is required.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to need Sahands IP address, ISP and log information. Could some admin please provide this to me?

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If the police require that information, they should contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See their web site for more information. William Pietri 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely based on these edits:[24]; I will protect the talk page if necessary. If there is another admin who is more familiar with the dispute and thinks I've overstepped, please comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have protected User talk:Sahands after Sahands used it for childish vandalism/PA and then followed up (after being reverted) with blanking the block notice.

I have also warned Jk-bmw that taunting a banned user is entirely inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't have access to that information, only the foundation do. The terms under which they'll release that info are defined at Wikipedia:Privacy policy#Policy on release of data derived from page logs. So you'll need to raise an ORTS ticket by mailing to info-en@wikipedia.org or you may wish to contact your local law enforcement service. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So any admins still think it's a bad policy to take any legal action against a wikipedia user who uses wikipedia for death threats against another person? In this case I think wikipedia itself should take legal action against the user who made these criminal threats!

Your thoughts please.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In two and a half years here, serving as an admin a lot of that time, I have received at least five separate death threats. I ignore them. Doing anything else would waste too much of my time. You are free to have another opinion, but I think that calmly ignoring them, and not responding in an inflammatory way, is generally the best policy. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NLT policy doesn't say that you can't initiate legal action as appropriate, through the proper authorities, though it doesn't venture an opinion as to whether such action might or might not be a good idea at any particular time for any particular person (only a qualified attorney should be giving you legal advice). The policy just says that you shouldn't be using threats of legal action (against Wikipedia or other Wikipedians) in order to attempt to influence activity on this site (like to get the upper hand in an edit war). *Dan T.* 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see people chiding someone who has been threatened with physical violence, just because he mentions the possibility of going to the police over it. We need to keep in mind what the NLT policy is all about and apply its spirit rather than some literal-minded reading. I'm glad to see that there is now an indefinite block in place. Metamagician3000 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would like to add that repeatedly posting taunting messages on the userpage of a person that was blocked for threatening you is -- less than constructive. --Sherool (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the incredible unliklihood that a person would fly from New York to Finland to "break every bone" in someone's body (which isn't possible by the way), I'd say the reaction is understandable. Wjhonson 19:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And I must, in fairness, add that the taunting was not a good idea - though I guess it was also an understandable reaction. Metamagician3000 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Which bones are unbreakable? Given a crowbar, a hammer, and a probe to get the ear bones, I figure I could break every bone. The subject probably wouldn't survive the experience, but that's beside the point. --Carnildo 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Averette on Conch Republic

We have a content dispute on the Conch Republic page which has escalated into vandalism and nonsense misuse of sources. Averette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FairHair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began disputing whether the Conch Republic is a valid micronation some time ago and have been arguing with Centauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and recently myself Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the subject.

There are three abuse issues I want to present:

One, Averette and FairHair are behaving like a sockpuppet pair, and have 4 or 5RR'ed he article a couple of times [25]. I'd like uninvolved admins to take a look and see if a CU is called for.

Two, Averette is now persistently using http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-fl-cr.html as a source for his claim that the Conch Republic is a former rather than current entity [26] [27]. This is the website for a company which produces specialty flags. That website includes an out of context past-tense citation from the main Conch Republic primary source http://www.conchrepublic.com/, most specifically http://www.conchrepublic.com/republic_position.htm. The Conch Republic website uses past tense for its secession and present tense for its existence. This appears to constitute persistent nonsense edits, as the source's validity has been disproven and pointed out to him.

Three, Averette just made the nonsense claim that a road (Card Sound Road) which is more than 120 miles away from Key West, Florida constitutes a valid second route out of the city, beyond U.S. Route 1.

In fair disclosure, I have 4RRed the article in the past 24 hrs, with my last edit [28] being to revert Averette's reposting the misused source info after I warned him it was nonsense to add bad material and misuse sources. I believe this was a vandalism revert, however, at this point I am going to stay hands-off on the article until others can review the situation. I have not reverted the third, road-related nonsense vandalism.

I am generally loath to bring a content dispute to AN/I, however I believe that Averette is now violating WP policy in multiple manners. User:Lar had been looking at the situation (including warnings to Gene Poole, who has been rude at times in the dispute) but is too busy at the moment and recommended ANI. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I warned them again, maybe it will do some good. I'm not unwilling to block teh lot of them for a bit to get it to stop, or protect the article, as they really do seem to be going at it quite vigorously. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

leaked confidential information from RuneScape

Aside from being an administrator on Wikipedia, I'm also a player moderator on the online game RuneScape. Recently, some information restricted to player moderators were added to the RuneScape community article. [29] Per Jagex policy, any such information is considered to be strictly confidential and is never to be disclosed to the public.

Five screenshots were also added, and the images in question are Mod1.jpg, P-Mod awards.jpg, P-Mod can recuit.jpg, P-Mod Centre.jpg, and P-Mod forums.jpg.

As an administrator here, I have the ability to delete images. However, speedily deleting those images may violate Wikipedia's image deletion policies. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks. --Ixfd64 22:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a conflict of interests, I'd advise you to stay out of it. Certainly don't use your admin functions. I suspect there is no reason why we would delete these images - but you are welcome to argue for deletion, just don't be the one to do it.--Doc 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The place for the specifics of this debate isn't here. I suggest you take it to IFD and let the process decide. --Doc 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll cross my fingers and see what happens. --Ixfd64 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

they will probably be killed as copyvios. Incerdentaly this is why secret forums tend to cause problems in the long run and are best avoied where posible.Geni 22:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Jagex or any other company's policy isn't binding on Wikipedia. (If the CoS can't enforce their policy on us, nobody is going to be able to.) Granted, I can't imagine why these images wouldn't be deleted on AFD, but not for that reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Information needs to be publicly verifiable. If the information doesn't meet that standard, why can't it be deleted? If the images are copyvios, why not delete them? Wikipedia does not want to publish non-verifiable information or to violate copyrights. Metamagician3000 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

*cough* Nigel McGuinness *cough* Daniel.Bryant 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:Wikipediaman123 and User:Wikiuser456. Both accounts created at the same time, very similar usernames, and Wikiuser456 has just entered a malformed RfA for Wikipediaman123. Any thoughts? --Alex (Talk) 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Very similar talk pages as well... --Alex (Talk) 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipediaman123 was created around July. And although it does look odd, there doesn't seem to be any abuse going on. I'll keep an eye on them just in case, though. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[30]. Wonder why there's so many edits here... --Alex (Talk) 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer. Yanksox 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the recent edits to that userpage and Wikipedia man's edits, it appears it may have been an old account or a fun page. If no objects, I may delete this as U1, considering Jeffrey isn't really a user. Yanksox 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, please leave it. Take a look at Wikipediaman and Wikiusers talk pages - exactly the same! --Alex (Talk) 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[31] this really is it. Look at the summary! MY Rfa... --Alex (Talk) 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[32] Wikiuser's contributions - not many... --Alex (Talk) 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reported this here --Alex (Talk) 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

User:Mykungfu is in the midst of a one-week block for a variety of things, including spamming the 3RR board, edit-warring on several articles related to Greek-letter fraternities, and harassing users (including me) who opposed him or reported him for violations. He's back, editing from several AOL IPs, including edits to a closed sock-puppetry report: User:152.163.100.197 here [33] and as User:64.131.205.160 here [34] and here [35]. (Those are AOL proxy IPs, and I understand that there are limitations on what Wikipedia can do about abuse via AOL.) He also appears to be editing now as User:StrangeApples (contribs); for example, StrangeApples' fourteenth-ever edit was here [36] in a discussion of Mykungfu's sockpuppetry, and all of his edits are to pages where Mykungfu caused trouble or to an RFC on one of the admins who blocked him. If I should file a WP:SOCK report instead, let me know, but I figured I'd come here first and ask. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see a response, so I opened up a sockpuppetry allegation at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_(2nd). The first was closed without comment; I'm hoping an admin will take a deeper look at this. If he was strictly edit warring, it would be bad enough, but he's been hassling me and a few other editors for about two weeks now. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tariq Sabri

Vanity article created by User:Tariqsabri; has been deleted and recreated several times. The IP 24.12.4.50 continually removes the speedy deletion tag; based on contribs, I strongly suspect this is the article creator logging out so as to evade the rule against removing tags from an article you have created. Heimstern Läufer 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tried nominating Cateogry:Renala Khurd and Category:Tariq Sabri for speedy deletion, but it seems the criteria requires the category to exist for four days without entries. I still think they should be deleted post-haste, though, as obvious vanity additions. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think we're good with this one now. The vanity article has been deleted and protected, and the user is blocked (among other things, for defacing my userpage). Thanks, admins. Heimstern Läufer 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye's constant edit warring

user:hogeye's game playing continues and continues and continues. With little sign of thewolfstar in a few days (phew), he's the only reason the Anarchism article remains locked. Please could we have some action beyond more 3RR violation blocks? Donnacha 00:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My god that block log is ginormous. Can anyone attest to this user's positive contributions to the project? Is a community ban perhaps warranted? Grandmasterka 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also see this discussion. He is editing warring at individualist anarchism, as well -- he keeps reinserting OR of his that was deleted a long time ago. --AaronS 02:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's definitely making positive contributions to coercive monopoly, in reverting to the agreed definition against an otherwise productive wikipedian who is using an unsourced definition. He may still be edit warring, but there's only 2 editors on the other side. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Heck, if you want I'll watch that page and start reverting back to the agreed on def if it means hogeye gets banned. But looking at the talk page, it looks like it isn't completely agreed on yet, and it looks like there might honestly be more than just one definition. Perhaps we should have a neutral disambiguation page there ;) or else mention that there is more than one definition. I don't really know how notable that source is that those two are using though.

Anyway, back to hogeye. I was actually thinking of opening an RfA (the bad kind) on him today, but I don't have the energy right now. Here are some other discussions: Bishonen's talk, Woohookitty's talk. I'm most concerned with hogeye's creation of a "neutral" disambiguation page for anarchism (Anarchism (disambiguation)) despite a clear rejection on the anarchism talk page (a couple different times) of his proposal to do so. The page now redirects to anarchism, as does his pov fork anarchism (political). The other pov fork that he created was anarchism (social) which now redirects to social anarchism. He reverted attempts by different users (including myself and Bishonen, an admin) to redirect anarchism (social) to anarchism, calling them vandalism in the edit summaries, which resulted in a 3RR block and several condemnations by various editors and admins, including ones who aren't at all involved in all the battles on the anarchism page. And guess what some of his first edits were after his block expired? You guessed it: reverting Bunchofgrapes and myself. Hogeye has openly encouraged edit warring and gaming of the system. He refuses to abide by consensus and is incredibly disruptive. I has said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: we need to ban him indefinitely! He has consistently shown a lack of restraint and good faith, and I am seriously sick of trying to work with him. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone look into Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? Ryūlóng 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on a community ban, as I haven't investigated the other edit war areas. I'd appreciate a watch on coercive monopoly, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's currently evading his block by editing with an IP sock puppet. I support a community ban. This user is trouble, and never learns -- just look at the extensive block log and dozens of suspected sock puppets. --AaronS 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that the person complaining about how Hogeye is unable to be properly governed goes under the handle "The Ungovernable Force"! *Dan T.* 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, did you pick that one up from thewolfstar? Seriously, grow up. If someone comes into a community and continually makes trouble and repeatedly violates group consensus, we have the right to remove them. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Hogeye indefinitely. If anyone strongly disagrees discuss it here. Grandmasterka 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Hogeye, however, has a hamper full of stinky socks that he is not afraid to use. I urge administrators to be on the look-out for his sock puppets. His sock puppetry rivals Thewolfstar's. --AaronS 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but putting a indefinite block on Hogeye is out of process. Intangible 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Did you see his block log? Honestly, I'm not sure why he wasn't blocked indefinitely as soon as he got the 3RR vio a couple of days ago. His last block was for 2 months. I only did 1 week earlier today mostly because I know that other admins are more versed on him than I and I didn't want to overdo it. But I can't see disagreeing with the block. He's shown no inclination to change. To me, content forks are the most disruptive thing you can do outside of random page moves. And that's what he's been doing. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser on Sahands

Could an admin with Checkuser access please help me provide his University his IP address and other pertient information, as I am making a complaint through that channel. I believe I've tracked down his University, but he might also use an ISP so we need to be sure, and the IP address will help the University (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) track him down, because his felony criminal actions online are strictly against their network fair use rules. And if he does use an ISP, I don't think their fair use policies include death threats either (see above for the whole case, or Sahands. I can be e-mailed at jkorkala@gmail.com on this. I do not wish the hell of a full blown police investigation on him (at least yet) so I'm trying to go through the ISP channels to make sure he will not continue this kind of online criminal activity. That is why I will need some help from the administration here. I have made a checkuser request on metawiki as well, not being sure which is the right place.

This checkuser request is based on Wikipedia privacy policy section 5 and fullfills it's requirements. It states "Where the user has been vandalising pages or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers"

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

German language

There is an edit war going on at German language (a Good Article) over the insertion of an unreferenced paragraph. The insertion would also violate the "undue weight" guideline.

One of the user now is altering other parts of the article, apparently in violation of WP:POINT.

Two users have been reported at WP:AN3, and full page protection was asked.

Something needs to be done to cool things down, and to be able to start the mediation process. --LucVerhelst 01:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it. It's up to the editors there to come to an agreement. Grandmasterka 01:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Help

I am being harassed by CFIF and TV Newser. TV Newser started vandalizing my user page and my talk page with bogus claims of being a sock. I am not sure what prompted these attacks, but they continued for a long period of time. When I tried to address them on his talk page, he would revert the comments. He then went around to a number of admin pages and discussing me there. Somehow, CFIF got involved. It appears he/she has some previous relationship with TV Newser. They are now ganging up on me. I ask that someone step in and stop both of them. Please feel free to comment here if appropriate as i am now watching this page. --Tecmobowl 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm trying to centralize this discussion. The two or three of you jumping from page to page and user talk page to user talk page is downright annoying. Let's just stay here since it is the right page (I'll update the talk pages of people I've alerted). I'll repeat what I said recently: I see no evidence - yet - that Tecmobowl (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg or DisplacedBrit. No edits to news articles and nothing related to CFIF (talk • contribs). To say the omission of those characteristics is just a way of throwing us off (as TV Newser has said on several people's talk pages) is an admission that there's no evidence. If this continues with no evidence, blocks may be coming soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. Everyone just chill out. wknight is right: there's no need for claims of sockpuppetry with no evidence. Don't you understand, when you get so paranoid that you start lashing out at other editors, claiming they're socks with no evidence you are playing right into the puppetmaster's hands? It's clear from D.B.'s last post that he wants CFIF to be paranoid, randomly tagging people's pages as sockpuppet accounts so CFIF will get blocked. C'mon, guys, you're smarter than this. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I really think this is ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time. What is the procedure for having my user page unlocked? I'm glad it was so that the spam would be stopped. But at somepoint, i'd like to go back to editing it. Thank you again. --Tecmobowl 04:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you have requested it, I have removed the protection. I am certain that CFIF and Newser will be responsible enough not to re-tag your page. We have talk pages for dispute resolution. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try and follow standard procedure if I have a problem with them in the future. --Tecmobowl 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no convincing evidence at present that Tecmobowl is a sock. For a start, it would require him to be acting in concert with at least one other account to cause false impressions on the relevant talk pages. I don't see that happening. TV Newser needs to give this a rest. -Splash - tk 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if I am being parinoid, but this guy seems like a sock. There is just too much else going on and who he chose to target really seals it for me. TV Newser Tipline 15:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The above message was from 72.9.108.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the IP resolves to a NYC ISP [37] and given the behavior of this sock ring(s) it is most likely an open proxy. TV Newser Tipline 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(I removed the trollish message). -Splash - tk 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Xhotan

Someone needs to sort this out.[38] Tyrenius 03:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's bizarre. Grandmasterka 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a POV category which doesn't benefit the encyclopaedia (and no, that's not only because I'm jealous that I'm not in there...) Daniel.Bryant 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

On the page Template talk:Infobox actor, we are discussing a format change of the template; a user signing their post as HamishMacBeth contributed to the discussion, then a user signing their post as CelebHeights, who said they "agreed with HamishMacBeth;" a question was posed to CelebHeights, and the question was answered by HamishMacBeth, who referred to a page CelebHeights linked to as the "page to which I was linking." There is no indication on either HamishMacBeth's or CelebHeights's userpages that they admit they are the same person. -Shannernanner 06:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. – Chacor 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that page, but as per the header "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first," was under the impression that this was not yet serious enough to report there. Shannernanner 09:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:WATARU, etc.

I blocked WATARU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for general disruption. (He's clearly the same as WAREL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).) (It probably should have been a month rather than 48 hours.) The only contraversial thing I've done (other than not blocking him for long enough) is that I've blocked his IP for the same length of time. I suggest the IP be blocked, including blocking user creation, for at least 6 months. This seems to violate our normal guidelines, but the IP has only been used (for editing) by an editor with the same characteristics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm extending the block to an indefinite one. Bypassing a ban and continuing the same behaviour is not acceptable. His editing behaviour is extremely sketchy and simliar to the banned user, and his name is similiar. If he has evidence to the contrary, he can voice it with an {{unblock}}. Adding false (but reasonable sounding) material to articles is very distruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And yeah, I'm now aware that the user is no longer indef-blocked on the other account. However, creating a new account could essentially constitute trying to unfairly clear his name, and it's also clear that he is not willing to undergo reform. It's a shame, but steps have to be taken to stop this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest help

This doesn't seem like the best place for this issue but I can't find a more fitting one, even after scouring the Request for Comment pages. So, if this is best moved, please tell me.

That said, here's the situation (omitting specific names unless given the ok to add them later): I've come to learn recently that an editor's real job probably makes it impossible for him to objectively edit articles that he has been the primary editor of. In other words, he's attempting to fill a sort of arbiter position on a couple of controversial topics that have been the subject of past editing wars, when his real employment should likely disqualify him from doing so.

I don't know how to give the additional elaboration that this specific situation seems to require without revealing more than might be allowed, so I'll wait for guidance before elaborating.--Beware of Cow 09:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD Wheel Warring

See also : Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30#Simon Pulsifer

Just after one day of closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2, The Land speedy deletes the article out of process. A7 is not valid in this case because AfD has been undergone twice, and the results trump speedy deletion. The article was restored by another sysop, and then Improv deletes it under A7 and protects it.

This is unacceptable, because firstly it is clearly out of process, and consensus has been determined twice to keep the article. This is not even OFFICE. Secondly, wheel-warring has occured, and these two sysops who undeleted the article have not even participated in the latest AfD. Something needs to be done here. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Give the "in lieu of a block" templates to the two deleting admins, restore article, let DRV run it's course. They're my suggestions... Daniel.Bryant 09:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively you could try to find out the reasons why several admins are behaving in this way, decide whether you agree with it, and then decide what to do... The Land 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See the deletion review, where I have thoroughly explained my reasoning. Yes, it is out of process. WP:IAR is a well-established guideline. Hopefully the DRV will draw more thoughtful contributions than 'oh, he's been mentioned in the media, we must have an article on him'. The Land 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about your opinion. What matters is concensus. You can't just waive DRV because you endorse the deletion, against over 50% of people wanting the deletion overturned. Daniel.Bryant 10:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction not a democracy etc. votes are not the be all and end all, what matters above and beyond everything else is wikipedia's core goals, that's what WP:IAR is all about. We can't vote to ignore copyvio's (say) or blatant attack articles or blatantly non-NPOV etc. If you are just going to go with the numbers I guess WP ought to give up now myspace here we come. --pgk 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point of having input from admins to DRV if they will just carry out their notions whether there is concensus from the general Wikipedia community or not? Daniel.Bryant 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So do you support the notion that if we get enough "consensus" to allow copyvios, libelous material etc. etc. we should allow it. What if we get enough consensus to say screw this encyclopedia writing stuff, we just want it to host our own vanity articles and act as a free web host, do we do that? --pgk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you'd never get concensus for copyvios/libel. This is neither. Daniel.Bryant 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If we ever get consensus for that, the project will have failed anyways. Wikipedia is not primarily the software or a set of articles, its the people who write it. --Stephan Schulz 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course anyone could get enough people together to try and push any given agenda. wikipedia is not an expriment in democracy still holds. --pgk 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So having community concensus is paramount to Wikipedia, yet administrator concensus means more? Geez, no wonder people are losing faith in administrators and their ability to remain part of the general community... Daniel.Bryant 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying our core goals of being a free encylopedia means more. We can't just look at numbers and vote WP:ENC et al. out the window. --pgk 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the article specifics I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is the current culture that the community can go thru procedures like AFD/DRV, and yet admins can break the concensus at these fundamental procedures. However, I shall say no more on this issue. I really think it should be undeleted, and if needed, run back thru AFD so it can be evaulated in a way which isn't purely one or two editors opinions. Daniel.Bryant 10:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agenda? Who is the one pushing the agenda? There's 10 days of AfD time, and WP:V concerns was not even raised in either. I wouldn't mind if the article goes through a 3rd AfD. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V still trumps WP:CON, and when AFD fails to recognize this, AFD will need to be circumvented. Kudos to TheLand for stepping up to do something necessary that is going to catch him a lot of shit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why didn't TheLand just take it to DRV? David Mestel^(Talk) 10:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why not we discard AfD altogether and let sysops to delete anything they want? - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if this is your worry, then it's not so much the administrators you are concerned with, but rather, WP:IAR.

To be honest, an article about wikipedians in the media may just be a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia - it's about a noteable subject that someone may just look for, and wiki would naturally be the first plce to look for it. Naturally, this user would have a reasonable entry on such an article. However, an article about a wikipedian who's become an 'E' list celebrity for nothingmore than editing really is little more than a vanity thing.

In terms of the vote - to the best of my knowledge, it's rather like the RfA process - the votes can be counted, but the comments are more important, and so with valid reason, it's perfectly acceptable (and required) to go against consencus by invoking WP:IAR for the sake of the encyclopedia, which is what's happened here wit User:The Land. Of course, it may get undeleted on the decision of another at some point, in which case there will undoubtedly be complaints in the opposite direction. --Crimsone 10:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's the closing admin's prerogative to gauge consensus and assess the quality of argument, and if you disagree with that you go to DRV - you don't just take unilateral action. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ignore all rules and speedy deletion don't go hand in hand. CSD A7 was the stated reason for deletion. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure that trying to trip me up on whether I deleted it on the basis of A7 or IAR is very helpful. I was perfectly aware that there were two AfDs which had been closed as keeps, and therefore a7 as written was of limited help. However, I felt that it was nevertheless an unencyclopedic biography, and applied IAR in ignoring the AfD discussions and part of the written CSD rules, to remove content which was clearly unencyclopedic: and gave a7 as the deletion reason because that is the CSD that matches unencyclopedic biographical articles. Hope this clears it up. The Land 10:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  So for all that, choosing to wheel war rather than discussion is also correct? - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I was not wheel-warring and it does you no credit to say I was. We don't want to be in a situation where people should 'OMG! Wheel warrior!' at every controversial admin action. Specifically, I did not overturn anyone's use of admin tools and did not use mine to further a dispute about content, policy or behaviour. The Land 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  You knew it was going to controversial. And you did not even bother to try even discussing it with me first. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I knew it was going to be controversial. It didn't occur to me that I should consult you: it never struck me that closing an AfD as 'keep' should be treated in the same way as a deletion, protection or block. Sorry if this aggravated you. The Land 11:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  That is at least better, and first step in the right direction. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that it's the best use of IAR I've ever seen for sure, there's no WP:V concerns here, it's someone who's been written about or mentioned in theglobeandmail.com, beachwoodreporter.com, canada.com, Gannett News Service/USA Today, magazine.utoronto. Rx StrangeLove 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a fair comment, and I'd have to agree that it's probably not te best use of WP:IAR in the world on that basis. I just don't believe that an admin has done anything strictly "wrong" with it - though certainly somewhat eyebrow raising so to speak (ie - the minor controversy here). To be honest, having looked at googles cached page of the article, I'd have to say that the form it was in (unless there were major changes afterwards) was little more than a stub. Were it to be expanded, then it could only ever go into such things as editing style, preferred articles, articles created or featured, etc, etc. Of course, that would be vanity anywhere other than in userspace, where EVERYbody has their own page.

I can understand using A7 in combination with WP:IAR (vanity) - though given the exact wording of A7, it's nothing if not a contraversial thing to do - it is possible to see that The Land may well feel he was acting in in the spirit of the clause in the best interests of wiki though (WP:AGF). Whatever happens, I can only hope that the DRV will have the final say on the matter, and will make a judgement poste haste, without passing judgement on the good faith actions of those involved. --Crimsone 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Retracted my comments after IRC convo with Theland. Daniel.Bryant 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we require that people be mentioned in reliable sources in WP:BIO? So we have sufficient verifiable material for an article. Despite numerous trivial mentions as human interest in stories about Wikipedia, there clearly isn't enough material for an article here.

If you reduce the article to what's backed by the sources, it boils down to "Simon Pulsifer is an 24-year-old from Ottawa who is a prolific Wikipedia editor." All of these articles are not about him, but merely mention his background in a sketchy way as human interest for articles about Wikipedia.

The AFDs forgot that "non-trivial" bit in "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources", and no amount of voting is going to make verifiable content suddenly appear. Discretion is why admin actions are entrusted to people instead of bots, and this is a case in which discretion needed to be exercised. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, that said, I didn't realize that TheLand didn't let Mailer Diablo know what was up, and that's not cool at all. I know I'd be a bit ticked off if my AFD close was suddenly overturned without comment, and I understand MD's feelings of annoyance and betrayal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For the love of god, A7 should have been used in the first place. So this guy has been "featured" in some news articles about his "editing of Wikipedia." (at least that seems to be the moral to the stroy here) So what? There are plenty of other editors featured in a similar fashion, and do you see articles about them on here? Lastly, people come to Wikipedia to read up on things like science or history, not about some non-notable editor of a website. If he has an article we all might as well have one. Not going to happen. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nosnense. It never fit the description of A7 to begin with, and even if it did, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead." If it did fit it, there's more than enoguh reason to keep the AfD result as it stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all the college students have to do a research project on Simon Pulsifer. Thanks for clearing that up for me. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whatever you feel about whether the article should ultimately be retained, MD was treated very discourteously here. Metamagician3000 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, we have a minor celebrity (subject of a number of newspaper articles including 2M-circulating Mail and Globe). The article on him does not violate the not-negotaible principles of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, copyright law, etc.) Some people consider him to be notable enough to be included, some think it is not the case. It is an extremely common situation and that is why we have the AfDs. There was no consensus to delete (if anything there was a consensus to Keep). Thus, the article should be kept. Do not see anything unusual here warranting WP:IAR and other heavy artillery. abakharev 02:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am dumbfounded. I will simply say that I am in agreement with Mailer Diablo and leave it at that. Agent 86 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if Mailer Diablo's close had merely been challenged at DRV it would have been good manners to discuss it with him first. Failing to discuss a proposed speedy delete action like this with him was very bad manners - such a discussion might have led to MD voluntarily reconsidering his closure, or it might have led to agreement to test his "keep" closure at DRV. I'm not suggesting that what happened was anything worse than discourtesy (such as bad faith, wheel warring, blah, blah), but it certainly was discourteous. This discussion should be a reminder that good manners in interaction with colleagues can go a long way. Metamagician3000 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas!

Attacks:

1. 14 September 2006 01:24
2. 29 September 2006 03:18
3. 30 September 2006 12:23

Last Warning:

1. [39]

Alert:

1. [40]

Nonfeasance:

1. [41]

—12.72.68.241 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism stopped hours ago. Unfortunately, since it's an AOL IP, it's both counterproductive and not all that useful to block it, since he will likely change IPs again soon. --Golbez 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the time-stamps of the attacks. —12.72.68.241 10:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. They're all from at least several hours ago. I think I said that already. --Golbez 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

*laugh* At least one of them is from weeks ago. Further, the attacks of this series aren't being perpetrated from any other IP number. Which tells you…? —12.72.68.241 11:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

205.188.116.137 (talk · contribs) - a fair point. The block log makes for a bit of a headache on this IP too - it's a regular offender. In the interests of prevention, perhaps an indefinite block on anonymous editing from this IP might be prudent. --Crimsone 11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical note in the original alert: “Notice on Talk page worries that this is an AOL IP possibly used by many, but pattern of vandalism is sustained.” —12.72.68.241 12:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

*cough* WP:NPA *cough*

I've not looked at these diffs to be honest, but honestly, it's probably better and more productive to post about this in the correct place (the link above) if you are concerned over "attacks". --Crimsone 10:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

These diffs aren't what Wikipedia recognizes as personal attacks. And productivity can only be measured against what one is trying to produce. —12.72.68.241 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, again!

Attack:

• [42]

Alert:

• [43]

—75.18.113.152 02:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, nonfeasance again!

Nonfeasance:

• “205.188.116.137 rmvd most edits seem good faith”

So, what percentage of any user's edits have to be in good faith for him or her to get an allowance of persistant vandalism? And how many different excuses for inaction shall be offered? —75.18.113.152 06:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:WackadooXanadu

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac. The text on "her" userpage says:

I am a huge fan of Wrestling. I have never edited on Wikipedia before, but due to some confusion, I have been called up by my friends to continue some great work.

Theres no doubt by the same articles that this person is editing, same location or whereabouts as the others and obvious tips left by this user, that this is a sockpuppet of OzWrestlemaniac. OzWrestlemaniac was indefblocked for WP:HA against myself and Normy132. If someone could look into this, it would be most helpful. — Moe Epsilon 14:54 October 01 '06

User:Maxasus

Maxasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a good editor turned vandal judging from some of the comments left on his talk page by others. I've forced a 3hr block on this account, which I extended to 24hrs for abuse of talk page editing priveledges and unblock template abuse. Could any admins familiar with their previous account and editing habits review my block and advise thanks. Almost every edit of late has been vandalism or outright disruption, but if there's a good edit history I'm missing somewhere, perhap's they're just going through a rough real-life patch and in need an enforced break to cool off? -- Longhair\^talk 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at their userpage it look like they were previously Joshuarooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was indefinitely blocked for similar behaviour. --pgk 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll confirm that it's Joshuarooney, Max left an apology on my talk page (here)for the personal attacks that got him blocked a while ago. There's a note of Longhair's talk page about it, too. Logical2u 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll extend the block indefinitely in that case. -- Longhair\^talk 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon adding personal information to user talk page

59.93.244.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 59.93.222.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added on User talk:Debajit Biswas personal infromation about said person. _→AzaToth 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted those versions from the history. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mongtrap

Can someone speedily delete this? An anon user keeps reverting the speedy tag. This item does not exist - 1 irrelevant googlehit. exolon 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:216.55.185.224 is a block-evading sock puppet of User:Hogeye

Compare the anonymous user's contributions to Hogeye's contributions. Hogeye is really asking for an indefinite block. He was blocked for edit warring, and is now trying to evade his block so that he can continue edit warring. --AaronS 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is extensive edit warring occurring at individualist anarchism and anti-statism as a result of this sock puppet's constant reversions to Hogeye's preferred versions. --AaronS 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this user as a sock puppet of Hogeye where appropriate. I do so under the impression that it will not count towards violating the 3RR, and will instead be considered reverting without edit warring. If anybody disagrees, please discuss it here or on my user talk page, as I am open to alternative solutions. --AaronS 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue double-teaming with you. He's already violated 3RR numerous times - can we please have him blocked? Donnacha 18:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely now. If you find other socks of his, post them here or on my talk page. I have (way too much) experience with this block evading junk. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New user wants to turn Wikipedia into a courtroom

Take a look at Judge John (talk · contribs · logs), apparently he wants to make a courtroom for deciding bans and stuff, sort of like ArbCom. Can someone gently tell him that Wikipedia is not a courtromm? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a reincarnation of banned user user:Mr.T99 complaining about his block. I'm going to block indef. Cowman109^Talk 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment. That really is a bit beyond the pale there I feel. [44] --Crimsone 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - it's blatantly clear from his contributions that he's some user already familiar with wikipedia, namely Mr.T99. Cowman109^Talk 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Our messages crossed lol. I figured he looked to be familiar with wiki, but not knowing of Mr.T99, well, I gave the benefit of the doubt and left the message. Never mind - alls well that ends well :) --Crimsone 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hispanicization of Catalan names

Just a heads-up: there has been a spate of anonymous Hispanicization of Catalan names. As far as I can tell, it's all anonymous, and while I hesitate to impute motive, given the nature of some of the edits it is clearly not being done in good faith: see for example [45], which changed "Antoni Gaudí i Cornet, in Spanish also known as Antonio Gaudí" to "Antonio Gaudí i Cornet, in Spanish also known as Antonio Gaudí". That is, the Catalan name was removed and the Spanish given twice, despite the article being named Antoni Gaudí.

I realize that only a relatively small proportion of English-language editors are familiar with the Catalan language, but when you see the letter "o" (or sometimes "io", "a", etc.) being added to the end of names of people from Valencia, Catalonia, or the Balearics, then this is probably what is going on; similarly, when names ending in "eu" are changed to "es", etc.

This may not have been the best place to post this, and if someone has a better idea, feel free to copy or to move (but if you move, please do leave the section header and a link). Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related matter, can anyone have a look at the recent contributions of Satesclop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He may or not have a point but I find his behaviour quite disruptive, not to say uncivil. Regards, Asterion^talk 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked MagicKirin indef

I have blocked User:MagicKirin for repeated serious violations of WP:BIO/borderline vandalism, violating WP:3RR a couple of times and using a sock User:MagicKirin1 to get around his block, and he only been here for less than two weeks. We don't need these types of editors to edit a long time. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.47.168.145=

I'm not sure if this is the right place (sorry if not), but the user severely vandalized a page. He got a Level 4 warning, and then he vandalized the talk page the person who gave him the warning. I just wanted to bring this up, as based on the warning he should be blocked. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He was already blocked soon after vandalizing your page. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from user Anonymous57

There seems to be another erpution from a user tagging everything in sight with {{unref}} tags. This behavior seems very similar to the behavior reported a few days ago from user ClairSamoht, so this could be an alternate login for the same physical person. This user goes as far as tagging entire sections of Featured articles as unref (see Canada). Rather than a list of taggings, here is the Contribs sheet of this user. I believe it is rather self-explanatory[46]. Somebody should tell this user that such behavior (tag and run) is highly disruptive.--Ramdrake 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, his behaviour is highly disruptive. The Canada article is very well referenced; in addition to the ref tags for the controversial statements and specific numbers, each section has it's own list of references in the References section. From WP:CITE:

"Inline citations for uncontroversial common knowledge items are not necessary. Common knowledge facts are those that appear in multiple reference textbooks for the field, all of which are listed in the references section of the article."

So the references at the bottom of the page are sufficient and extra ref tags are not necessary, and thus his behaviour is uncalled for. -- Jeff3000 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor's blind addition of tags is more disruptive than helpful, and has used only superficial interpretations of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE as "justification." I ask admins to look into this editor's behavior. --physicq210 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He has continued his actions on many other pages. Adding unreferenced tags to every single page is highly disruptive. -- Jeff3000 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this user's contribution, he/she has tagged no fewer than 12 different articles as unreferenced in the last 50 edits alone. The list includes such long-standing articles as Canada and English language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs)

Having worked with User:ClairSamoht, this appears to be a different editor. I suspect this user's interest in the verifiability policy started after an edit war at Esthero over including an emailed quote from one of the artists described. Choess 03:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Everything in sight"? No, just the unreferenced statements and articles. Anonymous 57 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) And frankly, given the amount of unreferenced material on pages such as The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (today's featured article), I don't think they deserve featured status. Anonymous 57 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his actions, I think this user is trying to make a WP:POINT as revenge for an article (Limecat) which was deleted despite having so-called "reliable sources". Axem Titanium 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous 57 may have some valid points (I just finished adding some references to sections he marked), but the way he is going about this is only serving to inflame other editors. He has been revert warring over the addition of unreferenced tags and was blocked from 18:32–21:32 for violating WP:3RR. He started editing again at 21:34 on the very article that got him blocked. If he would rely more on talk page discussion I think this wouldn't be such a problem. I suggest a voluntary cooling-off period for Anonymous 57, if he is open to the idea. Pagrashtak 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user seems to still be at it on Detroit, Michigan but is more reasonable. Despite this, the user still is asking for citations for things that are directly addressed in branching articles [47] (in this example clicking George Armstrong Custer would have yielded the same info that the user was asking a reference for). Here he asks for citation for the Detroit flag noting France [48] eventhough just clicking the Detroit flag link above would have shown the same info. I made this known to the user [49] who civilly added the reference. Gdo01 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over too many fair use images on one page

Recently, A Man In Black created Template:Pokepisode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the episode list pages of which there was one large one, and he had eliminated an image parameter to do so. So, a few anonymous editors and three registered editors; Yugigx60 (talk · contribs), Ragnaroknike (talk · contribs), and Bobabobabo (talk · contribs); changed these pages so they utilized Template:Digimon episode and so that the images were used. After discussion with one, I editted the template so that images were transcluded, but then I was told by A Man In Black that they would never be able to pass fair use criteria number 3, which states that the number of fair use images on a page should be limitted, and the pages would have had upwards of 100 fair use images on them. After all of that, the anons decided to change the Pokepisode template so that it was a duplicate of the Digimon episode template which was reverted as vandalism (along with the extremely incivil edit summaries). It was all good for the night, until Yugigx60 changed the template back to a duplicate of the Digimon one, and then asked Mets501 to protect it because of an edit war. I have been going back and forth between Mets501 and Yugigx60 and I've been trying to contact the others, but we really need an outside view on all of this. Ryūlóng 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think images are good for the articles, and as long as images are conveying and adapting on central themes of the plot, they pass fair use. Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments. Identifiying episodes and distingushing between them are key reasons for having List of episodes type articles. (Yugigx60 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Don't copy over someone else's text. This is so that other users and administrators can see the whole situation. Right now, it is an edit war that you yourself are involved in and changed the template that was made specifically for the pages to be a copy of another template. I am here to get an outside view on the whole situation, since administrators and regular users are now involved in this conflict. Ryūlóng 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Images really need to go in be removed from list of episode guides, unless you're going to write a two-paragraph summary or something to provide commentary on the image. Hbdragon88 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The images would be on the episode lists; it's just that it was created to omit all of the images, which at one point were said were going to be used to make it pretty, which is also an FUC criteria failure. For List of Pokémon episodes (season 1) there are nearly one hundred images in use. Ryūlóng 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that came out wrong. When I wrote "they need to go" I meant they needed to be removed, but they way it's worded it looks like that I am for them. Hbdragon88

Please note that I have edited the now-protected {{Pokepisode}} to the version that does not display images. I respect Mets501's effort to calm the edit war, but it's currently on a version that leads, once again, to massive violation of WP:FUC. I've left a note on the talk page of Mets501 (talk · contribs). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting way out of control. Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Template:Pokepisode1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to bypass all of this at Template:Pokepisode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Ryūlóng 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the fair use criteria for episode pictures? Because a lot of episode list articles have images. Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We're essentially going off of FUC #3 which states that fair use image use should be limitted (and a little bit of FUC #8, not for decoration). Ryūlóng 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned user posting personal attacks

After I reverted some vandalism on Phaistos Disc, 80.90.37.72 (talk · contribs) and 80.90.39.18 (talk · contribs) posted messages to my talk page (e.g., this diff and this diff). Aside from the violations of WP:NPA, these posts are clearly by a banned user who has been a rather problematic contributor to Phaistos Disc, who usually posts from the 80.90.xxx.xx range, but also the account Rose-mary. The specific account that has been banned is 80.90.38.176 (talk · contribs). --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent harassment

As discussed in #Tendentious editor on policy pages above, Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) has embarked on a campaign of harassment against me, and to a lesser extent Doc Glasgow, and persists in doing so despite being told to stop. Basically, he has been spreading nasty insults, threats and personal attacks all over the wiki. This has gone way beyond the line of civility and wikiquette, and discussing it with him has proven fruitless.

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]

I request that a neutral admin keep an eye out, and block him if he keeps up this disruption. >Radiant< 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just let him have his poll, if this whole thing hadn't been blown out of proportion and umpteen admins rush to the proposal page to tell him he couldnt have a straw poll because there was no support for the proposal, none of this would have happened. Now he has his poll, it will get SNOW'd and be over. --NuclearUmpf 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are missing the point; most of those diffs are entirely unrelated to the straw poll (in that they predate the first proposal of the straw poll, or were made after the straw poll already opened). >Radiant< 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor who self-identifies as 14 with massive amounts of personal data

User:Kimberly Ashton who is 14 according to the user page she created today (but 15 according to her simple wikipedia page), has a lot of personal information posted on her myspace clone userpage. She is over the limit that has been discussed for children revealing personal information but the amount of info and young age are still a concern. She has a simple wikipedia page and a commons page here. Her edits are mostly to user talk pages on all three projects, but there are a few legitimate ones so I think she could benefit from a mentor since a request to consider removing the personal information was denied. [60]. Obviously I'm not the person for the job, but someone should look into this especially since some of the edits border on a bit too friendly for safety. [61], [62]. pschemp | talk 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a lot of information. Also, she needs to either license her image freely or delete it, as the description page says that "no one can use it unless they have permission from me." Hbdragon88 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the account being used for the purposes of genuinely editing the encyclopedia? If its activities are not consistent with the goals of this project, well, something should be done. --HappyCamper 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of her 45 edits [63], 9 are in the main userspace, the rest of them being on user and user talk pages. Hbdragon88 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

9 main space edits since October 1st, clearly used for editing. But when you look at the edits, they don't look like they were made by a newbie 14 year old. -Lapinmies 06:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Simple Wikipedia. SimpIeton 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just had an interesting trek through CheckUser with this account. "Kimberly Ashton" is the same person as Lindsay1980 (talk · contribs) and the "sisters" Bethicalyna (talk · contribs) and Bethicalyna2 (talk · contribs), who were blocked also for being minors releasing personal information and using Wikipedia for social networking and not constructive editing, and another similar account which has not been blocked or taken note of before, Special Sylvia (talk · contribs), who has a user page which also gives out, unsurprisingly, a lot of personal information for a teenage minor. Of course, all of these users give out different personal information, and appeared in succession. We are being trolled. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More Cute 1 4 u fun? Well, based on all of this, I'd say an account creation block is in order for this person. Now, we just need to get this person off of Simple and Commons. Ryūlóng 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If we carry out anything here, I have no problem doing the same on Commons (the images are worrying). I've reported this thread to the AN there.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<tinfoil hat> Perhaps it's a Perverted-Justice.com-style attempt to bring wikipedia into disrepute as opposed to simple disruption. </tinfoil hat>
brenneman ^{L} 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. The pedophilia hysterics would do something like that, maybe they are just trying to get the response they want to prove that wikipedia is bad and create even more hysteria. -Lapinmies 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support a community ban on all such accounts acting as sole community interaction. I'm not the heaviest mainspace editor of all time, but we are building an encyclopedia. Combine these accounts and you have less than 75 mainspace edits, and they're all fancruft related. We really don't have time to deal with these continual disruptions by users under 13, or claiming to be or whose actions are even suspect, and I can't imagine the lawyer disagreeing. Too many CHU and AN/I notices have been wasted on these kids. We're not a social site period. Teke ^(talk) 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both Special Sylvia and Kimberly Ashton, as they are confirmed sockpuppets and they are misusing the project in a way that, while I am not a lawyer, are potentially damaging and a waste of everyone's time to boot. Teke ^(talk) 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Another really young editor

To echo the thread just about this, User:YSHOULDUKNOW123 identifies himself as being 12 on his user page. On top of that, he has his full name, school, and town listed on there. What should be done here? Metros232 03:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it from the page history. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More Ebay stuff

After reading the (removed) recent stuff about an admin account allegedly being sold on Ebay, I did a search on the search term "wikipedia" on that site. I didn't find any accounts for sale, but there were a few weird entries, like this one with titles like "Practical hand forged Wikipedia Katana for IAIDO,AIKIDO". What the heck is a "Wikipedia Katana"? The description of the item doesn't give any indication of what connection it has with Wikipedia. The same is true of several other entries that, for no obvious reason, include the name of Wikipedia in their descriptions. They seem to be mostly from sellers in China. The only listing that actually had anything to do with the search term was for a magazine issue that mentioned Wikipedia in it. *Dan T.* 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's what eBay dubbed "keyword spamming". Basically, they're there so they'll show up if someone does (say) a Google search for Wikipedia, or something like that. It doesn't make much sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, what about the admin account being sold? Is that really true?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it seemed to be true, you'd have to ask the "buyer", and you'd have to believe what the "buyer" said. If the "buyer" actually paid money for the name and password of a retired admin and didn't get it, he -- somehow I imagine such twits as male -- would perhaps be too embarrassed to admit "I was a sucker; I got fleeced." And if it were true and the buyer claimed as much, he wouldn't give convincing evidence as this would identify the account and cause it to be blocked, and what a waste of his dough that would be. Investigating such an allegation would probably be a wild goose chase. Better just to keep an eye on what's done with admin powers. -- Hoary 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent vandalism if multiple people use your PC

I have a suggestion for people; if multiple people use your PC, and want to edit Wikipedia, block it (so you don't get autoblocked because others are using the same IP address as you!)

Go to C:\Winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts or C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts, and add the following lines: 127.0.0.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/ or (Wikipedia's IP address) - then redirect it to a Wikipedia mirror etc.

Then, when you wish to use Wikipedia, just comment out the block in the hosts file like this: */127.0.0.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/* and you can edit again!

Hope this helps; if I'm helping to prevent vandalism, then let me know! --82.42.237.173 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)